old first national bank loan with old CCJ, now with Link

[buggaluggs]

Thankyou x I didn't realise this.

[dx100uk]

what part of remove all pers details did you not see...

 

removed

 

i'll do them in a minute

[buggaluggs]

Sorry, I thought I had.

[dx100uk]

done

[buggaluggs]

Thankyou. Did you manage to look over them?

[dx100uk]

agreement taken out May 1999

CCJ by 1st National - 13-june-2000 sum £4295 [NO POST JUDGEMENTAL INT]

last payment 30/9/2005

I notice Plink are still adding interest even after the date of the CCj - they cant do that

 

you did owe £4295 to 1st national

they have sold the debt

plink would need to go back to court to get claimant change & enforce - no chance!!

 

the statements from PLINK say you made a £5 & a £10 payment 30/9/2005

 

so the debt IS status barred end of.

 

pers I would TOTALLY ignore them unless any court docs arrive.

 

the fact they have used 3 differing spoof DCA's [link by another name]

and that they have known about the CCJ since 30/04/2001

and muted re-issue speaks volumes

 

they have had 13 yrs!! to sort this

they haven't

 

trying to spoof you

[buggaluggs]

I thought they could add interest as per the terms and conditions of the original agreement, or does the court have to mention that in the judgement?

 

whats the odds of them getting court docs now and being succesful?

 

Link bought the debt in 2005, so they didn't know anything in 2001, yet their 'statement' shows interest from 1999.

CCJs are never statute barred are they?

[dx100uk]

the CCJ replaced / negated the terms of the CCA

 

no chance in hell as has been stated several times.

 

Plink are trying to spoof you

 

you need to go away and read about CCJ's and who after 6yrs of non enforcement 'could' enforce them.

 

its 13yrs since the CCJ...no judge would ever allow it

 

never seen one esp with Link and esp as they were not the claimant.

[buggaluggs]

It is reading around that has spooked me really by one person telling me that in recent years judges have been enforcing old ccjs without question and that I should be in contact with the DCA to sort it out, but I dont know how credible the site is unlike this one.

[dx100uk]

you would contest it

 

the debt would be statute barred

 

which is why Plink wont and haven't done so to date.

 

pers i'd put this to bed now.

 

getting a bit repetitive now

 

dx

[buggaluggs]

So ccjs can be statute barred then, sorry for being repetitive but i thought they couldnt be

[dx100uk]

no not the CCJ, but the debt.

if a CCJ has not been enforced for 6yrs its very rare for judge to so.

 

esp if the owner is not the named claimant.

 

I suggest instead of going round in circles go read the national debt line CCJ helpsheet or Q&A section

 

dx