Bristol and Wessex Water & Charging order, they say they want paying now..

[chiefmegawatty]

Ims21, thanks for your reply.

[Ganymede]

I have some valuable posessions I could sell to raise the cash to pay off my CCJ.

 

If I do this then the CCJ will be marked as satisfied on my credit report.

 

OK no problem however,

the charge order is for an amount of money which is £200 greater than the CCJ

due to court costs incurrred by the creditor obtaining the charge order against me.

 

I therefore assume that I would end up with a satisfied CCJ and a charge order for £200.

 

However,

I understand that you can't have a charge order for less than £1000 since this Government set the threshold sometime last year.

 

Therefore if I can raise the funds to pay off the CCJ,

 

what happens to the charge order?

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately you are wrong about the £1000.00 Charging Order limit, that is just for enforcement of the CO.

 

forget about the CCJ amount now, that has been superceded by the CO amount which is now the balance you need to pay off before your account can be marked as satisfied and the CO removed.

[chiefmegawatty]

Thanks for that information.

 

I now realise that all the news items I have read regarding the £1000 charge order threshold are very misleading.

 

I assume that the amount shown outstanding on my CRA report is wrong

and should be updated to take into account the court charges incurred for the charge order.

 

Am I correct in thinking that if I paid back the amount currently shown on the CCJ then it wouldn't be marked as satisfied?

 

Could the charge order be still be enforced if I could reduce the outstanding balance to below £1000?

 

Thanks again for your advice.

 

Another thought,

as the charge order now supercedes the CCJ so that the debt is now firmly secured against my house,

 

why can't the CCJ now be removed?

 

What is the point of having an enforceable CCJ which could involve bailiffs,

attachment to earnings etc

when the debt has been secured?

 

Also why do I have a demolished credit record for 6 years

when the debt is secured against bricks and mortar?

[Ganymede]

Another thought, as the charge order now supercedes the CCJ so that the debt is now firmly secured against

my house, why can't the CCJ now be removed? What is the point of having an enforceable CCJ which could involve bailiffs, attachment to earnings etc when the debt has been secured? Also why do I have a demolished

credit record for 6 years when the debt is secured against bricks and mortar?

 

 

 

That's just the way it is I'm afraid.

[chiefmegawatty]

OK thanks Ganymede for your advice.

 

I therefore assume that the CCJ remains so the creditor can still apply to the court for enforcment of the CCJ using bailiffs at any time.

 

I was hoping that the charge order removed the risk of bailiffs coming here

but obviously not otherwise the CCJ would be removed.

 

Should bailiffs visit and take goods to recover the CCJ debt,

the charge order would still remain as the CCJ debt is smaller than the charge order.

 

I assume that the creditor can only apply to the court for enforcement of the amount on the CCJ

and not the amount on the charge order.

[chiefmegawatty]

Because with an unsatisfied one, the claimant can take enforcement action as and when they desire, providing they have the correct legal paperwork to enforce the debt.

 

OK thanks for your comment.

 

If the creditor takes no action to enforce the CCJ I still think it makes sense to not pay it off.

 

When and if the creditor applies to the court to enforce the CCJ then pay it off immediately in cash.

 

This obsurd situation comes about due to satisfied CCJ's being equally as damaging as unsatisfied CCJ's.

 

Therefore until the creditor applies to the court for enforcement there is no point in paying it off.

[Andyorch]

OK thanks for your comment. If the creditor takes no action to enforce the CCJ I still think it makes

sense to not pay it off. When and if the creditor

applies to the court to enforce the CCJ then pay it off immediately in cash.

This obsurd situation comes about due to satisfied CCJ's being equally as damaging as unsatisfied CCJ's.

Therefore until the creditor applies to the court for enforcement there is no point in paying it off.

 

 

To a certain degree I would have to agree with you........ unless of course it incurs post judgment interest.

 

Andy

[andydd]

I agree that a satisfied CCJ still appear on your cedit files and does have an adverse affect, so the argument 'whats the point in paying it off' may be true from that point of view, BUT as mentioned above if you do not satisfy it, then the creditor is free to start enforcement action, this can have even more adverse affects such as attachment of earnings, charging orders on property and bailiffs being involved and the costs can then spiral.

