consumer protrection " dont make me laugh"

[JunkiMunki]

Hi,

May 2006, we received a document from Land Registry, stating that an ICO had been applied for, and that a COPY of the ICO had been sent to them by the applicant should we wish to see it .

Neither myself nor my O/ H were familiar with the Company or the Solicitors involved.

 

 

We then received a letter from the solicitors acting on behalf of the Company, a few weeks later dated June 2006, upon reading the contents of the letter, we were disgusted to find that the alleged debt had already been before the courts on 3 separate occasions, without our knowledge.

A FCO had been obtained just 5 days before the letter was drafted. Once again we were completely oblivious to the alleged debts existence.

 

 

A sealed copy of the FCO had been enclosed within the letter, both the ICO and FCO were obtained Many many miles away, it also stated that an ICO had been obtained in April 2006, again without our knowledge.

 

 

It also stated that a Default Judgment had been obtained back in 2005, by way of a MCOL, We have never seen any documentation for the Default Judgment , or the ICO order, to say I was fuming was an understatement.

 

 

I sent a letter in reply, to all the comments within the letter, I stated that as far as we were concerned the alleged debt was nothing at all to do with myself or my O/H, I stated that they were the lowest form of life on earth after deceitfully obtaining judgment on an alleged debt, without any chance to enter a defence.

 

 

I stated that I required valid documents to prove the ownership of the alleged debt and until the valid documents were produced the Debt would remain in dispute

Letter Ping Pong with the company whereby in 2008, after receiving another letter, it was stated that the alleged debt was ascertaining to a "Credit Card" in my O/H name and with a company called the Associates.

 

 

The letter then went on to state that as no payments had been made to reduce the debt,

they were going to instruct their solicitors "LCS" to take further action through the courts, the letter went on to offer a consolidation loan which would be arranged by LCS.

 

 

Once again a letter was sent in reply stating that as far as We were concerned the alleged debt was still in dispute, as the requested documentation back in 2006, had never materialised, and until the requested documentation was produced the debt would remain indefinitely in dispute.

 

 

cutting A LONG STORY short, in 2010 a stat demand appeared for the alleged debt, but the information entered on the demand was totally different to the information I had on the Original documents, EG; Incorrect Company stated as the owners of the debt, incorrect Case Nos: and reference Nos: Used,, I thought that they were just trying to coerce me into making pmt on the alleged debt with their antics.

 

 

I was also unable to understand why again another Solicitors were involved now acting for this other company who were claiming that the debt belonged to them.

Contacted the Court re the claim no's and owners of the debt, Only to find that the case had been transferred to" Reigate County Court" and that they had got "LCS" as the Solicitors.

 

 

I then explained that I had solicitors [1] and company[03752940] registered by way of a restriction against O/H beneficial interest since 2006, and they had got Company[03752940] and LCS as solicitors, and now 2011 lo and behold company No;[04140507] and Solicitors" Welbeck LAW LLP" WERE STATING IN THEIR STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE THE SOLICITORS WHO HAD BEEN DEALING WITH THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND HAD made a statement of truth to that effect.

I was told by the lady at court that each time a new solicitor was engaged then the courts and myself should have been informed this was a requirement of CPR rules and practice directions as set out in the cca 1974 legislations.

 

 

In 2011 we received a Bankruptcy order for my O/H, upon visiting the O/R we explained that the debt had been in dispute since 2006, and that a diferent Company and different solicitors had otained the Bankruptcy order, whilst the courts had a company and LCS as the solicitors. I had Company[03752940] and a completely different solicitor, registered against our property, I told the O/R that we had requested valid documentation re the alleged debt, but none had ever been produced.

 

 

I stated that the alleged debt did not belong to my O/H, the O/R completely ignored the fact that the debt was disputed and that no valid documents had ever been produced, and when I asked him about the different companies involved and the different solicitors being used I was told that the companies were one and the same.

 

 

upon quizzing him re the different claim no's being used I was told that it must just be an admin error, I stated that the charge was still against the property although a secured creditor should not be able to make you bankrupt, without giving up the security on the property.

 

 

after phoning Companies House myself I was told that if each company had their own unique reg no then they were classed as separate entities, I told the O/R this and also told the Insolvency practitioners, but once again it fell on deaf ears.

 

 

I got in touch with the FOS in October 2012, as I was fed up requesting valid documents, and the Insolvency Practitioners were being incooperative after I had an argument with them over data protection issues which were explained as small admin errrors, in which some of the documents in my husbands name have never been located, they stated in their next letter that all office staff had been told NOT to discuss annulment anymore as they were going ahead with the bankruptcy, this was purely a vexatious move on their part .

