CCJ on credit file marked as unsatisfied despite settling out of court.

avatar90

Hi everyone,
I'm looking for some advice regarding a CCJ I have on my credit file from 3 years ago.
A CCJ was filed against me by someone I owed consultancy fees to. I couldn't afford to pay it at the time so I handled it all directly with the claimant over email outside of the court. We settled on a lower amount that they originally claimed from me and I have a signed letter from the claimant confirming that upon receiving the payment from me and signing of the letter, all other amounts owed to to them will be considered wiped, and no other claims against me or my future endeavours could be paid. I payed the creditor the amount we agreed via PayPal which I also have proof of. Following that I had an email from the creditor confirming the small claims court claim has now been ended and listed as resolved. Everything was very amicable and we're still on good terms to this day. After that I assumed all was well and dealt with until I recently got credit checked and failed as a result of the CCJ still on my record and I requested a report and the CCJ is currently marked as unsatisfied. I'm wondering what are my options at the moment and how this can be fixed?
Hope you can help

[Deleted User]

Do you mean they completed the CCJ against you, went to court etc and it was issued against you?

avatar90

I had a claim in the post from the County Court Business Centre. I never went to caught nor have I heard any follow up from the court up since it was settled privately. 

waamo

Did you complete the Acknowledgment of Service? It asks you if you want to admit to the claim, admit part of the claim or defend the claim. If you did which box did you tick?

MalMonroe

You say "Following that I had an email from the creditor confirming the small claims court claim has now been ended and listed as resolved", so you may need to contact the court to verify that that actually happened. It does seem as if the official process was not properly completed as it should have been. 

If I were you I'd contact the claimant, as you say you are still on good terms, just to check and then contact the court to ask why it's not been officially recorded as resolved, as it should have been.

Fighter1986

I've encountered this dire gap in how court data is reported and recorded in the public register.

CCJs allow claimants to record two forms of settlement:

Satisfied: Means "Paid in Full"
Settled: Means "Settled by means other than payment in full".

If a claimant notifies the court that a debt has been "Settled", ths information is not passed on to the Registry Trust, and therefore no Date of Satisfaction is ever recorded in the public register.

If a claimant notifies the court that a debt has been "Satisfied", this information is passed on to the Registry Trust, and therefore a date of satisfaction is recorded in the public register.

I've complained about this to the ICO as it is my belief that the data being recorded in the public register about Settled CCJs is "Inadequate" (and therefore a breach of the DPA 2018). My basis for believing the data is inadequate, is that it doesn't, unequivocally tell an interested party (bank, lender, insurer, employer, letting agent) that I (or you) no longer have any liability to the claimant.

The ICO initially failed to address this and arbitrarily closed my case without directly addressing my concern, so I've escalated it as a formal complaint to them now.

I suggest you file a complaint with the ICO too, against the Ministry of Justice. The basis for your complaint is exactly the same as mine - that the data held in the public register is in breach of the third dictate of the DPA 2018, in so far as the data is not adequate. It does not demonstrate to an interested party, unequivocally, that you no longer have a liability to the claimant.

Your case is slightly different in that your matter has been settled by way of negotiation, and mine by way of a successfully completed insolvency, but the NET effect is the same. 

If it helps, here is a copy of the formal complaint I've escalated to the ICO (with personal information removed). You're welcome to use excerpts from this as you wish:

"

1.   What do you think we did wrong?

 

My complaint pertains to case <REDACTED>. It is a nuanced case, wherein it has become evident that the Ministry of Justice do not have a mechanism in place for holding and making publicly available adequate information for an interested third party to see without doubt, that an individual, who has had a CCJ written off under a successfully completed insolvency, no longer has a liability to the claimant.

 

Case in point:

 

I was taken to court by a claimant who obtained a CCJ against me under reference <REDACTED>, on <REDACTED>. The debt which this CCJ pertains to was subsequently integrated into bankruptcy order <REDACTED> on <REDACTED>. I was discharged from this bankruptcy on <REDACTED>, and on that date released from all liability to any lenders who formed part of this bankruptcy order.

 

The ICO’s own guidance notes in a situation of this nature read:

 

Once you have been discharged you will have to notify each of the lenders whose accounts were included in this bankruptcy as they will not automatically be told. You should send them the evidence of this and ask them to amend their entry on your credit file to reflect this. The specifics of how it will look vary depending on the CRA but the entries should be marked in such a way that any lender searching your credit file can clearly see that this debt is no longer outstanding and you are not being pursued for it. Most accounts that have been discharged from bankruptcy will show as settled/satisfied or partially settled/satisfied with a zero balance outstanding.

