Jump to content


CCJ dating back to 2005


GonadsAndStrife
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4481 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi my name is Craig I am new to these forums having found them after looking on-line for help with an issue I am having with the DVLA.

 

I owned a car (a Suzuki) in 2005 and had a road accident where that car was wrote off, as part of my insurance claim the insurance company demanded the log books advising me that they would update the ownership of the car.

 

Ok so many years pass by and I tried for a loan with a few different companies (nothing large just £500) and was declined by all of them, so I decided to sign up to a credit referencing website to see what was happening, I was presented with a CCJ on my file for £100 from the DVLA in 2005 referencing the car that the insurance company had promised to re-register.

 

So I contacted the DVLA via letter to politely ask for this to be removed and the case dropped. I gave my reasons for this due to,

 

a) I had never received a letter from the DVLA in relation to re taxing the car

b) I had never received a request for payment of the CCJ

c) I was in and out of hospital due to the car accident that caused the car to be written off.

d) The insurance company took ownership of the car and promised that they would transfer ownership over to them when they received the log book.

 

I also asked if it was the policy of the DVLA to take out CCJ's against members of the public and make no attempt to contact them.

 

In return I received a very blunt letter not answering any of my questions and advising me of what I already knew (that it was my legal obligation to re-register the car) I was then presented with 2 options by the DVLA,

 

1) Pay £100 and £15 to the court to prove that the debt is satisfied.

2) Pay £65 to have the case taken back to court.

3) Complain to the DVLA.

 

So I took the third option and my complaint was transferred to a complaints advisor. In this letter I advised them that they had not answered any of my questions detailed in the first letter and that I would like answers (I was a little more firm but still polite)

 

In response to this I received a bit more of a friendly letter answering all of my questions but dodging the "is it the policy of the DVLA to take out CCJ's against members of the public and make no attempt to contact them" question.

 

Now I am not bothered by having to pay the £100 and the £15 although a bit of a p**s take I am still willing to pay, my problem lies with having CCJ on my file for 6 years as I am applying for a mortgage next year and this would seriously hamper my future mortgage lending.

 

I am pondering taking it back to court to get the CCJ removed but I am not sure if I would win my claim based on the above.

 

Any advice anyone could provide would be greatly received.

 

Regards

Craig

Edited by GonadsAndStrife
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly mate I lived at the house for 25+ years only moving last year and I never recieved anything from either the DVLA or the court in relation to this case.

 

Although the DVLA claimed to have sent me all of 2 letters asking for the tax on this, their only defence is that they have not had either of the letters returned as undeliverable.

 

Plus I have read the other forum posts in relation to them messing up SORN notifications that have been sent to them via registered post and they have misplaced those letters so I feel I may be able to discredit this point in the claims court.

Edited by GonadsAndStrife
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little point in having it set aside, as not only is this expensive, you would have to prove to the satisfaction of the judge your delay in challenging the decision was 'reasonable'.

 

A set-aside isnt the same as a clean sheet - you are actually paying to re-run the case at your expense, if you win then the CCJ disappears, but if you don't it remains. In either case, the cost of your action to challenge cannot be recovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little point in having it set aside, as not only is this expensive, you would have to prove to the satisfaction of the judge your delay in challenging the decision was 'reasonable'.

 

A set-aside isnt the same as a clean sheet - you are actually paying to re-run the case at your expense, if you win then the CCJ disappears, but if you don't it remains. In either case, the cost of your action to challenge cannot be recovered.

I disagree, it is worthwile. If the set aside is succesfull the CCJ is removed from all CRA's files before a rerun of the case, it does not remain. Then the case is run again right from the start which would give the OP a chance to reply to initial Court papers, and run a defence or even pay the amount claimed, thus the CCJ will not reappear. Only any subsequent judgment can issue another CCJ.

Edited by gwc1000
Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to say that the CCJ 'may' not reappear. It may well do so - but it still requires the OP to pay in full for the action, and only if the judge agrees that the re-run. I've seen a number refused at the 4 year mark when they admitted they could have raised the action to recall the verdict a few years earlier, but only did so when their Credit File entry caused difficulties for them.

