A CCJ in 2005?

[reallymadwoman]

If you can, block their calls. Otherwise just refuse to answer security questions and keep repeating 'in writing only'.

 

Have you sent them a letter asking them to prove there is a debt?

[brokebutnotbeatn]

No, don't do as Rideout advises. Do not ack the debt.

[sillygirl1]

Acknowledging the debt now will restart the clock ticking so it won't be statute barred - and could bring further action against you very very rapidly, very bad advice.

 

If there is nothing on the Registry Trust about the CCJ, and they have NOT enforced any collections they are stuffed - if they went to the court to reapply they would have a lot of questions to answer.

 

Report them to the OFT and Trading Standards as they are well aware of the activities of this company - if you look at the Companies House records you will see their background is interesting.

[Rideout]

Your not ''Admitting liabilty'' to the debt by accepting their claim with the condition of proof of contract and obligation. This is a red herring as some would say. Your mearly putting the ball in back in their park keeping the debt to your legal entity rarther then you as a human, then it's not a criminal matter ect ect. Never outright deny a claim, solistors get paid by telling you to deny creating contraversey.

 

What I gather from here what your saying is to deny the debt compleatly until they proof it via cca or sars request, in some cases they do, so where does that leave you? in a possition of fraud?

 

What i'm saying is nearley exactly what you guys are advising but it eliminates you as a human denying the debt and placeing the next move in the hands of the company and in no way makes you liable. As i'm aware unless a person has made an explicit promise to pay a debt via call email ect ect a statute barred the debt will be removed in 6 years.If you do however they can by applying the the courts but this is not easy done by the company. By accepting only with the condition they provide enforceable contract and obligation will not be seen as an explisit promise to pay.

This video will make it very clear to you what i'm saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJC6LGp24gA&feature=related.

 

Please no hating we're all here to learn.Obviously this is my opinion down to many years study in corporate/contract law but if i'm wrong please feel free to correct me

[Rideout]

Also My comment never said Accept the claim. It say's Accept on conditions. Which is totally different.

[sillygirl1]

Your not ''Admitting liabilty'' to the debt by accepting their claim with the condition of proof of contract and obligation. This is a red herring as some would say. Your mearly putting the ball in back in their park keeping the debt to your legal entity rarther then you as a human, then it's not a criminal matter ect ect. Never outright deny a claim, solistors get paid by telling you to deny creating contraversey.

Admitting liability to this debt by issuing conditions of proof is not a red herring, you are admitting something which has a lot of knock on consequences. A debt becomes statute barred 6 years after the last PAYMENT from you on an account, not from an email, telephone call or letter.

 

You should outright deny a claim - it could be that they have picked up on you as having the same name/dob as the original creditor who they have not been in contact with for some time. This is known as 'pishing'. This company is well known for pishing trips.

What I gather from here what your saying is to deny the debt compleatly until they proof it via cca or sars request, in some cases they do, so where does that leave you? in a possition of fraud?

 

Yes, we state write back stating "I do not acknowledge this alleged debt to you/your clients/affilliates/associates" in bold as a heading then send the CCA or SAR request. It does not leave you in a position of fraud - not sure where you are coming from on this so please elaborate. It is NOT fraud to use the Statute Barred rule to put the claim out of the reach of legal action, it is NOT fraud to say "I have no knowledge of this, please provide me with proof to check my records."

 

What i'm saying is nearley exactly what you guys are advising but it eliminates you as a human denying the debt and placeing the next move in the hands of the company and in no way makes you liable. As i'm aware unless a person has made an explicit promise to pay a debt via call email ect ect a statute barred the debt will be removed in 6 years.If you do however they can by applying the the courts but this is not easy done by the company. By accepting only with the condition they provide enforceable contract and obligation will not be seen as an explisit promise to pay.

 

Sadly you are deluded in your assumption, many many times the SAR or CCA money HAS been applied the debt in an attempt to extend the time it will become statute barred - you really need to wise up to the tactics of DCAs, this one in particular. They will laugh in your face at you givin them conditions... it is for THEM to prove you owe the debt, not for you to prove it to THEM.