 

It is true that many companies will write endless threatening letters but will never actually start the court process but if they have and have been succesfull they will have spent money on court fees and solicitors, etc and therefore the risk they will follow this through with enforcement action is quite high.

[citizenB]

I think Shoosmiths are another one that follow through.

[FairWorldCitizen]

chiefmegawatty:

 

What you say isn't entirely true, and there is a difference between a 'unsatisfied' judgement and a 'satisfied' one.

 

I ignore your personal circumstances, but to clarify the general picture independently of your own case it's important to note that before a CCJ is registered a debtor must have failed quite a number of steps. It can sometimes mean that the debtor didn't defend the claim, did not offer a payment plan, or simply did not even respond - generally the wrong path as a determined creditor will recover the money in most cases.

 

If a judgment is entered, the debtor has 30 days to satisfy the agreed (or decided by a judge) payment settlement(s).

If the judgment is adhered to, then the CCJ is not registered at all.

If not after these 30 days, the CCJ is registered and marked as 'unsatisfied', which obviously is the worse as it will affect a credit rating, will generate negative credit checks, or will prevent the debtor from finding a job especially in certain industries (finance etc). It’s also after 30 days that enforcement actions can start.

 

If it is paid later – with or without enforcement(s) - the CCJ will still remain as you mention. However on your request the court can 1) mark it as 'satisfied' which will positively impact the credit check or credit rating, and 2) issue a certificate of satisfaction that you can use to demonstrate the debt has been cleared. After a short time anyway, credit agencies would have updated their records which will show the debt has been cleared.

 

So, as long as a CCJ remains registered and unsatisfied, it means enforcement actions will be raised by any determined creditor, debt will grow as the costs of enforcement actions will be repaid by the debtor, credit score is in the dark. While if a debtor takes its chance to offer a satisfactory payment plan or acceptable settlement before a claim is made, or offers a payment plan on time before judgment is entered, or pays within 30 days of judgement, or makes an offer of repayment on receiving a notice of enforcement etc etc, the situation is changing quite positively.

[chiefmegawatty]

Thanks for your reply.

 

 

I would be unable to set the CCJ aside as I knew nothing of it's existance until 8 months after it was granted

due to the wife intercepting my post behind my back.

 

Seems that intercepting and hiding another person's post is quite legal in this country.

 

Court peperwork should be sent by recorded delivery and only be delivered if signed for by the recipient.

Sadly this is not the case so the legal system is a hopeless mess.

 

About 15 years ago I had the same problem and knew nothing about any CCJ's for several years after they were issued.

When I discovered them I panicked and went straight to the creditor and paid them off in cash.

I then received a certificate of satisfaction.

 

Shortly after I inherited some money and asked several banks if I could open a bank account to deposit my inheritance.

I was refused a bank account due to having satisfied CCJ's on my CRA report.

 

 

I went into Natwest to open an account with £19,000 in cash but they turned me down due to satisfied CCJ's.

The bank manager told me that he wouldn't allow me to open an account if I applied with 19 million pounds in cash !!!!!

 

I therefore conclude that a satisfied CCJ and a certificate of satisfaction is worth nothing

and 19 million pounds is worth less than a satisfied CCJ for a few hundred pounds.

 

I also showed the bank manager a copy of my house deeds to prove that I owned my house outright

and records of my perfect mortgage re-payments over the previous 18 years.

 

The manager still would not allow me to open an account due to satisfied CCJ's.

 

I now realise that a satisfied CCJ means nothing apart from the banks considering your house

and other assets to be worth nothing and not acceptable as guarantee of security for a bank account.

[FairWorldCitizen]

If the justice system had to rely on recorded delivery letters, it would work with honest people like you, but it would certainly not help with debtors who just ignore letters as a debtor doesn't have to accept signing anything from the post office, open its door or simply be at home. So honestly, as per my experience of a claimant, I prefer the courts to dispath letters by standard mail. Up to someone who is aware of a potential debt to find out if any letter has been delivered.