 

The pragmatic view is - assuming a success - is the money to be paid for the recall and rerun cost effective in view of the time left before the CCJ is expunged?

 

As for contacting your MP - they can certainly intercede with the DVLA, and are very useful in this regard, but they cannot reverse any court decision or remove a CCJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a number refused at the 4 year mark when they admitted they could have raised the action to recall the verdict a few years earlier, but only did so when their Credit File entry caused difficulties for them.

True, but in this case as far as I understand it, the OP has only just found out about the CCJ, therefore he couldn't have made an application earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but if they managed to persuade the DVLA that they were wrong in this case then they would withdraw their claim and the CCJ would be removed would it not???

 

Withdraw? This is done and dusted - there is nothing to withdraw. The only prospect of reactivating it is for the DVLA to seek Reponing of the action, and I seriously doubt they would do this. It would be for the aggrieved party to pursue (and pay) for it. Unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but in this case as far as I understand it, the OP has only just found out about the CCJ, therefore he couldn't have made an application earlier.

 

Oh, agreed - but then judges aren't fools and the last time I heard this asserted, the judge went into the nitty gritty of seeking info not just why the accused didn't know of the original action, but similarly also had not recieved 5 other letters from the pursuers solicitors, confirming the action and outcome, similar letters to an adjacent family member to pass on the details. In the end he decided the complainant had known of the action and refused the request to re-run the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah what a wonderful country we live in, guilty untill proven innocent and even then still shot in the foot with a bill for £65 :(

 

More, if you lose - you get to pay their (limited) expenses too.

 

This is why it is important to ensure all court documents are dealt with. Letters returned as undeliverable stop an action - requiring Bailiffs to serve the claim. We also benefit, when pursuing someone if they don;t respond, we are given a judgement by default, and as of my visit to the court last Tuesday, 80% of Small Claims were no shows by the Defenders, with judgement for the Plaintiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to summarise, gwc1000 you think I SHOULD go for this and buzby you think I SHOULD NOT??

I can only say what I would do. And I would apply. However be warned that you must be telling the truth (do not take that the wrong way), as a Judge will not look favourably on a case where he thinks that you are wasting the Court's time. The other way you could look at it is that the CCJ should disappear in 2011, and if you feel it isn't haven't an adverse effect on your life, it would be easier to leave alone. The choice, ultimately is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it is mate and I full appreciate that gravity of that but both your's and buzby's advice so far has been invaluable and I am 50/50 on what way to go with this.

 

My only issue with going through with this is I cant prove I did not receive a letter or letters as it is something that someone just cant prove :(

 

As I am looking at buying a house next year I think that in the end this will be the ultimate decider in going for it as I dont stand a chance of getting a mortgage with a CCJ hanging over me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Timing is all important, and one thing we both agree on is that NOTHING is certain when you go to court. Aspirations are fine, but they cost a lot. In the recession, you may find delaying a purchase to take advantage for the expiry of the CCJ may pay dividends.

 

However, an old CCJ isn't the downer you think, especially if it is obviously an old one. Some lenders do, others don't. You have to balance the risk of restarting the case. I cannot state with certaintly what will happen should you challenge and be unsuccessful. It is true the original CCJ is removed pending the new hearing, but balance this with the prospect of losing, and a CCJ dated 2009 being applied. That would be an ultimate own-goal, and a risk you should avoid at all costs.

 

Another thing we agree on, is that only you can make the decision!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true - I thought this would have been self-evident. However should the full amount NOT be paid (and this would additionally include the defenders expenses in raising the action - not just the original debt) the CCJ will automatically follow.

 

This means the caveat remains should the challenge be unsuccessful, fund must be available to settle the debt almost immediately to prevent the reimposition of the Judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Small Claims Action, they can't go overboard unless you are seen to be a less-than-honest litigant. Probably capped at no more than £100. I lost against Royal Mail after 3 days at court. RM's solicitor asked the judge for the maximum award, which would have been £85 (in 2007)), but she refused, saying they had been they cause of much of the problem, so they were told we each had to meet our own expenses! (That meant, I had nothing more to pay!).

Edited by buzby
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...