This video will make it very clear to you what i'm saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJC6LGp24gA&feature=related.

 

Sorry but I have not watched the video, there are a lot of videos on youtube which are factually inaccurate and also they carry 'spyware' which tracks your financial actions - there are plenty of recorded cases of this. We have enough knowledge on this site not to need misleading information posted here.

 

Please no hating we're all here to learn.Obviously this is my opinion down to many years study in corporate/contract law but if i'm wrong please feel free to correct me

 

I am not hating you - I am pointing out the differences here, you may have studied the law but the DCAs love to pick whichever bit suits them and misuse it. The best advice I can give you at the moment is to read all the Robinson Way threads and all the HFO threads, along with Bryan Carter threads and then come back and give your 'learned' opinion.

 

60 posts since Marcvh 2008 also points to somebody who has not kept up with the devious behaviour of the DCA industry since the Rankine debacle.

[Ganymede]

I am not hating you - I am pointing out the differences here, you may have studied the law but the DCAs love to pick whichever bit suits them and misuse it. The best advice I can give you at the moment is to read all the Robinson Way threads and all the HFO threads, along with Bryan Carter threads and then come back and give your 'learned' opinion.

 

60 posts since Marcvh 2008 also points to somebody who has not kept up with the devious behaviour of the DCA industry since the Rankine debacle.

 

 

The SB 6 years starts from last payment OR written acknowledgment of the debt.

[DonkeyB]

It is NOT correct to acknowledge this account in any way, rideout. The OP has stated he has never banked with Barclays or had any dealings with them. For all you know, and for all the OP knows as he has not seen any judgment, this could be a case of mistaken identity or identity theft.

 

There just is not enough information available here to make the kind of comments you have been making, so please be a weeny bit less strident.

 

The issues the OP needs to address are these – and I apologise if I am repeating what others have correctly said.

 

1. The OP has no recollection of any dealings with Barclays.

 

2. Robinson Way have informed the OP more than six years after the alleged CCJ that a judgment was in place, and have also taken six years to advise of a change of ownership. Barclays was entitled to sell the account, and the CCJ itself is now the agreement. It is tradable.

 

3. RW have not indicated whether they have applied (and succeeded) to be substituted as the claimant via the courts, which is absolutely necessary for any enforcement. To attempt any enforcement action without doing this – such as sending in a bailiff – is totally illegal.

 

4. RW have not sent the OP any proof of this judgment, or any proof that he is the debtor.

 

5. The OP is not aware of any court claim against him in 2005.

 

6. The OP has never received any form of court order.

 

That’s pretty much all we know.

 

 

Now, some questions for Saskatoon:

 

1. Have you moved home since 2005?

 

2. Is there any way you may have had a Barclaycard at this time? Did you ever have a student account? Did you have any debts around this time?

 

3. Have you asked RW for a copy of the judgment to see the address the judgment was made against, and the exact name of the person? Do you have a common name?

 

 

Let’s stick to facts, folks – we’re all barrack room lawyers, but some, like Andy, have more knowledge than proper solicitors when it comes to this kind of situation.

[Rideout]

Agreed Donkey, all Im saying is if you deny a debt outright rarther then wording it 'I accept your claim on condition you provide me with proof of contact and obligation. wouldn't you be in a better possition legaly then saying I don't know nothing about it, I deny it, prove it ect ect. I have used this procedure for many years and haven't had the debts enforced or taken further and remain statue barred. Only going from my learning and experience. It's all in the wording Sillygirl, It may sound like your accepting but your not accepting naff all.

[DonkeyB]

But the situation you are talking about is invariably one where the recipient of the claim knows what the claim is about. That is a very different scenario to what we have here.

 

And it makes a world of difference.

[Rideout]

Indeed Donkey, but then it still would be I accept on condition you prove it. Still exactly the same as saying I know nothing about it, prove it ect ect. If they can't prove it you can't accept it thats what you have stated. I'ts up to them then to do what they need to do in reference to fraud investigation or finding out who debt is liable to if they can't pin it to you, it's their fault.. I totally know why you say don't accept anything but I just don't think it's the correct wording. Just my opinion tho fellow caggers, sorry I opened me mouth now lol , peace

[ims21]

I have removed a few posts from this thread purely becasue they serve no purpose in helping the OP.

