11 y/o upaid CCJ being chased

[KaptRoger]

Well yes. Its all part of the fun.

 

Hillesden contract it to DLC, who contract it to Clarity, who contract it Fieldcall.............who then has to pay someone to come round - but only if I agree to an appointment.

 

It must be costing them a fortune in intergroup cross charges and post to get to the point where it started getting passed back up the chain.

[happyphil]

Hey KaptRoger

 

Im currently dealing with Clarity and im havin so much fun with them as i do with all DCA's that have tried to persue my partner for no existant debts. The debt in question was persued by wescot in 2011 and after they could get the information that i had requested from their client Arrow Global limited, wescot finaly gave in and sent a letter of appoligy and had returned the debt back to there client, So just in november 2012 Clarity send the usal 1st letter and then the letter which tells you what they are after on an alleged debt that is owed. This time they included the original lender which was HSBC along with a sort code and account number and this is where they have slipped up.

 

I sent the usal CCA request and they sent a letter back saying that there client want the usal £1 fee and then they would send me the proof. Now Clarity in there incompatence made a few couple of mistakes. firstly i had requested that all letter be addressed Care of and secondly the letter started off with a different surname, so with this i declined to pay the £1 fee based on Clarity not fully complying with my requests and the mistakes they had made. So i waited an then i got the exact same letter but with the surname changed and still asking for the £1 fee, but no appoligy for there incomapatence, so again i wrote to them saying that they had now passed the 14 days and that they shud bugger off and explain to there client as to why their request for the £1 fee was refused.

 

I then got a letter this time appoligising for the mistakes and that there client was within there rights to seek £1 fee, which i am fully aware of the CCA guidlines. I did some investigating myself into the Account number and sort code, because as you know each sort code is unige to each branch, so contacted HSBC and asked them to tell me which branch it was attached to and to my supprise it was not even a local branch, so i asked HSBC if i was to apply for any of there products and i had an HSBC account in default would this show up and the answer was yes. Also i check my credit files every month and can trace back my financal history as far back as 2002/4 and not mention of HSBC.

 

So i wrote back and explained that Clarity need to provide me with proof that the alleged default exists and provide me with the original default letter from HSBC and Proof of last payment and contact, including any contact made within the last 6 Years. I also pointed out to them that they should already be in possesion of some if not all of the infromation that should provide the proof need to legally attempt to collect.

 

I have sent all copies of letters to the Financial Ombudsman and the OFT including the letters from Wescot, because as i pointed to the OFT and The Financial Ombudsman that seems to be some discrepencies with reference numbers.

 

Oh yeah, the nail in Clarity's coffin is that i am an HSBC account holder and have been since 2008 and only have and ever have had 2 accounts and they are both used, so im interested to know how i can have a default on an account i dont have and never have had, due to the fact its in another part the of the UK and im born an bread in the city i live in.

 

All i can say is always put the ball in there court. They are the ones that have to prove you owe the default in the first place and do you own investiagtion and use the evidence against them. Never admit always deny. Send all copies of the various governing bodies and keep all records of postage. Ive sent them an invoice for every letter sent and postage including letters sent to the OFT ect.

 

I love dealing with these idiots. I have compensation out of two DCA's. One was forced to pay me and remove the default from my partners file by the Finacial Ombusman. So far out of 6 DCA's only one was Genuine.

 

Give them hell.

 

Hope this helps you and anyone else who has dealings with Clarity or any others.

 

Happyphil:whoo:

[DonkeyB]

But why do a CCA request if it’s not your account? Random!

[happyphil]

If im honest DonkeyB. I just love the satisfaction of kicking there asses, plus i sometimes do get money out of them and i love the challange.

[DonkeyB]

Nice to see the boot on the other foot, but be a bit careful – requesting a CCA might be taken to imply you acknowledge an account! Well done.

[happyphil]

Thank you.

[happyphil]

yet another victory for the small guys. Last wk i recieved a letter from Clarity, saying that they had reveiwed the case and had decided they were no longer going to persue it. Lets see who Arrow Global LTD sell this one onto this time.

[KaptRoger]

Just an update.....after a strenuous period of ignoring them (81 days)......nothing has happened. How boring. I was looking forward to hitting them figuratively with a section 24. Oh well we will probably have to wait until Christmas before they write again.

[KaptRoger]

Hi Folks,

 

I have received a letters from Hapless Solicitors in Banbury. about a Court Claim.