 

This is why, again as per my claimant experience, I preferred to send the first complaint letter, with all documentation included, by recorded delivery to get a proof of delivery so later I could show to the court that the debtor was aware. Recorded delivery isn't a requirement but it secures a court claim and any attempt of set aside.

 

Coming back to your past bank issue, you should have been able to open a bank account as long as you judgement was satisfied. The issue is more with cards associated to the account, I think even debit cards are more difficult to obtain. Any bank is tied by law and must at least offer a basic bank account. It might however be easier with certain banks like Co Ops rather than with paranoical financial entities.

 

In your present situation, I still believe that with regards to your credit history, getting this CCJ satisfied may be preferrable. And as mentioned previously by others it would prevent from getting into enforcement actions and having a debt growing.

[chiefmegawatty]

Thanks for your reply to my post.

My current CCJ does not accumulate interest and has resulted in a charge order against my house that doesn't accumulate interest.

 

 

Regarding not being able to open a bank account with a satisfied CCJ, here is something interesting.

 

I have a friend who is a retired Police Detective Inspector.

 

He is amazed how CCJ's and satisfied CCJ's can affect a person's financial life.

 

He has known several people who were released from prison after serving a sentence for armed bank robbery

who had clean credit records and able to open bank accounts easily.

 

This proves that banks consider a satisfied CCJ far more serious than armed bank robbery !!!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A CCJ is a matter of Public Information and will be recorded on credit reference files if the CCJ is for a "financial debt"

and results from failure to pay etc. A "criminal" may well have a perfect credit rating if all their accounts are up to date, not defaulted.

The two situations are not the same as the scenario your friend has quoted is rather naïve as a bank robbery is not a matter which is recorded on CRA files.

 

 

This is Criminal Conduct versus Civil "conduct e.g. not paying a credit card bill.

[chiefmegawatty]

Hi Brig.

Robbing a bank is more serious than defaulting on a loan or overdraft in my opinion.

 

Perhaps there should be a correlation between criminal records and CRA records.

 

Why doesn't the bank robber owe a financial debt and treated accordingly?

 

No convicted bank robber has been forced to pay the money back that was strolen.

 

The law in this country is a complete mess and needs reforming badly.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Two totally different situations the bank robber has paid his debt to society by going to prison Criminal situation.

BUT the BR has always paid his bills and has no arrears defaults has a clean credit record, But has a criminal record not related to his personal financial accounts, e.g. fraud.

 

 

The person who does not pay their credit card and defaults has a damaged credit file BUT not a criminal record, unfair maybe, but that's the way it is.

 

 

The proceeds of crime are recoverable and are recovered under law.

[chiefmegawatty]

Hi Brig,

 

You said

"The proceeds of crime are recoverable and are recovered under law."

 

That's interesting.

 

 

A polish man broke into my house two years ago, smashed doors apart and attempted to steal various items

. I caught him red handed, threw him out and reported the incident to the Police.

 

The Police dropped the case because there were no witnesses or camera evidence.

 

I have since paid for the damage the polish criminal caused to my house.

 

Therefore could you please explain why you think that the proceeds of crime are recoverable and are recovered under law.

[FairWorldCitizen]

Until a certain point I understand the person who started this thread, that there could be a logic in that a bank should prefer someone who has satisfied a CCJ rather than someone who has no history of debt but does have a criminal record.

 

The credit check is also one of the first steps done by a potential employer for example. Not sure until what point a company would check criminal records.

 

In fact when I settled in UK many years ago, I could just not catch why any organisation would do this "credit check" in every single formality: opening a bank a/c, renting a house, signing a contract etc.

 

Maybe a person in debt should be given a second chance otherwise it ends in problems in everything.

 

Also money claims often exist in parallel to criminal offences which never result in any consequence... What I mean is when for example it's a criminal offence to sell something which puts someone's life in danger, this someone will normally claim the cost resulting of such offence (but as per other acts), the offence itself isn't followed by a police investigation.

 

But, debt means money and money is the essence of banking and so many things...

