Capquest chasing 2014 CCJ! Please help

[modelus]

Hi,

I recently go told by the person that is living at my old address that resolve call had visited them looking for me. I got in touch with resolve call confused as to what they could be looking for and emailed them saying I have no outstanding debts and that any debt is statute barred. Here’s is what they responded:

“Good morning,

Thank you for your email.

I note you have successfully accessed your account online, in your email you have advised the above account is Statute Barred unfortunately this is not the case as a County Court Judgement was applied to this account on 25^th April 2014, under the Limitations Act 1980 this account is exempt from being Statute Barred

County Court Reference Number –

Judgement Date – 25/04/2014


The last payment made to the account was on 28^th April 2017 for £100.

As we are unable to provide any further documentation as proof for you, we have closed the account and returned it to our client on that basis. There will be no further contact made to you from Resolvecall.


Should you wish to contact our client Capquest Debt Recovery Ltd. who are the owners of the MBNA credit card account please do so on the following details:”


What I want to know is if the debt is actually exempt from satute barred and if that means I still have to pay this debt although it’s not longer on my credit file having been removed after six years.


Please legalbeagles can you work you magic and help with advise as to what to do next

[MIKE770]

Ccj never ceases but it is upp to capuest to enforce longer they do not the court ask why so long

[modelus]

So what does that mean for the debt. Can they call baliffs I thought after 6 years CCJ was removed and debt is finished. Can they take to court again?

[MIKE770]

they can go back to court and but would have to have a very good excuse having not actioned before that time.

[modelus]

So what is my next move?

[MIKE770]

Their move next if ever?

[PallasAthena]

Do nothing. A CCJ never officially expires but because it is 9 years old and the debtor has not tried to enforce it they cannot do so now without the permission of the court. They would have to apply to the court for permission to enforce and they would have to convince a judge that they had a very good reason why they hadn't done anything to enforce it for 9 years. From what you've posted it's highly unlikely they would get permission.

[R0b]

Contrary to PallasAthena's point about the likelihood of the court granting permission, the High Court case of Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport SDPR [2008] EWHC 801 confirmed that the general starting point is that the court should assist the judgment creditor in enforcing the judgment and recover any debt. Debtors can challenge the enforcement on the basis of delay but there must be compelling evidence as to why the defendant is prejudiced by the delay in enforcement.

The Claimant may also argue that they were unable to track the OP or that the OP was ignoring correspondence sent by them which made it difficult to enforce. Equally, the OP could have said at an earlier date that there are no chances of recoverability due to the current financial situation and therefore the claimant decided not to pursue enforcement until a better opportunity presented itself. Could be a number of plausible reasons why the claimant would be granted permission but the onus is on the defendant to show why the delay has caused them prejudice such that any enforcement now should not be granted. No compelling evidence = permission granted.

[PallasAthena]

Thanks for the correction Rob. The understanding that I had (as did Mike further upthread) is widely quoted online even on debt management advice sites so it's helpful to know it's not accurate, especially as regards the burden being on the debtor to show it shouldn't be enforced rather than the creditor showing why it should be.

[R0b]

Just to clarify, the courts still retain the discretion to refuse permission to enforce and I'm not suggesting the claimant gets an easy ride. A court would still like to enquire why enforcement action is now being considered after such a long time.

I could foresee a court refusing permission if the claimant basically sat on the judgment for a significant number of years and then suddenly decided to spring into action without a good justification but I suspect the bar for this is probably going to be low and not too difficult for the creditor to overcome.
On the flip side, a debtor could argue that they are only now just getting themselves on track with finances and mortgage etc, and enforcement would essentially put them in such a state where they could be made homeless, or their financial situation would be at serious risk.

Even if those kinds of arguments are not enough to justify refusing the court giving permission, I would be curious if an argument could be made that permission would be granted but only for certain enforcement actions i.e. charging order which which may strike a balance between getting what the claimant wants and not seriously prejudicing the debtor. Not sure there's any case law on this but it would be a novel argument to make on the basis that if the court has discretion to grant enforcement, it also extends to discretion on the types of enforcement one can make.

[MIKE770]

Just to clarify, the courts still retain the discretion to refuse permission to enforce and I'm not suggesting the claimant gets an easy ride. A court would still like to enquire why enforcement action is now being considered after such a long time.

I could foresee a court refusing permission if the claimant basically sat on the judgment for a significant number of years and then suddenly decided to spring into action without a good justification but I suspect the bar for this is probably going to be low and not too difficult for the creditor to overcome.
On the flip side, a debtor could argue that they are only now just getting themselves on track with finances and mortgage etc, and enforcement would essentially put them in such a state where they could be made homeless, or their financial situation would be at serious risk.

Even if those kinds of arguments are not enough to justify refusing the court giving permission, I would be curious if an argument could be made that permission would be granted but only for certain enforcement actions i.e. charging order which which may strike a balance between getting what the claimant wants and not seriously prejudicing the debtor. Not sure there's any case law on this but it would be a novel argument to make on the basis that if the court has discretion to grant enforcement, it also extends to discretion on the types of enforcement one can make.

agree