Wright Hassall: Statute Barred or Not Statute Barred?

[Mihail]

I recently received a letter from a firm of solicitors Wright Hassall, who were claiming the debt of something from Cabot which had been a CCJ on 13 December 2005, having been incurred around the time of my cancer operation.

 

I wrote to them with a CAG default letter saying the debt was statute barred therefore unenforceable after the 6 years.

They have just written back saying they agree the CCJ was obtained at said date, but " there was a Charging Order on 19 January 2007 (they enclosed) . As such this matter is not statute barred or subject to the Limitation Act"

 

Is this true? Or just an intimidation tactic?

I have uploaded the recent WH letter and Charging order if you would like to see it.

 

Your help and advice would be much appreciated.

 

Kind regards

Mihail

Edited November 12, 2012 by Mihail
renew attachment

[ims21]

Attachments unapproved as personal details are visible.

 

Please cleanse and re-post.

[42man]

Did you try and oppose the original CCJ ? Did you move soon after the original CCJ was granted ?

[Mihail]

Hello 42Man

I was recovering from a cancer op at the time of the original CCJ and was not keeping up with my correspondence

[Surfer01]

If it is a CCJ, I don't think it is subject to limitations laws, but I may be wrong.

[AndyOrch]

A CCJ is subject to SB if not executed within 6 years however here the claimant has by way of the CO/Restriction.

 

Andy

[Surfer01]

My understanding is that if the creditor has previously taken you (the debtor) to court and a CCJ has been awarded, the debt will still be enforceable, with the court's permission, even if it is more than 6 years old. If the creditor has previously taken you to court and you have received a County Court Judgement, CCJ, then you will be unable to use the Limitation Act 1980 as a defence and to dispute the debt. If the judgement is over 6 years old the creditor may need to go back to the Court to enforce the debt.

[AndyOrch]

Section 24 of the Limitations Act 1980....

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

[Mihail]

Section 24 of the Limitations Act 1980....

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

 

Andyorch:Thanks for the clarification on the CCJ, the CC also told me this when I phoned them . But what about this charging order? I dont remember ever getting this

[AndyOrch]

The CCJ was executed on 19 January 2007 by way of the Charging Order therefore they have their security and is therefore not SB.If you are not contesting the debt (which should have been done in 2005) then its your choice whether to offer some kind of payment plan.

The matter has gone 7 years without payment on the judgment (I assume as you don't expand on receiving it).

 

It will never be SB now and they could try other ways to enforce security...for peace of mind I would try to agree something with them.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Mihail]

Thanks Andy, I have checked with Land Registry today and the charge is indeed in place

 

Would I have as a defence that I did not receive notice of the charging order summons or the charging order?

[AndyOrch]

The Charging Order is reliant on the CCJ...therefore the judgment would have to be set a side and re defended.Considering the time lapsed this may prove difficult.

Could you prove none receipt and if so what would the basis of your defence be?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Mihail]

Hi Andy

I applied to get the judgement set aside in 2009, on grounds of poor health, but the judge rejected the action, saying I had allowed too much time to lapse

 

I don't know how I prove non-receipt-I know how we CAGers prove receipt, send a letter recorded or Special delivery. But non delivery...any suggestions?

The basis of my defence would be that I was unwell at the time, recovering from cancer surgery.

[AndyOrch]

If you have already attempted set a side and been refused I see little point in prolonging this.As stated its your choice to make payment they have already executed their security by way of the CO and should you sell up will be paid on the basis of that sale.

Orders for Sale are as rare as chicken lips but there are further options open to enable collection.

 

If you had of received the summons what would you have had a valid defence?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Mihail]

Does poor health count as a defence?

I can prove that...

[AndyOrch]

Does poor health count as a defence?

I can prove that...

 

Unfortunately not Mihail:sad:

[Mihail]

Update on the Charging Order.

The Land Registry has the original DCA as the name the charge is registered in , not Crackpot who subsequently bought the debt.

I have this week wrote to Cackpot via their solicitors and said I would make an ex gratia payment in full and final settlement on condition the CO was removed.

They wrote back saying my offer was too low and they would get their money anyway when my property was sold.

Now here's the question: I am in the process of renewing my leaseholder's lease (I have the freehold) and I am wondering whether in this lease renewal process, Crackhouse need to be consulted.

Does the holder of a CO have a veto in this lease renewal process?

I have checked with the first and second charge holder and they both said the lease renewal process does not concern them, only the sale of the property, so the process can go on without their consent.

All advice gratefully accepted CAGGERS

Thanks in advance.

[AndyOrch]

"I have checked with the first and second charge holder and they both said the lease renewal process does not concern them, only the sale of the property, so the process can go on without their consent."

 

I can only echo the above Mihail

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Mihail]

"I have checked with the first and second charge holder and they both said the lease renewal process does not concern them, only the sale of the property, so the process can go on without their consent."

 

I can only echo the above Mihail

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Andy I don't understand your reply.

My question was do WH have a right to veto the lease renewal between me as freeholder and my leaseholder?

The first two charge holders on my property (first and second mortgages) have both said the LR does not concern them.

I throw the question open to other CAGers

Thanks

Mihail

[AndyOrch]

No it does not concern them...I agree...no they have no right to veto the lease renewal between you as freeholder and your leaseholder?