Cabot claim a CCJ in place - Call their bluff?

[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]

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]

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

[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]

Write and tell them that you are withdrawing implied right of access for Marston to come onto your property.
If they do visit tell them to go forth and multiply as they are trespassing and if they do not go you will call the police to attend to prevent a breach of the peace

[echat11]

I don't know if this applies to you - 'vulnerable person'.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/de...re-vulnerable/

[Grinfish]

I don't know if this applies to you - 'vulnerable person'.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/de...re-vulnerable/

It doesn't, other than this driving me nuts.

I certainly won't be welcoming anybody in.

[des8]

This won't be Marstons acting as bailiffs so won't have a court order.

If there had been an application to enforce the expired CCJ you would have received notice of the court hearing to enable you attend and dispute it.

[Grinfish]

des8 echat11 Bit cheeky I know, but could I trouble either of you to proof-read my letter (specifics redacted) to ensure I've kept it clear and uncompromising? I'm loathe to put it in open-forum but if you'd prefer not to be DM'd I'll (reluctantly) do so. TIA

[echat11]

des8 echat11 Bit cheeky I know, but could I trouble either of you to proof-read my letter (specifics redacted) to ensure I've kept it clear and uncompromising? I'm loathe to put it in open-forum but if you'd prefer not to be DM'd I'll (reluctantly) do so. TIA

Post it on the forum, providing all personal details are redacted. Make a copy, then remove personal details, replace with XXXXXXXXX, total anonymity.

[DE DOGS]

I do hope you realise that there is a need for funds by the company please help them out.

[des8]

I do hope you realise that there is a need for funds by the company please help them out.

[Grinfish]

I've kept it short and snappy. Thought I'd mention the prior incompetence of their client as I still have a lead-in to the ICO and FOS I can take it required:


Mortimer Clarke Solicitors Limited



BN11 1QP


I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any other company or organisation that you claim to be representing.

Dear Sir or Madam
Your reference: XXXXXX

Having recently received a delayed response to a Subject Access Request made to your client in early December (which led to a complaint being initiated), I finally find myself in a position to contact you to notify you of the following:

It is noteable that a County Court Judgment is not enforceable after a period of six years has elapsed without seeking further permission from the court to do so (CPR 83.2.(3)(a)).

It is noteable that I own no land or equity in property for charge to be laid against.

I hereby withdraw any implied right of access for Marston to enter my home. Any attempt to do so will be considered an act of trespass and may lead to the police being requested to attend to prevent any potential breach of the peace.

Yours faithfully

[Grinfish]

I do hope you realise that there is a need for funds by the company please help them out.

Sorry, I have rent and utility bills to feed. Perhaps they could try a Gofundme (Or more likely, a Go****themselves)

[des8]

Ok, but rather than just "enter my home" change to "access my home and garden" (if you have one!)