CCJ statute barred or not - with DCA chasing

[Ironic]

Hopefully this will be the right thread as is a general CCJ question:

 

I had a CCJ placed on me on 10/09/09 by an architect who had done some plans which I had paid him for.

 

 

He then decided business was tough and invoiced me for additional £3k fees

- which I refused to pay as had already paid the agreed £3.5k invoice.

Thought nothing more about it, heard nothing else about it until

 

 

July 2014 when received a letter and an email from Lombard Legal claiming they were acting for the architect.

Brilliantly the letter and email both had different amounts owing

- a total of £1800!

 

 

I ignored the letters and again forgot all about it,

Lombard Legal didn't and then

 

 

in November 2014 I got an email and a call

- followed 45 minutes later by a visit from 2'Lombard Agents' coming "to collect what I owed their client".

 

 

The agents and the company are currently part of a Merseyside police investigation and so again I thought nothing else of it.

 

Then last Saturday I received a letter (dated 14/09/15) from my old friends at Redwoods saying they were acting for the architect and were pursuing the debt that I had to pay to them.

 

 

This was followed by a letter received yesterday from their side kicks CW Harwood saying I had to pay Redwoods or all sorts of actions could be taken

- including County Court proceedings being issued where a judgment could be awarded against me.

 

Just taking a breath and thinking about this logically

thought first action would be this post to get the thoughts

 

 

because from what I can see the judgment was 10th September 2009 and this action is earliest 14th September 2015

- so over 6 years.

 

My questions are:

1) has it become statute barred?

2) if not why not?

3) if so do I need to write to them or the courts etc?

4) Is there a type/template of that sort of letter?

5) what else should I be doing?

 

I am hoping that my thoughts are correct but not sure - hence help request!

Thanks

[BazzaS]

"I had a CCJ placed on me on 10/09/09 by an architect" ; did they go to court and get a CCJ?

If so, did you oppose it in court?

6 years on it would be hard to go for a set aside......

 

Once a CCJ has been granted to a complainant, it is never "statute barred".

However, 6 years down the line they'd need the agreement of the court to enforce it.

 

The court would take into account what steps (if any) they had taken to enforce the CCJ,

and if the judgment debtor had contributed to the judgement creditor's inability to enforce

(eg by moving out of the jurisdiction, or changing address and not being on the electoral roll).

 

Who (in effect) is chasing now?.

If it is a DCA (not acting as a bailiff) then (if they aren't named as a judgement creditor on the CCJ), they can huff and puff but have no actual power ......

 

If they are threatening court they might try to get permission to enforce the previous CCJ.

They can't get a new CCJ for the same 'particulars of claim', as a court has already ruled on that case ('res judicata"

(not judo cats that autocorrect wanted to change it to! )

 

If they didn't get a CCJ in September 2009, and are only now preparing to go to court

: then provided you made no payments or admissions of liability in the last 6 years :

yes, you can use a "statute barred" defence.

(Where the debt may still legally exist but they cannot take court action to recover it).

[Ironic]

Yes the architect went to court, well the Northampton online court, and got the judgment.

I didn't oppose it as didn't know about it as was working away at the time,

then haven't known about it or thought about it until last year with the 'chaps' from Lombard Legal

(which is a whole different kettle of fish!) and even then thought was all just spurious.

 

 

I haven't moved or come off the electoral roll, which is probably why Redwoods have written to me as they chased me over unpaid school fees for obviously a school,

they probably saw the CCJ on my credit file , and they either went to the original plaintiff or are just acting as though they did to scare me into paying.

 

It is Redwoods who are the DCA chasing me to collect the sum outstanding, 'on behalf of their client'

and CW Harwood are the Leeds based solicitors 'who have been instructed by their client' the architect

who have written telling me that I must pay Redwoods who are 'our client's agent'.

 

Both Redwoods and Harwood have entered this scenario after 6 years have passed since the CCJ started (actually love the judo cats concept!)

and neither of them were involved in Sept 2009, it was as I said earlier the architect who went online and he got the ccj that way.

 

 

As you say it is too late to get the ccj set aside, and now 6 years have gone during which I have definitely made no payments or admissions of liability

and now these two companies arrive on the scene to 'enforce payment by all necessary steps'.

 

Not really sure what to do next as I know now there will follow an avalanche of letters from them,

but also don't know if there is an easy/quick way of solving the issue, although I guess that would be pay the architect

[citizenB]

Has the account been assigned/sold to the new company who is pursuing this CCJ ?

 

If it has, then they will first need to apply to the court to change the ownership of the "debt"

 

They would then, as already advised, need to give a reason for only just now starting to pursue for the monies.

 

Can you provide proof that you paid the original invoice and that, despite the fact that you did not defend the claim brought against you by the original claimant, there had actually been no claim to answer ?

[Ironic]

I don't know if it has been assigned or sold, both Redwood and CW Harwood are saying 'on the instructions of our client' they are taking steps to recover the amount owed. I don't know how I can find out if debt has been assigned or sold?

