Northhamptom Bulk Processing . A question

Tuscan

i guess at the end of the day if you owe the money and cant pay then they have the right to take you to court and unless you can settle in full within a month (i think) you will get the CCJ anyway, its just a matter of getting the payment amount set at what you can afford at the redetermination hearing, the only real defence you have is if you dispute you owe the money at all....

Devils_Avocado

I'm curious as to whether or not a creditor can request having the repayments increased some time after a CCJ has been issued?

Marisco

Hi Devils, what happened with us was, after the CCJ was awarded, to begin with every 3-4 months we'd get a letter asking if we would increase they payment. We'd write back saying, no can't afford to or asking if we wanted a F & F. After a while they stopped, so I don't think they can actually force you to increase payments.

Tuscan

no they cant once the ccj has been set, its legaly binding both ways unless theres a clause in the Judgement saying they can

penguin83

Hi LBaum, I might be able to help a little bit. In the first instance determinations are always dealt with by court officers - whether it be on filing an admission, applying to suspend a warrant or deciding on an attachment of earnings. In local courts these are done by managers but in the bulk centre it is the admin staff that process them.

The expenses that the court officers are allowed to take into consideration are very limited. When I do them I do use common sense so I will take car expenses etc into account (which technically we shouldnt) and wont make an order using all of the disposable income but maybe 50% or so. The problem we have is that a lot of the DMP companies especially the fee paying ones send in SOA's with all sorts of expenses on that the court officers can never allow - cigarettes, alcohol, hobbies, nights out etc etc. This is sometimes why the repayments set seem very high as a lot of the expenses will be disallowed.

Obviously a judge has more room for flexibility which is why it is always worth asking for a redetermination if the payments are too high.

Another thing to remember is to fill the form in in full. If you put down you have 2 children but dont put child benefit on your income the children wont be considered in your calculations which makes a big difference. A covering letter can also help if you think that something needs clarifying - this is particularly helpful if you are having it dealt with at a local court. The staff know that area and may need clarifying why your petrol is £200.00 a month when you work at the bottom of your road (as an example).

Hope that helps a little xxx

LBaum

Penguin. The form I filled in was very limited and allowed no breakdown for costs. I'm self employed and things like my BT telephone bills are high - I don't use a mobile except in case of emergencies and this adds to the cost of the BT bill.

I also sent the same SAO information to the DCA - why did they not present this in court? What motive did they have for not mentioning it. I do not understand, if they have the information they must at least be honest about it in court. i sent it registered mail.


I sent in a DMP with a detailed breakdown and I'm wondering if the court admin staff would have taken things like this into consideration.

Other factors like food- I burn 2-3000 Cal per day when working . I never go out drinking and I smoke moderately. I buy all my clothes S/H both for work and non-work. I haven't been out anywhere since 2007, nor have I been on holiday, for a day. don't mind there is much to do here.

My van is ancient and I have no intention of replacing it until something significant can't be fixed.

Compared to many we are living in a state of poverty , below the poverty line
making do and mending , scavenging resources and skip diving for winter fuel.

Currently they have stopped my wife's child benefits whist our child is waiting to start a course at college, and we are paying for everything for that child. Should I mention this? It seems odd that families earning times our joint net income still get child benefit.



If I present the relevant information, in a coherent way at the redetermination will the Judge take time to consider it?

fermi

Depends on the judge on the day.

Some are very fair.

See: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2630975

Others can be equally unreasonable.

LBaum

We have equity in the property because we haven't realized it and spent it . I am wondering if there is any agreement we could come to in court, on the day where we pay a low monthly payment and at the end of an agreed period of time (18-24 months?) we agree to sell our property. We do genuinely want to move when our child finishes education and leaves home.

Tuscan

think id be very care full on that one, saying you will sell within 2yrs is ok but what if it dosent sell, they may then have grounds to force you to put it in a auction etc, plus they would surly want a charge put on which i think you wanted to avoid

that said telling the judge this is what you intend to do and that you hope the monthly payment plan will only be fairly short term, then they may grant it at the amount you asked with a clause that in 2yrs if not sold then the creditor can apply for the case to be looked at again, that is the same clause i have in mine but with no mention of the house sale, it was granted to be fixed for 1yr and could be reviewed if the creditor wishes after the 1st year, 2yrs on they havent yet but could do at anytime..

with the work side of things, with me any outgoings such as van, mobile, insurance, bank charges, tax etc were not included, just counted my income as what i paid myself after all work related deductions, if your ltd i dont think they can count any company profits that are in the bank just what you income is....

LBaum

I've done a bit of digging. So for I have found nothing solid about challenging the validity of a CCJ if the clerk failed to understand or take into account the proper amount of disposable income of the debtor.

The whole area is fascinating for someone like me. Take a look at this !

The 1979 Act instructs the court to consider the personal circumstances of the debtor and whether any other creditor might be unduly prejudiced by the order. However the actualprocedure for obtaining an order places the onus squarely on the debtor to bring countervailing considerations before the court.

However in the Law Gazette District Judge Niel Hickman warns us not to place too much emphasis on undue prejudice and argues the principles established by Lord Denning in 1969 may still be considered applicable when the debtor is solvent, ie has equity

Thursday 07 January 2010 by District Judge Neil Hickman

Section 1(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 provides as follows: ‘In deciding whether to make a charging order the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, any evidence before it as to (a) the personal circumstances of the debtor, and (b) whether any other creditor of the debtor would be likely to be unduly prejudiced by the making of the order.’


A debtor who is insolvent in asset terms but is making pro rata payments from his surplus income to his creditors will often seek to argue that it is unfair that one creditor should effectively be able to barge to the front of the queue. That, on the face of it, is an attractive argument. Why, after all, should a creditor who refrains from taking proceedings because he is already receiving a fair instalment payment be disadvantaged by his forbearance? Is such a creditor not ‘unduly prejudiced’ by the making of the order?
However, there is clear authority that this is not a permissible approach for the court to take.


As Lord Denning observed in Pritchard v Westminster Bank [1969] 1 All ER 999: ‘The general principle when there is no insolvency is that the person who gets in first gets the fruits of his diligence.’

Note Judge Hickman uses is, not was to clearly place this in the present tense.

Clearly Judge Hickman is stating that although the 1979 Act aims to prevent such undue prejudice, in cases of solvency the original principle of first creditor past the post may apply.

So the argument that you have multiple creditors is not always a solid counter consideration if you have equity.

Which of these does we think is the strongest imperative: The 1979 Act or the Lord Denning's approach?




Judge Hickman leaves a rather tantalising piece of information at the end of his article




"Having said that, there is anecdotal evidence that some creditors may seek to use the threat of a charging order and its enforcement by an order for sale as a means of extracting a larger instalment payment than a pro rata division would justify. This, I suggest, is capable of unduly prejudicing other creditors. And the growing practice of waiting until the last possible moment to serve the interim order (presumably seeking to give the defendant as little opportunity as possible to be awkward) appears to be a clear breach of Civil Procedure Rule 23.7(1)(a).

Hope this is of use to anyone like me going to a redetermination for a CCJ based on questionable calculations at Northampton Bulk Processing.

Random thought: how much do these questionable calculations cost the legal system each year?