Link trying to spoof me into paying an SLC CCJ from 2000!!

[MrYork]

Hi, I am a new user and don't understand forums that well but I could do with some advice.

 

I have read similar arcticles of my concern on this site but they seem to cover Statute Barred at 6yrs.

 

My issue is:-

After 13 years I have been approached by a DCA about a debt and a CCJ that I was never aware of.

 

I would be grateful of any advice on how to deal with thefollowing situation.

Sorry if it’s long winded, wanted to get all the facts down.

 

I received a letter from a DCA asking me to contact them, as far as I’m aware I have no debts

 

I contacted them and they asked if I had lived at certain address which I confirmed I had,

they then advised that I had a debt dating back to 1994 for £4,500.

that they were chasing and required immediate payment of.

 

I said that I had no debts and asked for evidence;

they said I would have to send them a cheque for £1.00 for this information.

I have never received any information or correspondence regarding this so called debt.

 

I wasn’t happy with what they had said and looked on-line and found out about statue barred,

 

I wrote to the company using the standard templates that are available on-line saying that I did not acknowledge the debt and as the debt was 19 yearsold it would be statute barred.

 

They have now written back stating that a CCJ was securedagainst the debt in 2000 at the Northampton county court bulk centre and was subsequently transferred to a local court.

 

They have not sent a copy of the CCJ from Northampton but they have sent copies of correspondence from the local court and the student loan company with the court advising of hearing dates,

notice of non-service, progress report on attachment of earnings application

and a final notice of non-service advising that the court was unable to serve the N61 order

as the defendant is no longer at the address and there is no forwarding address.

 

All of this must have been sent to an address I had long since left

I wasn’t aware of any of this.

 

However, I’ve always been on the electoralregister and all the normal registers that exist,

it’s not as if I’ve been trying to avoid anyone.

 

I’m more than concerned that 13 years after a CCJ that I’ve never been aware of,

was awarded without my knowledge that this DCAis now saying I have to repay in full.

 

I’m not clear if the original enforcement still stands or what to go back to the DCA and say.

 

Any advice on my options or what to do now would be appreciated.

 

I have never acknowledged the debt to them although their latest letter implies that I have and is now referring to two accounts!

Edited June 27, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[renegadeimp]

If there was ever a period of 6 years with no payment and written acknowledgement of the debt, either before or after the CCJ was issued, then the debt was Statute barred.

 

Who is the DCA?

 

 

Oh, by the way, send them http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?408-Letter-sent-when-debt-is-statute-barred edited to suit. They are chancing pure and simple. Even if a CCJ was added in 2000, it will not be on your credit file now as it would have fallen off 7 years ago., and they certainly cannot take ANY action on it whatsoever.

 

Going from your info, you have absolutely NOTHING to worry about. This debt is well and truely Statute barred. Send that letter and ignore the muppets.

 

If they continue to chase you, then write a formal complaint to their compliance officer and get the OFT and FOS involved, as they are clearly in breach of their credit licence and various parts of regulation and guidance.

[dx100uk]

bet this is LINK you are talking too?

 

100% fleecers

 

stay OFF that phone

 

never eveerr ring a DCA!!

 

they are not BAILIFFS

 

and have

 

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS.

 

dx

[fkofilee]

I would agree with the statute barred element.

Think of it like this... you moved right? Well thats the address the would hold for correspondence to alert you to their presence...

 

Agree, go to the OFT and FOS.... They cant chase you for a SB debt. Please if they continue to harass then send them a letter about harassment and you will take them to court.

 

They will back down.

[citizenB]

You don't have to send them any money for anything. If they are claiming there is a debt owed, then it is for them to prove it.

 

I think even if a CCJ had been awarded in their favour, after this length of time then they would have to return to the court to enforce it and I would think the court is not going to do this.

 

I will try and find others who will have a better understanding of this.

 

BTW, simply by talking to them, you have not acknowledged liability !

[sequenci]

If there was ever a period of 6 years with no payment and written acknowledgement of the debt, either before or after the CCJ was issued, then the debt was Statute barred.

 

Not true.

 

Once judgment has been entered there can be no limitation period as action has already been brought. I think what you might be getting at is that it is widely held in the courts that 6 years is long enough for a claimant to enforce a judgment - and should enforcement be attempted beyond six years it's likely to be refused, for warrants of execution it's actually written in to the civil procedure rules that a creditor would need leave of the court to bring such action after 6 years - for all other methods of enforcement/execution the time delay can be raised at the hearing.

