Following Court Case precedents, a county court judgement is not statute barred under the Statute of Limitations as are, say, ordinary debts to 6 years, but, if a creditor obtains a CCJ, then they can hold this forever and pursue recovery forever. This means that a debt which is long forgotten can sit accumulating interest at 8% (or 15% if old enough) and hang over someone forever even though the creditor has done nothing to collect it for years and years. This is iniquitous and grossly unfair when a debt which is not subject to a CCJ fails to be collectable if unsecured or not under deed after 6 years, or if under deed, 12 years.
CCJs should fall back under the Statute of Limitations like all other debts.
Why does this idea matter?
My partner, as an example of why this is a problem, has a number of debts from when he was ill and unable to work. He has no income and is dependent on me. I am not liable for his debts incurred before we were together. Most of these debts are now statute barred, but the CCJs hang around like vultures waiting for him to have an inheritance, or some such. It means he cannot inherit my estate except I put it under trust to protect it from his ancient creditors.
Just because Lloyds TSB (for instance) got a CCJ against him 12+ years ago, it seems intrinsically wrong that this debt remains payable, when all the others have been written off. Of course he could declare himself bankrupt, but that is very drastic, even now, just to dump an ancient debt.
This is an anomalous hole in the law and goes against the whole tenor of the Insolvency Act 1986 and its intentions and the Statute of Limitations.