CCJ removal.

Thrugelmir

The original CCJ was granted for a valid reason. So there's no grounds for it to be set aside. Whether you settle the debt the debt or not it will remain on the Register for 6 years.

ValHaller

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The original CCJ was granted for a valid reason. So there's no grounds for it to be set aside. Whether you settle the debt the debt or not it will remain on the Register for 6 years.

No, we don't know that. You presumably know no more than anyone else apart from OP about the situation. While I can agree that OP seems to be misunderstanding something, equally if BH got the CCJ after passing the debt on, there may be grounds to set aside, so I think you are somewhat out of turn in making such a clearcut statement on the information we have

According to OP, BH don't think that the CCJ should stand. So OP should not feel discouraged from coming back here and telling us more so that we can get to the bottom of this

matttye

The judgment should still be able to be set aside even if he owed money when it was made, because he doesn't owe the money now. The situation has changed and there should not be a judgment in force telling him to pay Black Horse when he doesn't owe them any money.

Ordinarily a company wouldn't sell a debt on after obtaining a ccj because they've secured the court's support in enforcement of the debt.

ValHaller

matttye wrote: »

The judgment should still be able to be set aside even if he owed money when it was made, because he doesn't owe the money now. The situation has changed and there should not be a judgment in force telling him to pay Black Horse when he doesn't owe them any money.

Ordinarily a company wouldn't sell a debt on after obtaining a ccj because they've secured the court's support in enforcement of the debt.

It is an interesting take on the situation. I don't quite buy the argument, because I don't see why BH should not be able to sell on the benefit of the CCJ.

antrobus

matttye wrote: »

The judgment should still be able to be set aside even if he owed money when it was made, because he doesn't owe the money now. The situation has changed and there should not be a judgment in force telling him to pay Black Horse when he doesn't owe them any money.....

Nonsense.

The nation is full of people who've had CCJs awarded against them and have then gone on to settle the debt at some future date. That's why CRA's record CCJs as being 'satisfied'. Paying a debt that was the subject of a CCJ isn't a valid reason to have the original CCJ set aside.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The original CCJ was granted for a valid reason. So there's no grounds for it to be set aside. Whether you settle the debt the debt or not it will remain on the Register for 6 years.

I tend to agree.

"County court judgments cannot be removed from credit files unless they have been discharged (within a month) or were incorrectly granted."

http://www.trustonline.org.uk/understand-judgments-fines/removing-a-ccj

matttye

antrobus wrote: »

Nonsense.

The nation is full of people who've had CCJs awarded against them and have then gone on to settle the debt at some future date. That's why CRA's record CCJs as being 'satisfied'. Paying a debt that was the subject of a CCJ isn't a valid reason to have the original CCJ set aside.



I tend to agree.

"County court judgments cannot be removed from credit files unless they have been discharged (within a month) or were incorrectly granted."

http://www.trustonline.org.uk/understand-judgments-fines/removing-a-ccj

The CCJ hasn't been satisfied though as the debt hasn't been paid, it's just been sold on.

Clearly there shouldn't be a live CCJ when he doesn't owe money. If not set aside then it should be marked as satisfied or something.

matttye

ValHaller wrote: »

It is an interesting take on the situation. I don't quite buy the argument, because I don't see why BH should not be able to sell on the benefit of the CCJ.

The court makes an order for A to pay B. The court has to vary the terms of the order if another company is to become 'B' and the debtor would be given the chance to attend a hearing and argue against the change. I cant think of a good argument against it being changed, but clearly, unless a big part of the story hasn't been told, this hasn't happened in the OP's case.

You can't just buy a CCJ and become the beneficiary of it.

shortcrust

Isn't the OP really asking whether the CCJ can be removed from his file? It's a different question to whether the CCJ can be transferred between lenders. Doesn't the CCJ remain on the register regardless of any subsequent repayment unless within the first month? It's shown as settled, but it's still there for the six years and will have a negative impact for that time.

matttye

shortcrust wrote: »

Isn't the OP really asking whether the CCJ can be removed from his file? It's a different question to whether the CCJ can be transferred between lenders. Doesn't the CCJ remain on the register regardless of any subsequent repayment unless within the first month? It's shown as settled, but it's still there for the six years and will have a negative impact for that time.

Oh yes it'll definitely stay on his file for six years; I'm just arguing that the CCJ should not be live in its' current form when he no longer owes the applicant any money.

ValHaller

matttye wrote: »

Oh yes it'll definitely stay on his file for six years; I'm just arguing that the CCJ should not be live in its' current form when he no longer owes the applicant any money.

matttye wrote: »

The court makes an order for A to pay B. The court has to vary the terms of the order if another company is to become 'B' and the debtor would be given the chance to attend a hearing and argue against the change. I cant think of a good argument against it being changed, but clearly, unless a big part of the story hasn't been told, this hasn't happened in the OP's case.

You can't just buy a CCJ and become the beneficiary of it.

A ccj is based on 2 of pillars of truth

• That there was a contractual debt
• That the debt has not been settled

And on those pillars rests the outcome

• That the defendant be ordered to pay etc.

As far as I can see, judgement is probably correctly lodged against OP and regardless of selling on the debt, the pillars of truth remain and the ccj should stand.

The doubts in my mind are solely

• That BH may have gained the ccj after selling the debt on - in which case they would not have the standing to bring an action - and a ccj set aside would be the correct outcome
• That BH may not have brought a valid action through not communicating correctly with OP

This requires OP to return and clarify.