CCJ statute barred...

[ben1305]

Hi guys, I have a ccj from nov 09 which i have since found out was SB. is there anything i can do about this or not?

 

regards

Ben

[dx100uk]

ccj's cannot be statute barred......

 

what do you mean?

 

dx

[JonCris]

If you mean a money CCJ was issued AFTER 6 year limitation then yes you can apply to have it set aside. As the applicants clearly abused the court by not revealing the limitation you can ask for costs AND if you can prove the CCJ has affected your ability to borrow etc then you might also have a counter claim

 

Caution you would have to prove their actions in obtaining an out of time CCJ were deliberate

[BankFodder]

I don't think that there is any duty on the claimant to alert the court that a matter may be bared through lapse of time. Furthermore there is no requirement that the court draw the attention of the defendant to the matter.

It is for the defendant to raise the issue as part of their defence.

 

That an issue has become unenforceable by virtue of Limitation is a standard defence. It i not the function of any claimant or any court to start providing defences for the defendant.

 

Of course Limitation could be the basis for a setaside if the other requirements were satisfied because it would be possible to argue that the defendant had a good chance of success.

 

However, I don't see at all that there is any abuse by the claimant here.

[JonCris]

Any litigant must disclose even information that is detrimental to their case & bringing a claim that is time barred IS an abuse of process as had they informed the court their application would have no doubt been refused. In order to obtain the CCJ they MUST have misled the court

 

I understand a matter is about to come before the courts where they failed to reveal something very similar & as result are now being accused of contempt. Having become aware of the alleged contempt the judge has ordered a hearing to be attended by ALL parties involved including those who prepared the pleadings. Even the paralegal who made up the bundles is instructed to attend

Edited August 20, 2010 by JonCris

[BankFodder]

I disagree with you as to the raising of defences by the claimant on behalf of a defendant.

 

The logical conclusion would be that there is no need for a defence at all as the claimant would be obliged to present all the arguments for and against his own claim.

 

I think that you are referring far more to the kind of duties which exist by the prosecutor in a criminal case.

 

It may well be that the case you are referring to will confirm your view, so we'll see.

 

I'll be very pleased to be proved wrong.

 

Incidentally, the claimant very clearly has a duty to disclose all the facts to the court - but not to have to answer a line of defence which has not been raised by the defendant for whatever reason.

 

You can imagine that in court the claimant having to say to the court - " I have to point out to the judge that the defendant could also have raised this matter and that matter, either of which would destroy my case"

[jimbo45]

Hi there

I HATE siding with the Creditor on this one -- but to me the law seems quite clear. The Creditor wants his money and goes to Court. It's up to the DEFENDANT to say why the CREDITOR's case is null and void.

 

As for a set aside this might (or perhaps should) be possible. I'm not an expert in knowing how the minds of Judges work but on a bad day you might get a Judge saying if this debt was Statute Barred why didn't the defence raise this when the CCJ was issued --- This could be a much tougher nut to crack as a lot of CCJ's in the first instance are simply obtained by default -- i:e the defendant can't be bothered to turn up or prepare a defence.

 

Unfortunately too many people behave Ostrich like in matters of debt -- either ignoring it and hoping it will go away or in the expectation that "something at the last minute will turn up.

 

With the recession in full swing and Solicitors having less and less work to do all these financial companies are scraping the bottom of the barrel and looking for debts that were taken out when the UK was on a real spending binge. While the fault is mainly with the Banks and their TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE lending there is no doubt that a lot of people DID get into debt due to unemployment etc etc when the downturn started.

 

Thanks to sites like CAG it's not the end of the world AND YOU ARE NOT A BAD PERSON JUST BECAUSE YOU GET INTO DEBT.

 

The first thing to do no matter how hopeless the situation seems is to get to a position where YOU ARE IN CONTROL. If you can only pay a token 1 GBP a month then do it. The DCA's cannot say how much you have to pay and even if it does go to court the court will only make you pay what it thinks you can afford.

 

In this particular case I'd try and get the CCJ set aside but don't hold out too many hopes. Make sure also you have a decent reason as to why you didn't defend the original CCJ such as you were out of the Country etc etc so you didn't get the paperwork or some other valid excuse.

 

Cheers

jimbo