The FOS contacted them and I am going to let you see their final response letter, which abuses most of the legislations within the CCA 1974 act, and completely goes against all the sanctions imposed upon them by the OFT in 2009, and have ignored and abused the CPR rules and directions that are in place to protect the consumer.

 

 

The default judgment was obtained by deception by way of MCOL which states that the agreement is still needed at the court, hence we were not told of the alleged debt, as if a defence had been entered they would have had to produce the AGREEMENT.

 

 

ALSO AFTER STUDYING THE CCA 1974 ACT FOR QUITE AWHILE I CAME ACROSS THE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After requesting for valid documentation for an alleged debt in 2006,

[JunkiMunki]

• obliterated final respose pg 1 (1).pdf (497.6 KB)
  
• obliterated final respose pg 2.pdf (380.6 KB)
  

[SabreSheep]

They may be right when they say they are relyin gon the CCJ to pursue you.

 

To unwind this you needed to have the CCJ set aside

 

Andy or someone more experienced may be able to help. But if I read things right that cancelling the CCJ is the first issue

[citizenB]

DId you not make any attempt to have the Judgment set aside in 2006 when you were first advised of this ?

 

Had you requested sight of the documents at that time, then they should not have been able to obtain a Judgment against you. I think you might have had the opportunity at the Stat Demand stage to also request the document and make application to have the Stat Demand set aside.

 

Bankruptch is far harder to annul !

[citizenB]

Are you saying that the debt wasnt yours or that you were disputing its enforceability ?

 

Was this a Secured loan, credit debt or unsecured loan that was the subject of the CCJ ?

[Ganymede]

DId you not make any attempt to have the Judgment set aside in 2006 when you were first advised of this ?

 

Had you requested sight of the documents at that time, then they should not have been able to obtain a Judgment against you. I think you might have had the opportunity at the Stat Demand stage to also request the document and make application to have the Stat Demand set aside.

 

Bankruptch is far harder to annul !

 

 

 

I agree with CitizenB that you may struggle as you should have applied to set aside the CCJ 8 years ago when you first found out about it.

 

The CPR requires that you act promptly when applying to set aside the Order.

[steampowered]

Hi Junkimunki,

 

Sorry to hear about all this. Was there any specific advice/input you are looking for?

[JunkiMunki]

Are you saying that the debt wasnt yours or that you were disputing its enforceability ?

 

Was this a Secured loan, credit debt or unsecured loan that was the subject of the CCJ ?

 

Hi,

In answer to your question, Yes I am stating not saying that the debt does not belong to my O/H,

we have disputed the alleged debt since 2006, requesting documented proof on numerous occasions but never produced.

In 2008, a letter from [company 1] and their [solicitors 2] "LCS" [in house paralegals], re the alleged debt stated that the alleged debt was in fact a

Credit Card from the Associates allegedly belonging to my O/H, the letter further stated they were in the process of informing their Solicitors "LCS" to take further court action unless payments were forthcoming. [solicitors 1] dissappeared??.

 

I replied stating that the debt was as far as we were concerned in dispute and had been since 2006, requested documents have never been produced

I stated that there would be no more correspondence from ourselves re the alleged debt, until production of the valid documents.

In 2010 a stat demand came dated 13 days before the date they say it was delivered, but the details that were entered on it did not tally with the information held by me, EG: incorrect Company stating that they were the claimants, incorrect case Nos used re the judgment, incorrect reference No being used.

 

It was because of the discrepancies I decided that they were just trying to get an initial payment on the alleged debt, Then we received a large bundle of papers the last letter being dated 1/4/2011 the first document dated 31/1/2011, the documents were from [solicitors 3], Welbeck Law LLP acting for

[Company 2] who were in the process of obtaining a bankruptcy order, despite all the inconsistencies.

Their witness statement stated that they had had dealings with the claim so far, which is an incorrect statement on their part, [money definately talks].

 

Scenario @ the moment is [ Company 1= Solicitors 1] still registered against property,

[Company 1 = Solicitors 2 LCS] details that are on the court file when the case was transferred to "Reigate County Court"

[Company 2 = Solicitors 3] , obtained bankruptcy order with incorrect details used.