 

The last time I heard about this claim was just after Christmas with a letter from DLC dated 24-12-12.

The Claim according to the Court expired on January 3rd 2013.

 

This letter from Hapless ways that they are "about to issue a Warrant of Execution against you",

"this will incur additional fees and costs blah blah", "

unless you pay the amount of the Warrant the Court Bailiff will call at your address with a view to taking an inventory

and levying goods belonging to you" blah blah blah "if you wish to avoid this you must contact DLC etc etc".

 

To me this looks just like a frightener,

 

I am aware of the Limitations on CCJs but would like some reassurance, advice and perhaps a slap-in-the-face-with-a-wet-fish letter (a Brig special?)

 

The scanner is out of action at the moment so any need for the full letter will mean I will have to type it.....

 

Thanks in advance.

[unclebulgaria67]

So the CCJ was issued more than 6 years ago ?

 

If this is correct then they would have to make an application to the court and I expect that a judge is unlikely to agree to enforcement beyond 6 years of the original CCJ.

[KaptRoger]

Would that be a special kind of application or would it be covered by the "warrant of execution"?

[renegadeimp]

Just general law. A CCJ is only ever granted enforcement orders after 6 years in very very rare circumstances. The reasoning behind it is that the creditor has had 6 years to enforce it. There are no statute of limitations over a CCJ, but cases of enforcement after 6 years are very rare indeed.

[KaptRoger]

I thought that there was a limitation.......

 

Section 24 of the Limitations Act 1980....

 

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

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgement debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

 

I was wondering if the site felt that this no longer applies because things have changed?

[renegadeimp]

County Court Judgement

If the creditor has previously taken you to court and you have received a County Court Judgement, you will be unable to use the Limitations Act 1980 to dispute the debt. If the judgement is over 6 years old the creditor may need the permission of the Court to enforce the debt.

 

found at http://www.payplan.com/debt-library/joint-and-several-liability-the-limitation-act-1980.php

[KaptRoger]

So is it a case of sit tight and see what happen?

[dx100uk]

dear silly solicitor

 

I have confirmed via a copy of the CCJ that you are not the named claimant.

 

This CCj has not been enforced or paid or ack'd by any method

by my self or the named claimant in over 6yrs.

 

It is highly unlikely that any judge would:

 

1. allow a change of claimant after 6yrs.

 

2. enforcement after 6yrs.

 

should you wish to do so

 

then I will vigorously use all the power of the various laws to block you attempt to fleece me

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Folks,

 

I have received a letters from Hapless Solicitors in Banbury. about a Court Claim.

 

The last time I heard about this claim was just after Christmas with a letter from DLC dated 24-12-12.

The Claim according to the Court expired on January 3rd 2013.

 

This letter from Hapless ways that they are "about to issue a Warrant of Execution against you",

"this will incur additional fees and costs blah blah", "

unless you pay the amount of the Warrant the Court Bailiff will call at your address with a view to taking an inventory

and levying goods belonging to you" blah blah blah "if you wish to avoid this you must contact DLC etc etc".

 

To me this looks just like a frightener,

 

I am aware of the Limitations on CCJs but would like some reassurance, advice and perhaps a slap-in-the-face-with-a-wet-fish letter (a Brig special?)

 

The scanner is out of action at the moment so any need for the full letter will mean I will have to type it.....

 

Thanks in advance.

Good morning,

 

For clarification please, The judgement date and the detail of the judgement order e.g. payment forthwith or by a certain date?

 

Have you at any point made any payment or offer of payment in writing to anyone including the court?

Has there at any time been a warrant issued prior to the current threat?

 

I will of course draft a letter if you wish.

[sequenci]

I thought that there was a limitation.......

 

Section 24 of the Limitations Act 1980....

 

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

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgement debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

 

I was wondering if the site felt that this no longer applies because things have changed?

 

s24 isn't concerned with procedures to enforce existing judgments but only with the right to bring a new action based on the existing judgment. As the others have said, though, leave of the court is very unlikely to allow the warrant. If you're interested in looking in to it the cases of note are Lamb & Sons v Rider [1948] and Lowsley v Forbes [1999].

 

There is, too, a statutory rule re: the 6 years for enforcement via a WOE - CPR Schedule 2 CCR Order 26 Rule 5

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good morning Sequenci,

 

There has as you know been some discussion on the site regarding the LA on enforcement of CCJ Judgement Orders after 6 years

have elapsed.