 

Hope that makes sense!

[dx100uk]

I would also expect that link [if it is them..] are notthe named claimant on the ccj

 

so they've left it 6yrs to chase it.

 

rarely will a judge allow a change of claimant on a ccj this old.

 

dx

[citizenB]

Student loan agreements are simple contracts and this gives the Student Loans Company (SLC) 6 years from the date you last paid or acknowledged the debt to go to court to enforce the agreement.

 

 

There are two sorts of student loans and different rules apply depending upon when you took out the loan:

 

 

 

• Old style student loans (pre 1998) are consumer credit agreements, regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. Payments cannot be automatically deducted from your wages. The SLC has to go to court before they can enforce the debt against you. This means that the Limitations Act can apply if you have not paid or acknowledged the debt for over 6 years. NB: Asking for the loan to be deferred could count as acknowledging the debt and start time running again.

 

 

 

• From September 1998 new style or “income contingent” student loans include rules to say that repayments are automatically deducted directly from your wages or through your tax return if you are self employed. This means that the SLC is still allowed to take money from your wages for a loan over 6 years old as they do not have to go to court to do so.

 

 

As the CCJ was attained in 2000 and as this is an old type SLC 1994 it may or not be just SB at the time of judgment subject to date last payment/acknowledgment

 

 

Now it appears they have tried to enforce and failed:-

 

 

" but they have sent copies of correspondence from the local court and the student loan company with the court advising of hearing dates,notice of non-service, progress report on attachment of earnings application and a final notice of non-service advising that the court was unable to serve the N61 order as the defendant is no longer at the address and there is no forwarding address."

 

 

 

Therefore because 13 years has passed they would now require permission of the court to re enforce but this can be countered with the Statue of Limitations.

 

 

 

Some information for you.

[flexeh]

i know its stat barred but just wondering guys, reading the original post, the DCA asked for a payment of a pound, if the original poster did send them the £1 would it then reopen the debt for another 6 years or would it stay barred even if £1 is sent? reason i ask is because £1 for the information is a bit fishy. I would of said to them ill send you ten and a letter and you send me a SAR lol

[renegadeimp]

Once it's sb it is sb forever. Any money paid after it becomes sb is purely a gift for the dca.

 

Nothing can reopen an sb debt, not even a judge.

[dx100uk]

would be nice if the op returned here..................

 

dx

[MrYork]

Thanks for all the replies and advice,

 

you are right about it being Link.

 

Can I ask for some further clarification please as I'm still confused what I need to do next.

 

I don't know dates about the original debt that they are referring to

 

I don't know that it was status barred before the CCJ was awarded.

 

assuming it wasn't status barred but there has been no correspondence or enforcement of the CCJ for 13 years which is definitely the case,

what should I be saying to the DCA,

 

I've already sent the standard status barred letter and they have stated that it can not be status barred because of the CCJ.

 

They are now chasing me twice a day, although I'm not answering their calls they are leaving messages, so feel I need to respond in some way.

 

BTW can anyone enforce a CCJ i.e. it doesn't have to be the original claimant being SLC?

 

Help on what to do next would be really appreciated.

[renegadeimp]

If a CCJ is older than 6 years, or close to it, then theres pretty much zero chance at enforcing it. If it is over 6 years, then theres 100% chance they cant enforce it.

 

They say the CCJ was issued in 2000, so tell them to bugger off. The debt is well and truely statute barred, and if they were silly enough to go right back to court, then your statute barred would be an absolute defence.

 

You MUST make formal complaints, as you have told them it is statute barred, but they have ignored you completely and are now in breach of OFT guidance AND their credit licence.

 

Link will do and say anything to get money from you. Thats how the owner makes millions. He con's, tricks and does everything he can to get money off people. He knows 100% that the majority of his debts are not legally enforceable, but that doesnt stop him lying through his teeth. just like he is doing to you.

[MrYork]

Thanks, can you please advice which section of the civil procedure rules

[renegadeimp]

Civil procedure rules..? Just tell them that the debt is statute barred.

 

Even the CCJ is.

 

They are calling your bluff and are in breach of all guidance and regulation.

 

You need to TELL them that, and then if they still harass or BS you,

 

get full complaints into the OFT and FOS.

 

Theyll soon stop when the FOS gets hold of them. Especially since they are using unlawful business practices by chasing a SB debt.

 

makes you wonder how many people fall for these silly threats of theirs.