[Company 3 ] who have now been instructed to collect the outstanding alleged debt, according to their final response letter dated Oct 2012, whereby it took a complaint to the FOS to produce the final response letter, whereby it is admitted that an agreement has never been in their possession, [Company 3] instructed to collect the debt, surrendered their licence Aug 2010, so should not be active, and by their own admittance to the default judgment, surely this proves that incorrect and inappropriate deceitful actions have been used.

 

I have since checked my O/H credit file whedreby there is nothing relating to a Solely owned debt at all, and no mention of a credit card in his name,I have now passed all information to the fraud squad as I feel that the whole thing from beginning to end although supposed to be in dispute actions were not stopped, CPR rules ignored and abused, CCA 1974 act Legislations to protect the consumer have not done anything to protect me and my O/H.

I came across the inforfmation relating to s 127[3] of CCA 1974, which all solicitors and DCA would have known about, which If I could not have proven the alleged debt did not belong to my O/H, then I should have been able to use, as was stated within the Summary of "Wilson V First County Trust Ltd" [2003]UKHL 40....

The wilson case made it clear that in the event of no acceptable consumer credit agreementr, then the credito could not recover monies owing underf ordinary contract law, regardless of whether they could prove the debt existed or not.... This was the decision of the HOUSE OF LORDS and therefore should be binding in the court.

The Law states that withou a prescribed agreement the courts MAY NOT enforce under s127[3] and..

1] In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000]UKHL 27, LORD Hoffman said @ page1131.."Parliament intended that if a Consumer Credit Agreement was improperly executed then sunbject to the enforcement powers of the Court, the debtor should not have to pay...

 

2] Sir Andrew Morritt Vice Chancellor in Wilson V First County Trust Ltd[2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para26... in the case of an unenforceable agreement

"The creditor must ... be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift of the monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part witrh the monieas in circumstances in which it was never intended to have them repaid.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead... in the HOUSE OF LORDS "Wilson v First County Trust Ltd"-[2003] All ER [D] 187 [Jul] paragraph 29....

"The Courts powers under sev tion 127[1] are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases...

1] first type is where S61[1][a], regarding signing of an agreement, is not complied with, In such cases the Court shall not make an enfoecement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor; S127[3] thus signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the Courts power to make an enforcement order.

 

If the agreements are as I expect, unenforceable by Law or if no written agreement exists, then the claimant was in error when it ewas stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the claimant at the time the Bankruptcy Petition was issued.

 

So after checking CRF whereby the alleged debt is not showing, as there is no solely owned debt in O/H name, the "Restriction" is still showing as is the charging order belonging to the Insolvency Practitioner, therefore O/H credit file has incorrect information entered.

After trying all avenues of getting the alleged debt squashed re not O/H debt, but still falling upon deaf ears, have stated the 127[3] information, which quite clearly states "NO Agreement!" "No DEBT", but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA.

 

As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belon g to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt.

 

falling upon deaf ears, have stated the 127[3] information, which quite clearly states "NO Agreement!" "No DEBT", but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA.

 

As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belong g to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt.

 

 

, but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA.

 

As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belong to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt.

 

Went to Court this week to try and suspend the Vacation order upon the family home, had all the evidence to prove that the debt did not belong to O/H, and that it was disputed since 2006, and that it had been before the courts 3x obtaining the required

default judgment without the need to produce a valid agreement, but the judge would not look at any evidence and would not grant the suspension on our property.#

 

A creditor from a previous debt, which I duly paid for 13 years, but after attending court in 2005, whereby the company did not attend after explaining to the judge that I had paid the debt for the last 13 years, he replied that enough had been paid, and issued a

 

“General Form of Judgment”

 

Which stated upon the company not attending , the case is to be struck out, this was back in 2005, and have never had any correspondence with them since before the order was made, have now climbed out the woodwork and told the Insolvency Practitioners that a debt of £47,000 + is owing to them and that the loan I had from them was towards my Mortgage, have emailed the judgment order to them and the solicitors acting for 1st credit finance ltd, told them the loan was for £4,000 which was payable by 180 mts @ £74 per month, which I duly paid for 13 years, leaving approximately £2,000 when it was struck out.

 

They have informed the I/P the drastic increase is due to interest that has accrued, this is not the case as all loans within the CCA 1974 below £5,000 does not qualify for interest to be added, the information I provided for the above has not been used to correct the claim at court whereby the judge is still under the assumption that the £47,000 is duly owing within my mortgage, but has blatantly refused my appeal, as the solicitors stated that an amount of £77,000 would be needed upon selling our property, which is pure rubbish, I have £21,000 owing on the mortgage and if you cancel the alleged debt and the crawler out the woodwork, our financial situation is way below £5,000 entered on our credit files.

