10 year old CCJ, being chased for the money.

oldccj2011

My partner has recently been chased for £4000 for an old CCJ from 2011 on a credit card that she took out but her husband at the time used and didn't pay off. We had thought that after 6 years the CCJ and the debt was gone but it seems not. Nobody had been in touch with her since the CCJ was taken out as at the time she was unemployed, having just left her husband and living with friends, so there was no way to pay. Is there anyway she doesn't have to pay, there seems to be this belief that after 6 or 7 years you can't be chased for a debt but what I am reading suggests they can chase you indefinitely if a CCJ was granted. Appreciate any advice. 

[Deleted User]

 The debt is still there, its always there but its not enforceable in a Court. So they cant take her back to Court to get another CCJ. Its just a debt collection company trying their luck probably 

PRAISETHESUN

The debt is still always there, even if no CCJ is obtained, it's just a question of whether or not it can be enforced. My understanding is that in theory a CCJ can be chased indefinitely, but in practice if the lender doesn't do anything to enforce the judgement within 6 years of the CCJ being granted then they need to go back to court and get permission again to enforce the judgement. 

fatbelly

oldccj2011 said:

My partner has recently been chased for £4000 for an old CCJ from 2011 on a credit card that she took out but her husband at the time used and didn't pay off. We had thought that after 6 years the CCJ and the debt was gone but it seems not. Nobody had been in touch with her since the CCJ was taken out as at the time she was unemployed, having just left her husband and living with friends, so there was no way to pay. Is there anyway she doesn't have to pay, there seems to be this belief that after 6 or 7 years you can't be chased for a debt but what I am reading suggests they can chase you indefinitely if a CCJ was granted. Appreciate any advice. 

Yes, they have six years to start a court claim and it sound like they did. Now they are supposed to enforce a judgement within six years from the judgement date. If they want to do this (by Bailiffs, charging order or attachment of earnings for example) outside the six years they have to explain to the court why they took so long.

In this case it's just that some debt collection agency has linked this debt to your partner at your address and so they're seeing if she will cough up.

With credit cards the liability is always with the main cardholder even if there is a second card holder.

Do they actually quote the CCJ reference? It's in a format like 1XY23456. It's possible they don't know there is a ccj on it. 

It's also fairly probably that they would take a settlement deal on this if she can find £1500-2000.

Billy_B_North

_shel said:

 The debt is still there, its always there but its not enforceable in a Court. So they cant take her back to Court to get another CCJ. Its just a debt collection company trying their luck probably 

What do you mean by saying it’s not enforceable? A CCJ never becomes statute barred.

fatbelly

Under civil procedure rules the debt cannot be enforced (by Bailiffs, charging order or attachment of earnings for example) later than six years after the judgement without having to explain to the court why they took so long. Permission may be granted, or refused

sourcrates

Certain collection agencies specialise in buying up old debts that may have been through the court process, or may now be statute barred, or have some other issue regarding enforceability, they then chase the debtor for the full amount, not really knowing the debts status, hoping they can be persuaded to pay up in full.

Its a good policy, for them, lots of folk have no idea about their rights, or the status of debts after certain time periods have passed, if someone approaches you to pay a debt, you should always respond in writing, to keep a paper trail, and to keep things on a professional level.

We recommend you send this "provit letter" to them, as anyone asking you to pay a debt must provide evidence of liability when asked to do so, they cannot just rock up demanding money from you without providing written evidence that you actually owe the money -

Letter when you know nothing about about the debt - AKA "Prove it" letter — MoneySavingExpert Forum

There response will determine whether they know about the CCJ or not, remember, if they are aware of it, they would have to spend time and money seeking the courts permission to further enforce this debt, something the court , after such a long time, may not be willing to do.

However, that information is for your next reply, not this one, your task now is to send the "provit letter", and see what comes back, keep us updated.

oldccj2011

Thanks for the answers. They are aware of the CCJ as they have told us the date which was March 2011. Should we still do the Prove It letter?

Thanks

sourcrates

oldccj2011 said:

Thanks for the answers. They are aware of the CCJ as they have told us the date which was March 2011. Should we still do the Prove It letter?

Thanks

In that case you can skip straight to the next stage, where you point out that a ten year old judgement would need the courts approval to further enforce it, and would require a very good reason why the judgement has not been enforced in the previous 10 years.

It`s unlikely they will have an argument sufficient to explain this.

Then your options are to either, offer a small amount of money to make this go away, or call their bluff on the CCJ and hope they quietly put this to one side and forget about it.

goldieandblackie

Here is a letter which you can fill out and send to them, worked for me as they tried chasing a 13 year debt
time-has-run-out-recover-debt-ew

sourcrates

goldieandblackie said:

Here is a letter which you can fill out and send to them, worked for me as they tried chasing a 13 year debt
time-has-run-out-recover-debt-ew

Unfortunately, once legal action has been taken, the limitation act no longer applies.

Time has run out to enforce this judgement, but its covered under the civil procedure rules, not under the limitation act, so this letter would not be appropriate.