[dx100uk]

you are paying far toomuch attention to ehat has been told to you on the phone

 

the debt is DEAD

 

the CCJ is DEAD

 

LINK cannot even enforce it as they were NOT the claimant.

 

not even a JUDGE can unbar the debt!!

 

PLEASE stay OFF that phone.

 

they would NEVER EVER put what they said in writing.

 

wanna know where the money goes that they FLEECE off of people on debts like this ...

 

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property_news/news/millionairedebtcollectordigsdeepinsouthkensington.html

[renegadeimp]

100% agree with dx.

 

Link and every other DCA will lie and say ANYTHING on the phone to get you to break down and give them money.

 

They will NEVER put anything they say on the phone in writing as they know that would mean the end of their company.

[sequenci]

The limitations act and the whole 'statute barred' term is to do with the bringing of legal action - which has already happened. You cannot them say a CCJ is 'statute barred'.

 

The time limits in relation to enforcing a judgment are within the CPR for bailiff action - and pretty much caselaw for everything else.

 

If you can find anything in legislation that argues a judgment debt can become statute barred please show it more. And before you raise s24 LA 1980 - it doesn't.

 

The OP can certainly argue time limits, though, but moreso to do with the amount of time they've had to enforce the judgment - 6 years is long enough. I'll post up some case law in an hour or so once I'm in the office.

 

Best wishes.

 

Seq.

 

Oh, and for the record. A judge CAN certainly allow enforcement beyond 6 years of the judgment being obtained in certain circumstances - although it's very unlikely in the OP's situation.

[citizenB]

i know its stat barred but just wondering guys, reading the original post, the DCA asked for a payment of a pound, if the original poster did send them the £1 would it then reopen the debt for another 6 years or would it stay barred even if £1 is sent? reason i ask is because £1 for the information is a bit fishy. I would of said to them ill send you ten and a letter and you send me a SAR lol

 

 

If the OP had sent a £1.00 for the "information" then it would have been a statutory fee and nothing to do with making a payment to the account.

[sequenci]

Here's the CPR rule for a warrant of execution: CPR Schedule 2 CCR Order 26, rule 5:

 

Permission to issue certain warrants

Rule 5—(1) A warrant of execution shall not issue without the permission of the court where—

 

(a)six years or more have elapsed since the date of the judgment or order; .

(b)any change has taken place, whether by death or otherwise in the parties entitled to enforce the judgment or order or liable to have it enforced against them; .

©the judgment or order is against the assets of a deceased person coming into the hands of his executors or administrators after the date of the judgment or order and it is sought to issue execution against such assets; or .

(d)any goods to be seized under a warrant of execution are in the hands of a receiver appointed by a court. .

(2) An application for permission shall be supported by a witness statement or affidavit establishing the applicant’s right to relief and may be made without notice being served on any other party in the first instance but the court may direct the application notice to be served on such persons as it thinks fit.

 

(3) Where, by reason of one and the same event, a person seeks permission under paragraph (1)(b) to enforce more judgments or orders than one, he may make one application only, specifying in a schedule all the judgments or orders in respect of which it is made, and if the application notice is directed to be served on any person, it need set out only such part of the application as affects him.

 

(4) Paragraph (1) is without prejudice to any enactment, rule or direction by virtue of which a person is required to obtain the permission of the court for the issue of a warrant or to proceed to execution or otherwise to the enforcement of a judgment or order.

 

For High Court Writs you need CPR Schedule 1 RSC Order 46 rule 2(1)

 

I'll post up the case law later if you're interest.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[MrYork]

Thanks Seq for both posts.

 

This is starting to make sense and it is clear my case is not Statute Barred, so I now need to work out how to word a reply to Link, therefore I would be interested in seeing the case laws you mention.

 

Thanks again York

[dx100uk]

that's not what seq is saying

seq is just pointing out that my comments were rather lacking in detail

 

the bottom line is that they've had 6yrs to enforce the ccj, they have not!

 

it is extremely rare for a judge to allow it outside of 6yrs

 

the other point is that link were not the named claimant

 

its even rarer for a judge to allow a change of claimant and subsequent enforcement after the 6yrs period.

 

dx

[sequenci]

I really can't see any judge allowing it given the facts - it would be totally unfair and inequitable.

 

If it was me I would either

 

A) totally ignore Link

B) tell them to go and enforce the judgment

C) tell them to bugger off completely.

[dx100uk]

or all three:lol:

 

most courts are I bet well aware of link and their dodgy tactics

[sequenci]

No doubt mate