 

 

Yes I can show the actual invoice was paid, would involve finding old bank accounts but yes could show it.

 

 

How should I deal with Redwood and Harwood or should I just wait for them to do something?

[silverfox1961]

Hi

As we know, a CCJ never dies so the SB route cannot succeed however after 6 years have passed, the creditor will have to get the courts permission to enforce, something the courts don't usually allow as they have had the previous 6 years to do so.

 

There is also the matter of assignment. If this debt has been sold to a third party, they should have gone back to court to get the name changed so that the debtor would have known who to pay.

 

If they haven't done that, in my opinion, they can do nothing. I could be wrong which is why I said 'opinion'

[Ironic]

Interesting, they definitely haven't changed it to themselves as both are saying that the architect is their client and Redwoods actually say that cheques must be made payable to the architect and sent to Redwood's office.

[dx100uk]

I'd go with what you have surmised.

 

 

they've spotted this CCJ during their other fleecing exercise and thought they'd have a go at spoofing you.

 

 

if they are not mentioned on the org CCJ then they can go swivel.

they also should not be sending out powerless doorsteppers either.

 

 

I hope you told them to politely leave your property!!

[Ironic]

I agree that they have seen ccj and if they did speak to architect or not have decided to have a go at getting the monies. The previous lot from Lombard Legal who turned up were asked to leave very politely - and are now due in court with the rest of their 'company'.

 

 

Maybe I need to not contact them to start arguing but just sit tight and see what happens next.

[dx100uk]

yes I'd sit tight for now.

 

 

something smelly going on me thinks.

 

 

I assume they have directly mentioned the CCJ in their phishing letters?

[Ironic]

Funny you should ask that question because it made me re read the letters from Redwood and also CW Harwood - and neither mention the ccj! Redwood say:

 

 

We have been instructed by our above named client to collect the outstanding monies owed on this account.

TAKE NOTICE

Despite our clients' best efforts to collect the sum due, we are informed that the above balance continues to remain outstanding in full and without justifiable reason.

We are instructed to take all necessary steps to recover the sum shown, including legal action if required.

To avoid action being taken against you please remit immediate payment to us quoting reference to the address shown below.

 

 

CW Harwood & Co solicitors say:

 

 

We have been instructed by the above named client regarding the above-mentioned debt the details of which have been provided to you.

 

 

Our instructions are to write to ensure that you have full details of our clients claim. All payments and communications must be made only to Redwood Collections Limited who are our client's agent.

 

 

As you can see nothing re existing ccj, or indeed ccj that is now older than 6 years (expired?) - not sure what it means exactly or how it helps me exactly but no they don't mention it although must be aware of it.

 

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

not very clever then are they.

 

 

so IMHO

they have simply found out about this debt during their last fleecing attempt

and are trying it on with this debt.

 

 

pers I'd let it run.

 

 

if they really had been in contact with the person named as the claimant on the CCJ

they would be told so I'm sure.

 

 

do you have the CCJ?

who was the claimant and the sols that acted for them then?

[Ironic]

I wouldn't like to say if they were clever or not - although I think we share the same opinion!

 

 

On that can I complain to any governing bodies about both Redwood and CW Harwood

because they are misrepresenting the architect who they are portraying as their client

and are saying that they have instructions from him - which they obviously don't have.

 

 

Therefore misrep is at least one thing they could be 'done' for surely?

 

Yes I have copy of ccj now and the claimant was the architect,

and he didn't have solicitor he filled in the forms himself on line via the Northampton County Court facility

[dx100uk]

ok well they say they are acting on instruction of their client

the org claimant.

 

 

so its a game of chess and who blinks first.

 

 

they don't need a notice of assignment

 

 

 

 

dx

[Ironic]

I'm not convinced they have the architect as a client despite what they say

because if they had spoken to him they would

a) know about the ccj and

b) have added some amount of 'fees' to the amount of the ccj

- unless they are fishing and I pay full amount then they go back to architect

and say we have collected amount from debtor and we want say 25% of it as our fee.

 

 

Don't know if such a practise exists (!!!!) but wouldn't surprise me.

[dx100uk]

p'haps they think they cannot now enforce the CCJ.

so to them its dead.

 

 

dx

[Ironic]

I'm sure that they wont give up that easy - how many DCAs have you heard of letting the facts get in the way of them 'nicking a good few quid'? But we shall see I guess

[BazzaS]

I'm sure that they wont give up that easy - how many DCAs have you heard of letting the facts get in the way of them 'nicking a good few quid'? But we shall see I guess

 

Yup, but if they don't get the court's permission to enforce the old CCJ : you can tell any DCA who call to "do one" (just phrase it politely....)

 

If they try for a new CCJ ; bat them off with "res judicata" (which should suffice, but in the alternate : statute barred".

 

I'd only be concerned if bailiffs turn up (which they shouldn't), and even then you should be asking to see the paperwork, in case a DCA is trying to pull a fast one....