Cabot claim a CCJ in place - Call their bluff?

[Grinfish]

So, due to my own dithering, I've now received a new letter from MC. Their Client has instructed Marston (who I assume are the Marston Group) to make a "home visit".

As far as I can tell that doesn't immediately mean I'm going to have to give them a red cent unless they've asked for the court's permission due to the CPR point, so should I fire off the "Des8 Special" at this stage before any other actions take place?

I feel this is coming to the Crunch Point.

[des8]

entirely up to you, but I love patronising these types of outfits.
(civil recovery firms in particular)

[Grinfish]

So the charging order is vaueless as it was never registered as the property had been sold.

The CCJ is well over 6 years old, so they need to go back to court to be able to enforce it (CPR 83.2.(3)(a))
However the permission to enforce the execution of a judgment six years old requires the creditor to give sufficient reasons for the delay
The general rule is that execution will not be allowed after six years

Basically the debt still exists but in practice they will be unable to collect.

So write and tell them that now you know what the CCJ is about, you note it is unenforceable without the court's permission, so would they kindly close their file (or p**s off)

I find your way with words inspiring!

I may well do that (in a slightly, errrr less-expressive way) in due course, but tonight I'm going to steadily sip some vino to celebrate the small victory that, well, they want to give me money. If they do actually accept your suggestion, I might even let them keep it!

I did spend some time reading around lengthily whilst awaiting the next move(s), and I wonder if mentioning Duer v Frazer (2001) or Patel v Singh (2002) would be considered patronising, insulting, or at the least ensure they're not facing an easy path.

[des8]

So the charging order is vaueless as it was never registered as the property had been sold.

The CCJ is well over 6 years old, so they need to go back to court to be able to enforce it (CPR 83.2.(3)(a))
However the permission to enforce the execution of a judgment six years old requires the creditor to give sufficient reasons for the delay
The general rule is that execution will not be allowed after six years

Basically the debt still exists but in practice they will be unable to collect.

So write and tell them that now you know what the CCJ is about, you note it is unenforceable without the court's permission, so would they kindly close their file (or p**s off)

[Grinfish]

Hello Hive Mind, it's been a while... and like buses, everything has happened in fairly quick order!

Morty sent a letter a little while ago about how they have failed to contact me (i.e. I blanked them whilst awaiting the eventual SAR etc), and that they will ask their client to decide what action to take. Good for me, as it stalled any developments until....

SAR was due (for the second time), so I sent a reminder - and WHAT A SURPRISE everything came through 24 hours later! I've also been offered some compensation for their failure to act on my first sending - ironic, and also unsure whether to accept money from someone chasing a greater sum. I guess technically the issues are remote from each other and it wouldn't have a legal impact? I could also pursue the complaint further via ICO and FOS, but as they've now satisfied the request and offered compo, I think that wouldn't be of much help to anyone.


So, now I have more clues about what has happened in the meantime, including info about that elusive CCJ (albeit buried in a bunch of other data), which the original lender obtained over 12 years ago, with a charging order placed 2 years later (almost 12 years ago). I guess that hasn't appeared anywhere on the Land Reg due to the original property being sold by the mortgage vendor prior to it being obtained.

So, in summary:

CCJ and (fairly redundant) Charging order over a decade ago, but not mentioned by Cabot until they had a scent to chase in later letters. I've only bitten as far as getting my info out of them and the SAR complaint.


So.... What Next? I've still not (to the best of my knowledge) actually acknowledged the debt directly - although their references have been used in some comms about the SAR and complaint purely to keep the conversation chain from breaking. Naturally they keep mentioning "the account we hold in Your name", but I've not directly acknowledged that.

I don't think a Defence would be successful against the CCJ based on the information I have now to hand, even though my lack of prior knowledge of it could open this route.

So, should I continue to sit on my hands and force them to assess their risks in further pursuit? Worth taking into consideration: they also had another lesser account in my name, with they sharply off-loaded at the same time as they accepted my SAR - probably as it had no CCJ for them to potentially exploit, and thus falls outside the Statute Bar timeframe.

It appears my choices are limited to letting them work the risks out and seeing if they think they'll get lucky, or capitulating with their demands in some way or form :/ I don't particularly like the idea of leaving my future life financial circumstances in the hands of the credit version of ambulance chasers, but I also don't want to spend most of my mental currency on courts or hostage negotiations, either.

[Grinfish]

Developments.

ID acknowledged by post today (Friday), SAR response to follow. ID was emailed on Sunday, got a "please confirm your ID" email on Monday, then no response to that after sending the details they required.

Complaints section emailed me today (Friday) about the SAR response issue.

