CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

[unclebobbybee]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

unfortunately theres not much we can do about HMRC debt, take the 5k reduction from the review as the victory.

thought so.

[ATW]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

s24 of the Limitation Act states:
24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments.(1)An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.
(2)No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

[ATW]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

Enforcement is not necessarily considered to be a new action though. It looks like some action can be taken but the interest is limited to 6 years. Have a look at this:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...29/lowsley.htm

[ATW]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

In Lowsley v Forbes (the link above) the Judgment Creditor could enforce the debt 11.5 years after the judgment was obtained but could only claim 6 years interest on the debt. see also Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005] EWCA where a winding up petition was brought more than 6 years after a judgment and was allowed to proceed.

[ATW]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

Enforcing a judgment is not considered to be "an action" and is not therefore caught by s24 (1) LA 1980 but the interest is then limited by s24 (2) LA 1980.
In short I think that enforcement by collecting the cash under the charging order when the house is sold more than 6 years after the judgment was given would not be caught by the Limitation Act 1980.

[PlanB]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

Enforcing a judgment is not considered to be "an action" and is not therefore caught by s24 (1) LA 1980 but the interest is then limited by s24 (2) LA 1980.
In short I think that enforcement by collecting the cash under the charging order when the house is sold more than 6 years after the judgment was given would not be caught by the Limitation Act 1980.

So does this mean the OP can make the debt purchaser wait for their money until the house is sold (with no more interest being added after the 6 years have passed from the original CCJ)?

And if the property is still in joint names with his ex-wife the debt purchaser cannot go for an Order For Sale in the meantime?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

So does this mean the OP can make the debt purchaser wait for their money until the house is sold (with no more interest being added after the 6 years have passed from the original CCJ)?

And if the property is still in joint names with his ex-wife the debt purchaser cannot go for an Order For Sale in the meantime?

That's certainly how I read it......

[PlanB]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

That's certainly how I read it......

Me too, but I find one needs a translator when lawyers quote case law

[PlanB]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

see also Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd [2005] EWCA where a winding up petition was brought more than 6 years after a judgment and was allowed to proceed.

I've read that but I don't understand Paragraph 42 which seems to imply that if there is another collection/enforcement remedy already in place then the creditor can't go for BR/winding-up order. So in the case of a debtor having a CO on their property following a CCJ would they still be vulnerable to a BR petition in preference to an Order For Sale?

I may have completely misunderstood Para 42 because I want that to be true (the bit about no BR if they have a CO)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/92.html

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

They also refer to w t lamb & sons v rider [1948] 2kb 331.....

[mike'y]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

I've read that but I don't understand Paragraph 42 which seems to imply that if there is another collection/enforcement remedy already in place then the creditor can't go for BR/winding-up order. So in the case of a debtor having a CO on their property following a CCJ would they still be vulnerable to a BR petition in preference to an Order For Sale?

I may have completely misunderstood Para 42 because I want that to be true (the bit about no BR if they have a CO)



http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/92.html

That would be nice, to know one's safe from BR.

[PlanB]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

That would be nice, to know one's safe from BR.

I'd quite like to know the answer to that too

It would almost make having a charging order worthwhile. Which probably means I did misunderstand paragraph 42.

[unclebobbybee]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

hi, thanks for all your help.
how easy is it for a dca to get a AOE ??
one of the dca's has asked for the name of my employer.

[PlanB]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

how easy is it for a dca to get a AOE ?

I can't answer your "how easy" question (how long is a piece of string would actually be my answer) but I will post some information on Attachment of Earnings. Please don't be spooked by this because I'm simply giving you the facts according to the Citizens Advice Bureau. Every case is different depending on loads of things.


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/englan...your_wages.htm

[PlanB]

Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.

one of the dca's has asked for the name of my employer.

You're not obliged to answer that question so don't answer it

Only a court can order you to answer that question not a DCA.