ccj was originally stayed until further order

[d33]

hi, i have just received cc j forms regarding overdraft which i originally contested due to huge amount of charges that were added on, at the time the banks were being investigated and my ccj application was put aside until judge was able to make decision, (as i understand it)

I didnt hear anything back, despite the banks apparently winning the case, but left it at that, until last week when i received these papers from another firm a dca who it would seem has bought the debt.

 

I need some advice about how i should defend this if i still can, is this application valid baring in mind the situation with the first application ? thanks

[dx100uk]

for the history

which thread do you already have here with any details passed in please that need p'haps merging

 

click you username and link them.

 

dx

 

 

dx

[Ganymede]

Is the court claim number the same on this new claim as on the old one?

[DonkeyB]

If it’s a new claim on the same debt, and the original claim remains stayed, then it is an abuse of process, and you must apply to have the new claim struck out for this reason.

[AndyOrch]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?175405-Overdraft-Court-Action/page2

 

Read from post #27 onwards.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[d33]

ok thanks. i rang northampton who said the case was sent back to my local court 1n 2008, i tried to ring them but couldnt get through hopefully i have more luck tomorrow morning !

[d33]

I have now spent 2 afternoons trying to get through to brentford county court, no answer or engaged. have sent them an email. if stil noresponse i will have to visit them tomorrow

[d33]

Hi, just got through to the court, as i thought the original ccj application from 5 years ago is still on the system as 'stayed'. When i fill the forms in do i just mention this as a defence?

[d33]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?175405-Overdraft-Court-Action/page2

 

Read from post #27 onwards.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Hi i have read through this thread but i am unclear what procedure i should follow.

Do i fill in the paperwork using the defense that original application is still 'stayed ' quoting original case number etc (although it says not to mention case number just claimants).

do i need to mention all of the original defense history ie oft case, illegal bank charges or do i keep it short just mentioning the fact case is 'stayed'.

many thanks

[d33]

anyone who can advise. thanks...

[citizenB]

I think you might need to refer to the original claim (with claim number etc).

 

 

What was the date of issue on this new claim because you will need to keep an eye on acknowledgement date etc.

 

 

I will ask andyorch to look in on you and advise.

[d33]

it was dated 14th october

[citizenB]

So your timeline is..

 

Issue date 14th October + 5 days for service = 19th October + 14 days to acknowledge = 2nd November + 14 days to submit defence = 16 November..

 

Do you have a thread from the original claim ? If not, can you give us some more detail.

 

If you could let us know what the PoC said the first time round (the reason they were issuing the claim)

 

Your defence

 

Did you receive notice of the stay and why ?

 

This claim

 

What is says on the claim (the reason they are issuing)

 

Are the claimant and Solicitor the same crew ?

[d33]

I received a document from the county court in 2008 titled 'General Form of Judgement orOrder' says before District Judge.... etc, upon the courts motion. The court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. if you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or styed within 7 days of receiving it.

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The proceedings be stayed until further order

[d33]

I spoke to the court a few days ago who confirmed the above, and nothing had proceeded since.

 

The original dispute was with my bank, who pretty much doubled my overdraft with bank charges , i used the oft case as a defence disputing the charges and how much i owed.

 

This debt has now been sold on to mkdp.

What i am unclear on is do i need to do a full defence, or just mention that originally it was stayed quoting case number.

[citizenB]

Righto. Well IMHO, although please wait for those with more knowledge to confirm, my defence would be along the lines of..

 

This claim appears to be a duplicate of Claim number 12345678 issued by the claimant on DATE. That claim was stayed by Judge XX of XX County Court on DATE.

 

The original claimant has assigned the account to the current claimant.

 

It is the defendant's position that the Claimant should have applied in the correct manner to restore the original claim, and replace themselves as claimant. .

 

Is your position with your defence going to be the same ?

 

If this is a current account, then I do not think you are going to be able to use the Penalty charges !

[citizenB]

Were you advised that the claim had been assigned and did you tell the new owner that there was a stayed claim ?

[d33]

It was a current account overdraft. and i havent had any contact with this company, i dont recall any previous letters but cannot be 100 %

[AndyOrch]

Have you informed mkdp that the debt is already subject to litigation d33?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[d33]

no i havent informed them should i write to them asking to withdraw as subject to litigation (been five years now). I have read throught the other thread you mentioned sounds similar case to mine

Edited October 29, 2013 by d33

[d33]

Out of interest , it was said not to mention original case reference number , do i just mention original claimants dates etc? is there any particular reason for this?

[AndyOrch]

I was referring to here on the open forum in that thread....ring them inform them tell them who the claimant is and claim number.......dont mention the fact that its been stayed for 5 years.

[DonkeyB]

You should be seeking to either defend under CPR 3.4 (Rule 3.4(2)(b)) or strike out under 24.2, abuse of process, as long as the claim is essentially the same.