 

It is true that there are some types of loan including Mortgages Under Seal to which varying Limitation Terms apply.

 

After 6 years have elapsed WITHOUT ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION being taken then the claimant must seek leave of the court to seek enforcement, there is a very limited number of reasons available to claimants to put to a court when making such an application e.g. fraud cases and the recovery of the proceeds of crime, or deliberate and provable debt avoidance, e.g. changing a name.

 

Some have argued here that the Act does not prohibit the enforcement action in anyway, this hypothesis is flawed.

 

The process remains unchanged and hopefully will be so for a long time, unless the limitation period is shortened

to a more reasonable 3 years as proposed a couple of times in the past and then shelved because the CSA threatened to overwhelm the court system with claims.

[sequenci]

Good morning Sequenci,

Morning brig!

It is true that there are some types of loan including Mortgages Under Seal to which varying Limitation Terms apply.

yes, I know. I'm not sure why you're telling me this - it doesn't seem relevant.

After 6 years have elapsed WITHOUT ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION being taken then the claimant must seek leave of the court to seek enforcement, there is a very limited number of reasons available to claimants to put to a court when making such an application e.g. fraud cases and the recovery of the proceeds of crime, or deliberate and provable debt avoidance, e.g. changing a name.

Leave is only required for the use of bailiffs (either county or high court) - the reason being is that all other enforcement/execution mechanisms generate a hearing where the issue of time delay can be raised then.

Some have argued here that the Act does not prohibit the enforcement action in anyway, this hypothesis is flawed.

What do you mean? I'm confused by this statement - can you elaborate? It's been a long day already! - All I know is that s24 has nothing to do with an existing CCJ - as per what I've written above.

The process remains unchanged and hopefully will be so for a long time, unless the limitation period is shortened

to a more reasonable 3 years as proposed a couple of times in the past and then shelved because the CSA threatened to overwhelm the court system with claims.

Not sure why you've posted this sentence? Sorry!

[KaptRoger]

Hi. The debt was a cc debt defaulted in around March 2006. It looks like it was sold to Hilly some time in 2006 and it appears that they obtained a judgment end of December 2006 against me. All of this was unknown to me due to the fact I had moved and the redirection did not have any of letters relating to this forwarded to me.

 

There have been a few (four) letters since about November 2010. Mostly "give us money""why? Who are you?" "You owe money because we say so" "Prove it please" And then nothing until December last year "contact us and pay" then this one. So not really much effort to get me to pay.

 

The court told me that the ccj expired at the end of December 2012 and that it was in favour of hilly. Trust shows nothing.

 

I suppose my question is what can they realistically do?

Edited July 26, 2013 by KaptRoger

[sequenci]

Realistically very little. As the folks have already stated they would need to apply to seek the use of bailiff action - you can be rest assured that the court are highly likely to reject the application.

 

If it was me I would tell them that since the judgment was eneterd against you more than 6 years ago they will be refused leave to enforce via bailiffs and that they're wasting their time.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I suggest the following to Hapless and Useless solicitors.

 

Ref: use theirs:

 

Sir/Madam.

 

I refer to a letter dated xx.xx.xx in regard to a County Court Judgement obtained by xxxxxxxxxxx on a xx.xx.xxxxx for a sum of £xxx.xx.

 

I am sure as firm of solicitors that the judgement in question was made well over 6 years ago and that there has been not contact, payment or acknowledgment of this at any time, nor has any party contacted me in over 6 years and more importantly NO enforcement action has been taken at anytime by any party.

 

I am sure that I do not have to remind a firm of solicitors of the Sections of The Limitations Act 1980 which are applicable to this matter.

 

It is difficult to decide if your client has misled you or if Hapless is attempting to intimidate me in to making a payment on this matter.

 

As I had no knowledge of any such judgement and had no chance to defend it any attempt to restart action of any sort will be rigorously defended, involving your client if further costs.

 

This communication IS NOT an admission of any liability to Hapless and/or its client.

 

Please note this is my FINAL RESPONSE.

 

The letter is sent by RM recorded/signed for delivery and its receipt will be chacked.

 

Haplesss should now close the file on this matter and return it to the 'client.

[sequenci]

That letter is incorrect. The LA doesn't apply for the reasons I've already stated.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The solicitor is SEEKING A WARRANT OF EXECUTION. such applications do not believe generate any hearing, a hearing will be needed if the debtor wants to have the warrant suspended.

So letter is correct.