 

Let's keep this thread on track please so that the OP gets the best advice.

 

ims

[Saskatoon]

I have just had a guy call me again from Robinson Way, who was very persistant asking for £1256.68 otherwise they are going to start taking legal action on me. This is stupid! I do not have a CCJ that is young enough to view and they said Barclays took me to court in 2005 and they purchased the debt from Barclays in 2008? I have only been contacted in last few months but they seem to know all my details and my ex-directory telephone number etc? They also are telling me I paid £400 off original debt with Barclays which I also have no recollection of. They have now given me a country court No. 5xa15131 - alegidgly with Northampton County Court. I have just called Northampton County Court to check but I am buggered if I am paying £80 to find out something that doesn't exist - I did do the online check someone on here suggested to check for £4.

 

 

 

Does any one know if there was a judgement that I do not know anything about that is so old it has dropped off my experian file - Does Robinson Way have the right to chase me indefinitely - even If I cannot prove the account existed, or it ever went to court?

 

Do they have the right to chase and is the debt enforcable unless it is taken to court again - Would they have to prove an original court Judgement exists, and produce a contract signed by me from Barclays to prove the account existed?

HELP! they are getting on my nerves

 

 

£1256.68

Edited February 24, 2012 by Saskatoon

[havinastella]

As I explained earlier in this thread. A CCJ CANNOT be sold on!

 

If Robbers Way have brought this, tough! It's also 99.9% unenforceable as 6 years have passed with no collection activity!

 

If you have to talk to RW on the phone, let them know that it's contempt of court to chase a CCJ owed to somebody else and you shall be more than happy to let a Judge know this!

 

Jogs

[DonkeyB]

Er, yes it can! Where is the statute says it can't be? The CCJ becomes the contract/agreement, and is a tradable commodity which requires substitution as claimant through the courts.

[asokn]

Quite, CCJ's can indeed be transferred. Otherwise a debtor might avoid liability unfairly and receive a windfall.

 

As an aside I'd suggest you ignore the YouTube link above which is full of nonsense and appears to have been filmed on a park bench outside a pub. Hardly the Inns of Court!

 

Also, in respect of enforceability, a CCJ can be enforced by way of CO at any time and any other method of enforcement can be pursued subject to a successful application to the court explaining the delay.

[havinastella]

I stand corrected!

 

live and learn

[DonkeyB]

Pretty sure that's the case, h. Lots of it going on!

[havinastella]

Pretty sure that's the case, h. Lots of it going on!

 

I really hate to be wrong and have looked into it!

 

Apparently, you are correct, a CCJ can be sold on! Asking for any variation is comtempt. I know I was close

 

The OP should still ignore everything and let them try to restart this CCJ! They should have no chance!

[dx100uk]

agreed

 

dx

[DonkeyB]

H, I have been wrong rather a lot. It's how I learn!

 

And I think I've been wrong rather more often than you. Which means I must be very clever...

[dx100uk]

robbersway are well known for pulling ANY tactic and rouse they can

to SPOOF you into paying a debt.

 

you REALLY should have never phoned them in the first place or if they phoned you ...spoken with them, ENDOF!!!!

there is NO legal obl to talk on the phone to them

 

that is where you made your mistook.

 

it would be nice to have a recording of them sayig the can send bailiffs to collect

i more suspect, they said they could send 'someone' to collect......

 

the end result here though is they cannot enforce the debt without going via the court

 

IGNORE THEM

 

dx

[LaughingGirl]

Just a thought - you may have had no dealings with Barclays, but have you ever had anything with the Woolwich? Barclays bought them out in 2005/6.

[sandman131]

on reading the details on sale of ccj.if original company has sold ccj do they have to take back to court for new comapny to collect payments and enforce any action

[DonkeyB]

The new owner has to apply to the court to be substituted as the claimant, so they can enforce the CCJ. But when the CCJ is this old, the judge would demand to know why enforcement has been delayed for so long, and would almost certainly tell them to sod off.

 

In short, they have bought a lemon, and are trying it on.