CAT 'debt' CCJ been sold on twice

[dx100uk]

you need to use the ad at the time of the CCJ

 

dx

[Greentea]

you need to use the ad at the time of the CCJ

 

dx

 

I am not sure what you mean DX the search was done under his name and address at the time of the CCJ and nothing came up.

 

Looking at old docs he asked the new solicitor that took was suppose to have taken over the payments 2009

they would not let him have the authorization from the court that they should have had in order for them to collect the money for the CCJ.

 

He was also paying the £1 a month by payment book that was issued to him when the order was made

but the new sols would not let him have one.

 

He did no pay anything to them as they would not supply any docs from the court to verify that they were legally able to collect CJJ money.

 

As there is nothing register against his name and these new DC are trying to collect the full amount can he just refuse until they produce the relevant information for them to collect.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Greentea

[unclebulgaria67]

The CCJ from 2000 will still be valid, as he was making payments up to 2009. It is just that the new debt owner does not currently have the ability to obtain payments under that CCJ, as it was not their judgement.

 

At this stage I don't think I would be replying to correspondence. It is up to them to find out the score with the debt and to deal with it properly.

[dx100uk]

agreed ignore the little spoofers

 

dx

[the tinkerman]

My CCJ was still in the original creditors name and had been sold twice to which I had no idea it had been as stated in my earlier post.

 

When the second DCA took me back to court for a variation and CO I explained to the Judge "it was not their judgement" as the CCJ was still in the original creditors name, she said did not matter one iota, they have bought the debt therefore they are entitled to collect it regardless of the name on the original CCJ.

[renegadeimp]

Except the judge was wrong. They bought the debt and yes, they can collect on it, but the judgement was not in their name so they cannot use it until that judgement is transferred to the new owner.

[AndyOrch]

Except the judge was wrong. They bought the debt and yes, they can collect on it, but the judgement was not in their name so they cannot use it until that judgement is transferred to the new owner.

 

[dx100uk]

ruddy judge lottery

 

tink i'd get that back in court if it were me

 

dx

[the tinkerman]

I agree 100% the Judge was wrong no bones about it, as she was with allot of things in my case, but again as stated earlier what the law actually states and what the Judges interpretation or perception of the law is are two different animals.

 

Even when you have it in black and white and given a copy to the judge, but when you have no Solicitor on your side and the other side do its a case of a nods as good as a wink if you know what I mean all to in the click for my liking and I was told quite categorically that if I wanted to challenge any of the decisions then I could but at a COST and I mean a COST!

 

Now I know were they get the meaning "THE LAW IS AN ASS" from, no truer words said.

 

It certainly opened my eyes and there are many more people on CAG whom have suffered the same fate to.

 

Think MIKE770 summed it up earlier in the thread regarding appeal process

Edited October 10, 2012 by the tinkerman

[renegadeimp]

Thats why appeals process exists. The judge still has to follow the letter of the law. They cant simply interpret it completely different than what it states. And in this case, with CCJ's, it's pretty clear.

 

As i said before, when a debt is sold to a new owner, that new owner, as the judge rightly said, inherits all responsibility and can collect on the debt. However, they CANNOT use the CCJ. The CCJ is a seperate legal mechanic added onto the debt in a specific name, which ONLY grants the named person/company the right to ask for enforcement orders on said debt. For the new owner to be able to utilise this CCJ, the new owner must apply to the court and have the CCJ transferred. If this doesn't happen, then really, in the eyes of the law, and indeed the new owner, the CCJ exists, but can never be used.

 

Most DCA's never bother to transfer the CCJ as it costs too much for them to do, given the value of some of the debts, and its much more cost efficient to simply threaten and scare debtors who dont know the law, with threats of enforcing the CCJ, even though legally they cant use it.

 

Whats sad however, is circumstances like yours, where the Judge is simply ignorant of how they work. They understand the legalities of selling/buying debts, but often not the attached legal issues.

[the tinkerman]

In my case when the DCA took me to court for a variation and CO they simply asked for a substitution from the original creditors name into the DCA name, even though the DCA bought the debt back in 2001 yet only took me to court for a variation, CO and asked for a substitution in 2011 and it was backdated to 2001:roll: