I'd love to know how this works - does the court notify you of the change, can you challenge it, are there any sanctions if it isn't done in time, does it affect charging orders as well?

I've seen posts by CerberusAlert quoting a twelve month window in which the new owner has to register the change of ownership of the CCJ (in fact some other searches come up with 6 months), but I can't find any reference to prove the rule. It would be useful if there was some proof as in my case it's been almost three years since the assignment without any notification from the courts or the Land Registry. The new owners are claiming to be allowed to add statutory interest even though it's a CCA debt, but are reluctant to provide statements that show it.

Being in this position myself (CCJ sold umpteen times down the chain). No one has ever seriously asked me to pay, OC no longer exists). I have often asked the above, at the time it happened to me it seemed unheard of on CAG but, as you say, more and more of these are coming to the surface.

As well as all the above questions, I could add one of my own, as the 'Creditor' on my CCJ no longer exists, where do I stand? Their 'debts' may have been bought up/merged etc. but the actual creditor is not in existence, so, would that be enough grounds to get the CCJ quoshed.

Hi In the same boat myself

my Original CCJ was from 2000 it was then bought by a company over a year later to which I was never made aware of.

It was then bought by another DCA over a year later to which I was made aware of, yet IN 2010 some 8YEARS later this DCA has took it back to Court to ask to be substituted as the new claimant from the original creditor to which it was granted without me being able to defend it, and now they are going for a variation order as well as trying to add statutory interest from the beginning of the original CCJ back in 2000 !!!

It was only when I received this DCA Application and Witness Statement for the substitution that I found out it had previously been sold in 2001.

So I would as you can Imagine love to tuck these people up BIG STYLE.

Like you all say any confirmation / facts on this issue of DCA buying a CCJ after 1 year and not receiving any notification from the Court that the owner of the CCJ had changed would be heaven on earth.

Tinks

Would imagine this subject effects quite a few people.

Any clarity anyone.

We definately need clarification on this.

It would appear from threads, that 3rd part DCA's are buying up old CCJ's (probably for next to nothing), where there has been no enforcement or contact for many many years, substituting themselves as the claimant without having any docs to prove they can, but the whole process goes through undefended because the plaintiff is only made aware AFTER it has been granted. And then they apply for a charging order.

As you say, clarification needed, anyone?

And yet another perfectly usefull and informative thread (Like many here) started with the best of intentions is ignored, or receives bad advice from people who pretend to know the law better than they really do.

And then the poor people following the advice end up wishing they had not because they end up in real trouble.

Last entry on this was 7th march 2011 ???

Not one reply from those in the know ???

To all the good people out there, be very very careful as to what you believe and to what your being told.

Its often the case your being told what you want, or would like to believe but the truth out in the real world will bite you badly on the rear.

Does anyone out there have experience of when a county court judge has said to you (as a litigant in person)

Well done for following CAGs advice. Those guys really know there stuff. Certainly has stopped this DCA in its tracks. ????

PLEASE prove mean wrong experts.

Lets see some long awaited feedback that is accurate and correct. And really CAN be used by debtors, litigants in person, whatever, with confidence on this very valid thread.

And please dont have a go at the messenger, I might have some valid points here if you think about it.

A lot of people do look up to you guys for advise on how to survive the lions den.

This has been dealt with at length, on other threads. I'm not sure what your agenda is in bringing up old threads in order to criticise, but unless you have something constructive to add you are likely to attract moderation.

Thank you for your reply.

A search on google will lead to this and other threads.

My point is from the last entry in March of 2011.

Not one person yourself included has replied to it, or given advice towards it.

If other threads are available that deal with this particuler issue.

Then it would be nice to see a link to those threads posted here.

If thats criticism, then its meant to be constructive.

And at least it has attracted your attention good sir.

It would be very much appreciated if this subject could receive some form of clarification and advice.

Sorry if I have ruffled feathers. I know your not the bad boys, and I know you mean well.

But unless advice is accurate and not subject to speculation.

It can have serious consequences on someones life. And DCA's just love that.

Please good sir, where are these other threads.

And thank you for responding.

Shame if a perfectly reasonable question is moderated.

This thread is where google sends someone if they are looking for sold/assigned CCJ's Its the top thread.