If any of the lenders respond refusing to amend their entry or fail to amend their entry within one month of receiving your proof of discharge you may wish to make a complaint to the ICO. Please note, in this instance it is the lender who is the subject of any complaint you raise with us, not the CRA.

Upon my discharge from bankruptcy, all lenders notified the credit reference agencies, and all of my accounts were marked as closed and settled with £NIL balances. The two lenders whos accounts had gone to CCJ prior to my bankruptcy also wrote to the courts, and uncovered a gross flaw in the system:

<REDACTED>, CCJ <REDACTED> wrote to the court advising them that my debt was Satisfied. The court updated the registry trust and the registry trust updated the credit reference agencies. The publicly available data clearly shows any interested party that I now no longer have any liability under this case.

 

<REDACTED>, CCJ <REDACTED> wrote to the court advising my debt was Settled. The court didn’t update the registry trust and the registry trust therefore didn’t update the credit reference agencies. The publicly available data clearly alleges to any interested party that this liability is outstanding.

 

This is a material inaccuracy. It is borne out of the fact that, when a court receives notification that a debt has been satisfied, they update the registry trust, as they interpret the word satisfied to mean paid in full, however when a court receives notification that a debt has been settled, they have no mechanism for passing this data on to the registry trust.

 

The system as it exists at present, has no way to demonstrate publicly that a defendant no longer has a liability towards a CCJ / claimant where the debt has been settled by means other than payment in full (e.g. by way of a successfully completed insolvency).

 

Therefore, the publicly facing data pertaining to me under case <REDACTED> is inadequate and materially inaccurate. It leads any interested party (lender, insurer, employer, landlord, or bank) to believe that I have an outstanding liability under this case.

I do not. It was written off under my bankruptcy. The public record needs to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that as of <REDACTED> I have no outstanding liability under case <REDACTED>.

I have sent more than sufficient evidence to the original case handler <REDACTED> to prove this, however he has not performed due diligence under this case ensuring that the publicly facing data is either corrected to be sufficient and accurate, or suppressed from public view. I would at the very least expect that it be ordered by the ICO that the publicly available data under this case reference be suppressed until such a time that a suitable mechanism exists between the MOJ and the Registry Trust to allow accurate reporting of when a debtor has been released from his liabilities under a CCJ."

avatar90

Thanks for your advice I've emailed the courts and explained the situation so waiting on what they say. I'll keep the thread updated with my progress incase anyone else has the same issues. 

Fighter1986

avatar90 said:

Thanks for your advice I've emailed the courts and explained the situation so waiting on what they say. I'll keep the thread updated with my progress incase anyone else has the same issues. 

The courts won't do anything - they'll confirm that your record has been updated to show the matter as "Settled" but this won't be reflected in the public register, or with the registry trust, or on your credit file, because you settled the case by means other than payment in full.

Hence escalation to the ICO; but I suppose you need the court to reply first so that you can tell the ICO that you've "Tried" with the courts.

Good luck, it's going to be a long road ahead getting this one sorted... I'm on eight months and counting. 

waamo

As I asked earlier did you complete the AoS? If you didn't a ccj will have been entered by default. You and your friend can email all you like and it will be ignored. Unless the correct process is followed nothing will happen.

The burning question, therefore, is did you follow the correct process.

Fighter1986

As an alternative you can submit an N244 for a "mutually agreed set-aside" in which case both parties jointly make the submission, there is a £100 fee for this, and will result in the CCJ being expunged from your history.

If you're on amicable terms with the person who sued you now this is going to be much easier than the process I'm having to follow with my paticular issue!

Jumblebumble

Fighter1986 said:

 

<REDACTED>, CCJ <REDACTED> wrote to the court advising my debt was Settled. The court didn’t update the registry trust and the registry trust therefore didn’t update the credit reference agencies. The publicly available data clearly alleges to any interested party that this liability is outstanding.

 

This is a material inaccuracy. It is borne out of the fact that, when a court receives notification that a debt has been satisfied, they update the registry trust, as they interpret the word satisfied to mean paid in full, however when a court receives notification that a debt has been settled, they have no mechanism for passing this data on to the registry trust.

 

The system as it exists at present, has no way to demonstrate publicly that a defendant no longer has a liability towards a CCJ / claimant where the debt has been settled by means other than payment in full (e.g. by way of a successfully completed insolvency).

 

I am having a bit of a struggle here
Surely The courts job on a settled but not satisfied  CCJ is only  to prevent enforcement action and has nothing to do with telling others that you do not owe the money
I am not surprised the ICO are ignoring you as in the case of a satisfied judgement this shows the debt was paid  whereas in your case a court said you don't need to pay
To look at the ICOs point of view it may be that they ask "Is it fair on others who might be considering granting you credit that they should be led to  believe that you paid when you did nothing of the sort ?"