And as mentioned above, once a debtor has cleared a debt, he/she is normally able to open a bank a/c.

 

In my current situation, I can only hope that UK's view on debt will help getting my money back soon.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Brig,

 

You said "The proceeds of crime are recoverable and are recovered under law."

That's interesting. A polish man broke into my house two years ago, smashed doors apart and attempted

to steal various items. I caught him red handed, threw him out and reported the incident to the Police.

The Police dropped the case because there were no witnesses or camera evidence.

I have since paid for the damage the polish criminal caused to my house.

Therefore could you please explain why you think that the proceeds of crime are recoverable and are recovered under law.

Google "proceeds of crime. " The courts can order recovery of the proceeds of crime. But in in most cases the criminal does not have the means to make ant reparation. This again highlights the need to be properly insured agaist such risks.

[chiefmegawatty]

Google "proceeds of crime. " The courts can order recovery of the proceeds of crime. But in in most cases the criminal does not have the means to make ant reparation. This again highlights the need to be properly insured agaist such risks.

 

Hi Brig,

well the man who broke into my house was never taken to court so legally no crime took place.

 

I did write to the Police asking for the details of their investigation

so I could use the evidence to claim against the offender in the small claims court in the county court.

 

The Police said that providing me with these details was not possible as it was against the data protection act.

 

I therefore cannot see how any court can help me recover the cost of the damage caused by the offender.

 

My house insurance policy has an excess which is greater than the cost of the damage

so placing an insurance claim would be pointless.

 

 

Seems to me that the law implies that owing a few hundred pounds to a bank or water company is far more serious than deliberate criminal damage.

 

 

In my experience that certainly is the case and I have the paper work here to prove it.

[chiefmegawatty]

Hi Brig,

I forgot to mention that about a year after this incident I discovered that the offender's wife is very friendly with a Police officer

who was involved the case.

 

 

Sort of explains everything in my opinion.

 

I am of the impression that the Police are as bent as a nine pound note.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would be careful about making such allegations chief this a public forum.

[chiefmegawatty]

I would be careful about making such allegations chief this a public forum.

 

Hi Brig, that's why I said "I am of the impression" rather then a absolute definite allegation.

However, thanks for your advice and concern.

[FairWorldCitizen]

Back to the status of a registered CCJ, I wanted to add if it can still help you, that by coincidence I could verify something that I mentioned before. I am moving to a new home, and because this country needs a credit check for everything, I was asked by a credit check company to fill in a form, this form at the end has 2 checkboxes:

1) Do you have adverse credit history?

2) Do you have a criminal record?

and they say please call the company if you have responded yes to one of these.

I phoned them by curiosity and asked what would happen if there is a CCJ appearing for me in the register. The lady immediately changed her tone but she explained that an unsatisfied debt appearing there would likely result in my application being rejected by the renting agency, even if my salary would largely cover the 2.5 times the annual rent and the debt was low. While a satisfied CCJ would basically make them return a check with a warning to the agency but that it generally does not prevent agencies from signing the contract. So there's definitely a difference!

(I didn't ask about the criminal record.)

[chiefmegawatty]

I wasn't allowed to pay a large quantity of cash into a bank due to a satisfied CCJ.

How bad is that?

 

Huge numbers of people have been prosecuted for being caught by a speed camera

and given a criminal record as a result.

 

How breaking the speed limit implies that a person is untrustworthy with money is beyond me.

However, the law is the law and therefore breaking a speed limit DOES mean that you cannot be trusted with money.

 

I have had CCJ's for trivial amounts of money and have therefore been classed as untrustworthy with money.

However, I have had four mortgages for huge amounts of money and paid them all back perfectly.

 

 

I therefore realise that the law consideres me to be perfectly trustworthy with huge amounts of money

but a totally untrustworthy idiot with trivial amounts of money.

 

Sadly my perfect mortgage repayment record isn't mentioned on my CRA report, only a CCJ for a relatively trivial amount of money.

Paying off the CCJ would not really improve my credit rating just as paying off four mortgages perfectly didn't help it either.