I came across it 6 months ago. I was looking for the answer. I am still not sure now. The advice is conflicting beyond belief. Some say everything goes to the buyer CCJ included some say it has to be registered to the buyer by the court.

What I do know there is a hell of alot of similar questions being asked and no consistant advice being given anywhere

If its a question that cant be answered then that would be ok. Least we would know then and google would be directing people in similar positions to a thread that would be helpful

Sadly another one that gives questionable answers especialy with regards to a cca contract being terminated the moment a ccj is in place.

How wonderful that would be if it were true.

Heres the link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?201853-Old-CCJ-(1998)-still-valid-adding-interest/page3

Once again it ends with no real answers.

Sorry it needs to be said.

SILENCE

It speaks volumes does it not.

No advice, no response, just silence.

When clarification is needed, and on this and attached threads it certainly does.

You get nothing.

Sorry I forgot.

There was a response. Be quiet, how dare you question us.

Or face the wrath of moderation.

Please if you do respond, let it be something worthy, don't threaten, and be

facetious or sarcastic. The points raised are valid, they need clarification.

If you don't know or are unsure please say so.

I give up on this now, let those reading this judge for themselves.

What exactly are you asking? I can’t see a question anywhere.

It is my understanding that interest can only be added to a judgment debt if the order allows it.

So - do you have the paperwork from the court, the General Order that is issued after the hearing which states exactly what can and cannot be added ?

It is my understanding that interest can only be added to a judgment debt if the order allows it.

 

So - do you have the paperwork from the court, the General Order that is issued after the hearing which states exactly what can and cannot be added ?

Ok lets try and simplify this a little.

In the case between Director General office of fair trading vs 1st national bank the lords preciding stated that a clause in the 1st national bank cca contract allowing for contractual interest to be added before as well as after the issue of a county court judgement. Was fair.

Although the consequences of such a clause gave rise to grave concerns. However there were sufficient powers within the existing court system to deal with the fairness issues attached to such a clause.

Are you saying that unless that clause ie the charging of contractual interest is specifically mentioned in the judgement order. Then such a clause no longer exists or would be enforcable.

Throughout this thread it appears that this is the crux of what requires clarification. And to date non has been recieved.

I am sure you will agree its an important one, which is why numerous people have asked for the legal bods to reply.

It is so important a point that guesswork has to be eliminated.

CB is your understanding an educated guess or a statement of FACT. Thats whats needed. The FACTS of the matter.

Either the interest Can or cannot be claimed dependant on the wording of the court order. Does the court order over rule the original contract. ???

Hope you can see where I am coming from.

The interest has to be claimed and awarded by the court, because the CCJ supersedes any agreement under the CCA – in effect, the judgment becomes the ‘contract’, the chose in law. A claimant cannot arbitrarily charge interest after judgment if it was not claimed.

I think cerebusalert has already stated - FACT - that the Judgment order replaces the original agreement. The Judgment order then becomes the agreement, the terms of which require absolute adhering to.

I think what is required in order to clarify matters is sight of the Judgment order - that way it can be established with greater accuracy what has been ordered.

donkeyB has said what I want to say.. with greater clarity

Snap, CB!

I think your real concern is about the charging of interest, and whether the assignee can continue to charge a high rate of interest.

If the first instance, as described here, the answer is yes.

However,

you could make a complaint to the OFT or the FSA about this, under CPUTR legislation.

Not sure what response you’d get,

but you would have to argue that the charging of interest in this way was buried in the small print, and not made clear at the outset

– and therefore you are now being treated unfairly.

Depends how long ago the agreement was originally signed.

Alternatively, you could apply to the court for an change to your payments, on the same basis, but this would effectively be a very late appeal on the judgment and would involve costs, and I’m not altogether sure you’d be successful.

Thank you both.

Its not just me but many others who will find your replies extremely useful.

At least now, when google directs people to this thread they will find answers that are deemed statements of Fact, and thus give clarity in there conclusions.

As said the saga with O.F.T. vs 1st National was a real shocker to a lot of people.

But all is not lost.

From what you say the written cca contract is of no importance once a ccj has been registered.

Its the terms that are set out in the ccj that take precedence.

So an interest after judgement clause and the percentage rate of that interest have to be mentioned in the judgement order to be valid.

Have I got that right.

Because I can guarantee the DCA's who purchase such ccj's from 1st national are deffo going to try and kid you otherwise.