 

I am now having to appeal the decision made by the Distict Judge and hope that I get a circuit judge competent in CCA LAW

Edited June 9, 2014 by ims21
Quote corrected

[BazzaS]

Hi,

In answer to your question, Yes I am stating not saying that the debt does not belong to my O/H,

we have disputed the alleged debt since 2006, requesting documented proof on numerous occasions but never produced.

In 2008, a letter from [company 1] and their [solicitors 2] "LCS" [in house paralegals], re the alleged debt stated that the alleged debt was in fact a

Credit Card from the Associates allegedly belonging to my O/H, the letter further stated they were in the process of informing their Solicitors "LCS" to take further court action unless payments were forthcoming. [solicitors 1] dissappeared??.

 

I replied stating that the debt was as far as we were concerned in dispute and had been since 2006, requested documents have never been produced

I stated that there would be no more correspondence from ourselves re the alleged debt, until production of the valid documents.

In 2010 a stat demand came dated 13 days before the date they say it was delivered, but the details that were entered on it did not tally with the information held by me, EG: incorrect Company stating that they were the claimants, incorrect case Nos used re the judgment, incorrect reference No being used.

 

It was because of the discrepancies I decided that they were just trying to get an initial payment on the alleged debt, Then we received a large bundle of papers the last letter being dated 1/4/2011 the first document dated 31/1/2011, the documents were from [solicitors 3], Welbeck Law LLP acting for

[Company 2] who were in the process of obtaining a bankruptcy order, despite all the inconsistencies.

Their witness statement stated that they had had dealings with the claim so far, which is an incorrect statement on their part, [money definately talks].

 

Scenario @ the moment is [ Company 1= Solicitors 1] still registered against property,

[Company 1 = Solicitors 2 LCS] details that are on the court file when the case was transferred to "Reigate County Court"

[Company 2 = Solicitors 3] , obtained bankruptcy order with incorrect details used.

[Company 3 ] who have now been instructed to collect the outstanding alleged debt, according to their final response letter dated Oct 2012, whereby it took a complaint to the FOS to produce the final response letter, whereby it is admitted that an agreement has never been in their possession, [Company 3] instructed to collect the debt, surrendered their licence Aug 2010, so should not be active, and by their own admittance to the default judgment, surely this proves that incorrect and inappropriate deceitful actions have been used.

 

I have since checked my O/H credit file whedreby there is nothing relating to a Solely owned debt at all, and no mention of a credit card in his name,I have now passed all information to the fraud squad as I feel that the whole thing from beginning to end although supposed to be in dispute actions were not stopped, CPR rules ignored and abused, CCA 1974 act Legislations to protect the consumer have not done anything to protect me and my O/H.

I came across the inforfmation relating to s 127[3] of CCA 1974, which all solicitors and DCA would have known about, which If I could not have proven the alleged debt did not belong to my O/H, then I should have been able to use, as was stated within the Summary of "Wilson V First County Trust Ltd" [2003]UKHL 40....

The wilson case made it clear that in the event of no acceptable consumer credit agreementr, then the credito could not recover monies owing underf ordinary contract law, regardless of whether they could prove the debt existed or not.... This was the decision of the HOUSE OF LORDS and therefore should be binding in the court.

The Law states that withou a prescribed agreement the courts MAY NOT enforce under s127[3] and..

1] In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000]UKHL 27, LORD Hoffman said @ page1131.."Parliament intended that if a Consumer Credit Agreement was improperly executed then sunbject to the enforcement powers of the Court, the debtor should not have to pay...

 

2] Sir Andrew Morritt Vice Chancellor in Wilson V First County Trust Ltd[2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para26... in the case of an unenforceable agreement

"The creditor must ... be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift of the monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part witrh the monieas in circumstances in which it was never intended to have them repaid.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead... in the HOUSE OF LORDS "Wilson v First County Trust Ltd"-[2003] All ER [D] 187 [Jul] paragraph 29....

"The Courts powers under sev tion 127[1] are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases...

1] first type is where S61[1][a], regarding signing of an agreement, is not complied with, In such cases the Court shall not make an enfoecement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor; S127[3] thus signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the Courts power to make an enforcement order.

 

If the agreements are as I expect, unenforceable by Law or if no written agreement exists, then the claimant was in error when it ewas stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the claimant at the time the Bankruptcy Petition was issued.