Keeping it brief as I don't want to compromise anything. However, would it have taken much effort to email back in advance of the postal copy if the proofs of ID sent were accepted?

Still expecting a frightener from MC to drop on my doorstep tomorrow whilst all this plays out.

[Grinfish]

Another wall of security to break through before getting a proper response by email, le sigh but not unreasonable. I hope they pay particular attention to the caveat I included only to talk about what I want to talk about, and not their claims, Fight Club etc.

[des8]

there's just that ghostly CCJ hovering waiting for a target.

!

but the chances of the Court giving permission to fire it off are slim!

[Grinfish]

If the charging order could not be registered because the debtor no longer had an interest in the property I imagine the creditor would have been informed.
The County Court Judgment would still exist, as would the debt, but after 6 years is unenforceable without permission from the Court.

Yeah, but it may explain why my Land Registry searches turned up Zilch. Charging order existed, but got pre-empted. In which case, there's just that ghostly CCJ hovering waiting for a target.

Anyway, proofs fired off, along with notice of ICO complaint being filed. I stopped just short of asking them to get Morty Clarke to back off until it was sorted, but I can do that myself if needs be. On to the next chapter!

[des8]

If the charging order could not be registered because the debtor no longer had an interest in the property I imagine the creditor would have been informed.
The County Court Judgment would still exist, as would the debt, but after 6 years is unenforceable without permission from the Court.

[Grinfish]

I would continue with the complaint to ICO

I find it odd that after sending you a letter stating "A County Court Judgment (CCJ) has been obtained on this account, which we have enforced with a Charging Order. We attempted in the past to speak to you, but you have failed to get in contact to repay." they suddenly need proof of identity!

As I haven't contacted them before the SAR, it would be considered due diligence - can't dispute that, and it's all part of the SAR request as handing out personal data without proof of person is generally considered a no-no. It may also why they've been elusive on the CCJ details?

Also, their response included an email address I can use! Woohoo!

It also included TWO different ref numbers - one being from their "claim" on the former letters, the other being a new one which I assume is specific to the SAR.I won't be using the first ref on the grounds that I'm not acknowledging their claim and the SAR is legally its own entity and thus shouldn't be tied to it.

Anyway, my next steps are:

Email scans of the relevant ID proofs - if they demand them in physical copy, they can just print them out themselves I'd think? Postal copies will follow if they get funny about it. I'll be insisting on a response by email during this week to confirm if the scans are acceptable or not. Waiting for the exact same thing but printed on a piece of A4 would seem an unnecessary delay to me.

Note in the email the ICO complaints procedure has been activated on the basis of an unsatifactory explanation due to my evidence of postage and delivery.

If nothing else, it might expedite their reply.

Then wait (again). I anticipate Morty are gonna start turning the screws on whilst Cabot dither and delay to leave me half-blind.


In the meantime, a query to all you folks re: Charging Orders on Property:

If a property was sold legitimately by the bank holding the mortgage (and thus the titles and deeds) to clear owings to them before the charging order came into being, would it still appear on the Land Registry? This may be why I can't find a charge against the property from all those years ago, as I would have already been (in my mind) removed of any ownership. In which case, the CCJ would be valid but practically unsearchable without historical knowledge of it being granted, whilst the charging order would be null and void due to the object of the charge already being disposed of.

[des8]

I would continue with the complaint to ICO

I find it odd that after sending you a letter stating "A County Court Judgment (CCJ) has been obtained on this account, which we have enforced with a Charging Order. We attempted in the past to speak to you, but you have failed to get in contact to repay." they suddenly need proof of identity!

[Grinfish]

Update:

Received in post from Cabot on Saturday (my ultimatum for an ICO complaint) a letter that they have received my SAR - the Second copy I sent with the warning, not the initial one from the beginning of December! Both were sent Signed For, tracked as Delivered. The only debatable issue is the signature entered by the postie on delivery. The second states "Cabot", the first appears to be a random string of capital letters (possibly a typo by the postie on their screen?) yet both are signed off.

So, now Cabot want proof of ID before the calendar month cycle starts which is fine, but do you all think I should proceed with a complaint to ICO as well on the strength of the tracking confirmation?

Either way, I expect our friends at Morty Clarke will be dropping the next pile of doodoo on my doorstep this week.

[Grinfish]

That's Cabot's postcode, not mine

[des8]

Your postcode is shewing...suggest you remove your letter

As you don't have a property, how are they going to obtain an order for sale?
One last letter telling them you have no details of any CCJ, and they need to tell you what, when and where.
End with a PS that if they don't comply they had better try and obtain an order for sale, and you wish them the best of luck!

or just ignore them until and if they try court

And complaint to ICO

At least that's what I would do