Mortimer Clarke/ M E III Mystery CCJ

[silentmovieman]

Apologises in advance if this comes across as a little vague

but I am asking the question on behalf of my sister who is not a CAG member

and as such I don't necessarily have all the facts.

 

She received a letter from Mortimer Clarke Solicitors who are acting on behalf of M E III

in regards to a debt of £1000 that they claim went the way of CCJ and remains unpaid.

 

 

She has looked at her credit report and can see no sign of a CCJ

and says she has never had one on there after I pointed out to her that if it was over 6 years ago it wouldn't appear on her report anyway.

 

Rather foolhardedly she therefore ignored the first letter but has now received another letter from them stating that they are going to get an attachment of earnings.

 

So I guess the first question is could there have been a CCJ that never appeared on her file?

This seems unlikely I know but historically Ive had the experience of being in a joint IVA and it only appearing on my file not my wifes for some reason.

 

With the above scenario seeming highly unlikely would the debt be statute barred based on it being over six years old?

I have read that in some cases the court will revive the debt but am not sure what is required to trigger this.

 

Finally what should her next step be as wouldn't any communication from her be seen as acknowledgement of the debt and therefore void the 6 year period anyway?

[dx100uk]

if all her old addresses aren't showing or its outside of 6yrs it wont show.

 

knowing those players

they weren't even the claimant so can willy wave all they like

 

I bet the letters don't say WILL anywhere?

[silentmovieman]

I've seen the letter now and it says that if they don't receive a response within 7 days they will apply to the court for the name of the claimant to be changed to their client in order to be able to apply for an attachment of earnings.

[dx100uk]

ok makes more sense then.

what date was the CCJ any ideas?

 

they weren't the claimant

and as the CCJ is more than 6yrs old

though they don't get barred

 

it's extremely rare for a judge to allow enforcement after 6yrs

even rarer to allow a substitution after 6yrs

 

are you sure it says WILL

[silentmovieman]

Exact wording -

 

If an acceptable payment offer is not made within 7 days from the date of this letter, an application will be made to the County Court etc

 

As for how old the ccj is I can't answer that as my sister doesn't recall ever having a ccj and like I said there's nothing on her credit file so I guess the only way to answer that would be to contact the solicitor and ask them but isn't that acknowledging the debt?

[dx100uk]

the debt already has a CCJ the question of acking it is immaterial...

as pointed out a CCJ doesn't expire.

 

still not sure its simply not willy waving

we need to see these letters.

 

has she moved in say the last 7 years?

[silentmovieman]

Shes lived in the same house for over 15 years so that's not an issue.

 

I have to agree that it seems like blustery luck trying but obviously snes concerned about the attachment issue

[dx100uk]

ah that's good news

 

sadly it'll cost £4 I think

but try WWW.trustonline.org

 

search for CCJ's at her address.

might be removed there too mind after 6yrs. not sure

 

don't know the CCJ number do you?

 

love to see those letters suitably redacted as a PDF please

[silentmovieman]

I'll get her to email them to me and then do the usual.

[silentmovieman]

Need to print the letters off to cover the personal info but I have seen both letters now.

 

The debt was originally with citizens and had been passed to M E III. They have given the original agreement number and the country court claim number. Other than that is just the usual full or the expenditure form etc.

[silentmovieman]

If they do a search for the ccj via trust online will that show up on their credit report?

[dx100uk]

no nothing to do with CRA files

[silentmovieman]

Upon speaking to my sister she remembers a debt she had with avco who I believe we're bought up by citi financial which would explain why they are named as the creditor

[dx100uk]

so citizens in post 10 should read CITI?

fat and no chance of them having an enforceable agreement then.

 

so even though they say theres a cCJ that trumps the need for an agreement

 

I bet if you send the fleecers a CCA request

they'll fail it. might be worth it IMHO

 

I take it you mean named as the original creditor

not the creditor now.

that will be? MEIII

as that will be

might be worth a try actually.

[silentmovieman]

Yeah citibank is the original creditor M E III is the current creditor so I assume it went avco to citi to M E

 

Which is the best way to go, the ccj check our the cca?

 

Remind me, does the cca constitute an admission of the debt?

[dx100uk]

no a cca doesn't where did you get that from...

 

 

check TOL but I bet its gone as over 6yrs since