 

So after checking CRF whereby the alleged debt is not showing, as there is no solely owned debt in O/H name, the "Restriction" is still showing as is the charging order belonging to the Insolvency Practitioner, therefore O/H credit file has incorrect information entered.

After trying all avenues of getting the alleged debt squashed re not O/H debt, but still falling upon deaf ears, have stated the 127[3] information, which quite clearly states "NO Agreement!" "No DEBT", but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA.

 

As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belon g to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt.

 

falling upon deaf ears, have stated the 127[3] information, which quite clearly states "NO Agreement!" "No DEBT", but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA.

 

As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belong g to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt.

 

 

, but even the above has fallen on deaf ears, have been told that it no longer applies re the "Rankine" case , but the situation is for all pre 2006 agreements then s127[3] is applicable, but was repealed in the 2006 updated CCA.

 

As I have had judges that do not like LIP's have exhausted nearly all my bridges, which certainly looks like I am going to lose the family home, because of "GREEDY LYING CHEATING LOWLIFES.... FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMING SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO CLAIM" WHICH AFTER a great deal of research has now been disclosed to the Fraud Squad for Investigation, has been sent to "Watchdog" revealing everything and all concerned have been named as conspiring to defraud, as the alleged debt does not belong to O/H, and if it had then no agreement no debt.

 

Went to Court this week to try and suspend the Vacation order upon the family home, had all the evidence to prove that the debt did not belong to O/H, and that it was disputed since 2006, and that it had been before the courts 3x obtaining the required

default judgment without the need to produce a valid agreement, but the judge would not look at any evidence and would not grant the suspension on our property.#

 

A creditor from a previous debt, which I duly paid for 13 years, but after attending court in 2005, whereby the company did not attend after explaining to the judge that I had paid the debt for the last 13 years, he replied that enough had been paid, and issued a

 

“General Form of Judgment”

 

Which stated upon the company not attending , the case is to be struck out, this was back in 2005, and have never had any correspondence with them since before the order was made, have now climbed out the woodwork and told the Insolvency Practitioners that a debt of £47,000 + is owing to them and that the loan I had from them was towards my Mortgage, have emailed the judgment order to them and the solicitors acting for 1st credit finance ltd, told them the loan was for £4,000 which was payable by 180 mts @ £74 per month, which I duly paid for 13 years, leaving approximately £2,000 when it was struck out.

 

They have informed the I/P the drastic increase is due to interest that has accrued, this is not the case as all loans within the CCA 1974 below £5,000 does not qualify for interest to be added, the information I provided for the above has not been used to correct the claim at court whereby the judge is still under the assumption that the £47,000 is duly owing within my mortgage, but has blatantly refused my appeal, as the solicitors stated that an amount of £77,000 would be needed upon selling our property, which is pure rubbish, I have £21,000 owing on the mortgage and if you cancel the alleged debt and the crawler out the woodwork, our financial situation is way below £5,000 entered on our credit files.

 

I am now having to appeal the decision made by the Distict Judge and hope that I get a circuit judge competent in CCA LAW

 

You cite the case authorities you intend to rely on - all well and good.

 

Have I misunderstood though?

This relates to a CCJ you became aware of many years ago?

A CCJ you only now are asking the court to have it set aside?

 

Your case authorities may be absolutely correct, but what if a judge says "those authorities might have helped had you applied for the set aside when you first became aware of the CCJ : but given the many years elapsed since you became aware of the CCJ, you are out of time to ask me to consider a set aside".

 

It appears the charging orders (interim & final) and bankruptcy follow the CCJ.

It appears from what you have stated you were aware of the CCJ in June/July 2006.

Even if you weren't aware of the CCJ in December 2005, you were aware if it in July 2006?

 

You can't challenge what follows from the CCJ without setting aside the CCJ, and I fear you have long "missed the boat" for that. If you disputed owing them the money and weren't aware of the (December 2005) County Court hearing : expect a court to ask : "why should we hear a set aside application now, when we should have heard from you in July 2006?"

 

Is this the same alleged debt you noted (back in Sept 2011) "OC was Yorkshire Bank PLC whereby after paying 24 payments out of 48, and because of a mistake made at DHSS was left without benefit for 33 weeks resulting in an ICO entered by way of a restriction upon my BI in the jointly owned property, this was registered at the land registry in July 2005, and although a FCO was granted without my being informed the FCO has never been registered with the Land registry."?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?319963-No-Justice-!!!!&p=3555630#post3555630