What happens if you don't pay a CCJ

[Bouffont]

I was talking to someone today who said that since he moved to New Zealand he's not going to pay the fee's for his CCJ in england because he won't be back in England for over 6 years and by that time it's off his credit record.

 

Is this right or should I warn him otherwise?

[gyzmo]

Not an expert in this area, but he would certainly be in contempt of court. I suppose it is possible that the authorities could chase him in NZ, but I am not certain. It sounds a risky game. If he were right, there would hardly be anyone left in the country!

[buzby]

NO CONTEMPT whatsoever. He's perfectly entitled to ignore the CCJ, it is up to the coeditor to pursue and arrange for his assets to be seized - which may include property. If the due diligence does not work, then after six years both his credit record will be clear and his CCJ expired. However, if it becomes known he's moved to NZ,he could be pursued there also....

[Guest strangewayofsavin]

it depends on the common wealth countries laws, If he moved to Austrailia, he can still be persued, however in Canada he cannot, not sure about NZ.

[Bouffont]

interesting, he may possibly be correct then! Wow, that's good news for any immoral people emigrating to canada!

If that same as Australia applies to NZ I suppose it all boils down to if they can find you over there. Any ideas how hard these companies try to locate people? He told me today it was 30 flippin grand!!! Blimey, my debts don't even reach a third of that and thats enough!

[buzby]

I think for £30k, there may well be interest in pursuing him, but it probably won;t be the original creditor that will expend the effort. It is well known that credit card firms and other institutions sell on debts to other firms who specialise in recovering delinquent accounts.

 

It would well be sold on for - say - £5k to a collections firm, who will then use the difference between what they paid and what was owed to fund the tracing and formal recovery in ANY administration.

[Bouffont]

Any ideas how they do this? I find this quite interesting.

[buzby]

It is up to the recovery agency - due diligence, through Electoral Register, newspaper reports anything else that puts the debtor's head above the parapet is fair game. Only a name change (either formally or informally) removes this possibility.

[Bouffont]

Wow, I wonder what the most elaborate find they've ever had is. I'll warn him of this and tell him to stay off the telly (or to pay his dues)

[Josie8]

A CCJ can be enforced at any time - there is no statute of limitations on it i.e. 6 years. However the information will be erased from the CCJ register and therefore your credit record. But the debt still exists and debt collectors can come calling 10 years or more after. It is always essential if you pay a CCJ that you keep the paperwork recording final payment indefinitely

[sequenci]

his CCJ expired.quote

 

CCJs do NOT expire. In theory one can be chased forever for an outstanding CCJ. The leave of the court may be required for enforcement but fi there is good reason, it will be granted.

[buzby]

In Scotland they do. A Sheriff will ask why due diligence had not taken within the relevant period (five years) and whilst it can be reactivated, it requires a further court fee to do so - so using the term 'expiry' is quite correct. As to E&W, as you note, leave of enforcement is a similar step so whilst a full hearing may not be required, a renewal of the order would be required before re-service. Therefore as using the original documentation would be deemed incompetent, my saying it would expire is still a valid interpretation. In any event, Registry Trust would cease to list it as outstanding or satisfied whatever the actual disposition.

[tomterm8]

In any event, Registry Trust would cease to list it as outstanding or satisfied whatever the actual disposition.

 

Someone who has an unsatisfied CCJ has every right to reregister it indefinatly (except possibly in scotland, I don't do scotland, LOL).

[buzby]

I'm only going on a hazy memory (it's the Irn Bru, honest), that whilst a re-registration is feasible the court would have to be satisfied that the pursuer had used due diligence in the past and had been unsuccessful. As an exercise to keep the debt enforcement alive for possible assignation to a debt collector subsequently, I don't think would be a simple task. Also, if they've taken 6 years and got nowhere, why pour more good money after bad (as the pursuer). If they haven't got it in 4 years, they'll probably never get it!

[blacksheep1979]

Also the ccj will be registered with the cra who are not just in the UK - he will find it very difficult to get any credit anywhere in Aus/NZ/US with a ccj.

[buzby]

Perhaps, but it'll only throw up the details if he gives his previous address as the UK, and if he's going to the trouble of emigrating, how likely is that?

[blacksheep1979]

well if he doesn't give his previous addresses and only has a few months at the current one he won't get credit either and as I found to my annoyance (due to incorrect data on cra file) if you don't disclose prior addresses when asked you get a CIFAS warning on your file too.

[buzby]

THAT would be a big mistake if they did - a fraud warning simply for not supplying a previous address? They'd never be out of court having to defend their position if that became common practice. According to the CIFAS rules, a provable irregularity or fraud attempt must be perpetrated before the flag is set, but then, nothing surprises me these days. Who needs courts to administer justice when a CRA can do it much better and cheaper without an annoying judicial process?

[blacksheep1979]

Well thats what I had - had a letter from a Barrister no less stating that I wasn't living there at the time and neither the company that were offering the credit nor the cra were willing to remove the cifas warning.

 

There are several cifas warnings and mine was for attempting to gain credit with partially true info/withholding info or somethign to that effect.

[buzby]

This would be at the discretion of the lender, and who would ultimately be responsible to support the allegation if challenged. From memory there had to be more than an intent to defraud (by omission) there had to be a provable misleading statement. You can't remember the precise wording?

[Surfer01]

Forget the CCJ bit, the Contempt of Court can be enforcable for up 21 years however I am open to debate on the time period.