Does a substitute of claimant form from court mean anything to me with regards to an existing CCJ?

Lagroid

Hello,

Today I received a letter regarding a 4 year old CCJ which I’ve ignored completely, with the intention of allowing it to become statute barred after it drops off in 2 years.

the letter today says “we have since made an application to substitute the Claimant on record from Xxxx to Xxxx. Our application has been granted” 

the letter is from a solicitor representing the new company that purchased the debt. They’ve attached a copy of some form which references N244, but is quite basic. 

Does this mean anything important or is it simply just the claimant that purchased the debt wanting to change the name of the debt on record against the CCJ?

thanks

redrosebud

Lagroid said:

Today I received a letter regarding a 4 year old CCJ which I’ve ignored completely, with the intention of allowing it to become statute barred after it drops off in 2 years.

I can't speak to the rest of your post, but a CCJ does not ever become statute barred as legal action was taken within the limitation period. It will, however, fall off your credit reports 6 years after the CCJ, but the debt remains. It does become harder to enforce with time, though.

Lagroid

redrosebud said:

Lagroid said:

Today I received a letter regarding a 4 year old CCJ which I’ve ignored completely, with the intention of allowing it to become statute barred after it drops off in 2 years.

I can't speak to the rest of your post, but a CCJ does not ever become statute barred as legal action was taken within the limitation period. It will, however, fall off your credit reports 6 years after the CCJ, but the debt remains. It does become harder to enforce with time, though.

Yes, sorry that makes sense. Apologies for saying statue barred.

I hope somebody on the forum can just clarify this form is simply a name change from claimant to claimant on the CCJ. Potentially in hopes to send something that looks official so they can prompt a response.

MorningcoffeeIV

Lagroid said:

Does this mean anything important or is it simply just the claimant that purchased the debt wanting to change the name of the debt on record against the CCJ?

It just means there's a greater chance that they'll now look to enforce the CCJ.

As above, it won't become statute barred either way.

Lagroid

MorningcoffeeIV said:

Lagroid said:

Hello,

Today I received a letter regarding a 4 year old CCJ which I’ve ignored completely, with the intention of allowing it to become statute barred after it drops off in 2 years.

the letter today says “we have since made an application to substitute the Claimant on record from Xxxx to Xxxx. Our application has been granted” 

the letter is from a solicitor representing the new company that purchased the debt. They’ve attached a copy of some form which references N244, but is quite basic. 

Does this mean anything important or is it simply just the claimant that purchased the debt wanting to change the name of the debt on record against the CCJ?

thanks

It just means there's a greater chance that they'll now look to enforce the CCJ.

As above, it won't become statute barred either way 

Thanks for clarifying. 

Lagroid

This seems to be part of the Lowell -> Hoist purchase back in September. Did some Googling and this is happening to everybody with debts with Hoist. 

sourcrates

Just to further clarify, as there is a lot of contradictory information out there, a creditor must apply to extend enforcement action, before the 6 years are up.

Once it hits 6 years, it won`t go statute barred, as you know, but it does become unenforceable, and the creditor is then too late to use the courts to collect the debt.

It appears Hoist are clearing the decks for an influx of new business.