Consultation on Default County Court Judgments (and where claims had been sent to an old address)

[dx100uk]

Major crackdown on abuse of 'debt' judgement by rogue parking and utility firms is announced

 

Ministers will pledge action on abuse of county court judgments by rogue firms

Anyone who has had a CCJ without their knowledge will have it removed

 

The Govt plans to immediately set aside all backdoor CCJs for those who can prove to a judge that they did not know about it when it was passed.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

[Michael Browne]

MOJ consultation here:

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/consultation/intro/

[renegadeimp]

thank god. Its about damn time. I wonder what caused them to finally do this after it happening for YEARS.

[brassnecked]

Good news, but remember Parking Eye are included in as contributors, and as part of Capita might have more clout than others, this Consultation is not very good for Capita.

[SuperVillain]

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/government-mulls-county-court-judgment-shakeup/5064115.article

 

Another article regarding this. Presumably this will involve some sort of change to CPR 6.18.

 

The Daily Mail article is a little sensationalist and there are a few odd things about the Hancocks' story. Notwithstanding that, they didn't end up homeless because of a £170 CCJ.

 

I've done several years of debt collection work and issuing for various organisations. It is extremely hard when people move around. A lot of that boils down to the 6 year limitation period. Maybe the limitation period should be reduced to say 2 years for the smallest simple contract claims.

[Bailiff Advice]

In September 2016, the Daily Mail carried reports about individuals and families who faced financial ruin because they had not been aware that a county court judgment had been obtained against them in their absence and the record of that judgment with Registry Trust had led to them being refused a mortgage, loan or car on finance or even a mobile phone contract.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784421/Stranger-s-40-parking-ticket-cost-family-new-home.html

 

The press reports that followed raised concerns that some rogue companies were deliberately sending court claims to consumers using incorrect addresses.

 

Most worrying was the astonishing increase in county court judgments (in particular from private parking companies) with more than eight out of ten claims being uncontested and many claims being sent to an old address.

 

In December 2016, the government announced that it would be seeking views on improving the process. It also noted that there were concerns that some creditors were deliberately using addresses for debtors that they know to be old and that this deprives debtors the chance to defend the claim and having to suffer the consequences of possible enforcement as creditors use this as leverage for future debt recovery.

 

During the past year, the government have consulted with various stakeholder groups and on 27th December 2017 issued a public consultation which closes on 21st February 2018.

[Bailiff Advice]

The Overview from the Consultation states the following:

 

We are interested in your views as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current processes for money claims issued in the County Court. Of particular interest, will be views from respondents on limiting the circumstances in which an individual may have a judgment made in default against them without their knowledge.

 

In the light of responses to this consultation, the Government will consider whether any changes are needed to the current arrangements and ask the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which govern processes in the civil courts, to consider any changes.

 

Any changes to current procedures, following consultation, would inevitably apply to all money claims, whether they arise from, say, a claim for lack of payment for a new fridge or television or are brought by a parking company seeking to enforce a parking infringement on private land. Both use the same process. Respondents sharing their experiences with us are therefore requested to make clear the type of claim they are referring to.

 

The paper is aimed in particular at those who have had experience of County Court judgments, whether as defendants or claimants, and bodies representing the interests of claimants or defendants, but responses will be welcome from anyone interested in the subject matter.

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/supporting_documents/defaultcountycourtjudgmentsconsultation.pdf

[Guest]

broken link above

this seems to work (scroll down to 'related' for the pdf)

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/

[dx100uk]

merged with our existing thread

 

dx

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Anyone who has had a CCJ without their knowledge will have it removed

 

The Govt plans to immediately set aside all backdoor CCJs for those who can prove to a judge that they did not know about it when it was passed.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

 

DX,

 

The thread title is not altogether accurate and neither is the Daily Mail commentary.

 

It is important to point out that the Government is not planning to immediately set aside a judgment obtained without the debtors knowledge.

 

The current position outlined in the Consultation is as follows:

 

Currently, not receiving the claim is not a defence and the judgment would not be set aside on that basis alone.

 

If, however, the defendant has a defence (for example, that the money was not owed at all) and can establish that the documents were served at an address where the defendant could not have been aware of the claim, the court will consider the application to set the judgment aside.

 

The Consultation propose that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

 

• The defendant immediately pays in full

 

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

[dx100uk]

your great explanation is why we started it

to pick it apart

 

dx

[Bailiff Advice]

On various F/B groups there have been questions asked about the Government's plans in this Consultation and many of the queries centred on the effect that this Consultation may have on debts enforced by bailiffs.

 

To clarify the position, this Consultation will not affect the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines (for example; speeding, non payment of TV Licence etc) and where a summons had been sent to a previous address. The reason why these debts will be excluded from the Consultation is because a remedy already exists to 'rewind' the procedure by way of a Section 14 Statutory Declaration in the Magistrate Court.

 

Secondly, this Consultation will not affect the enforcement of local authority issued road traffic debts (including Congestion Charges and Dart Charges). Once again, the reason is because a remedy already exists to 'rewind' the procedure by way of an Out of Time witness statement (or statutory declaration) to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The Consultation only concerns debts that result in judgments being recorded with Registry Trust. Accordingly, County Court bailiffs and High Court Enforcement companies could be affected.

[Bailiff Advice]

The Consultation proposes that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

 

• The defendant immediately pays in full

 

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

 

So if for instance a judgement had been obtained by a debt purchasing company against a statute barred debt, the debtor making an application to court to remove the judgment would only succeed in his application......if he immediately pays the judgment in full.

 

This could be good news for debt purchasing companies????

[ericsbrother]

I see no change at all in the circumstance you highlight unless you assume that the reasons given in the bullet points are mutually exclusive.

 

So, if a debt purchasing co gets a CCJ at an old address then the defendant still has recourse to points 1 and 2.

 

Now if we are considering someone who buried their head in the sand over a SB debt and then got a CCJ by default

then they have the third option,

which currently isnt a matter that will be considered for a set-aside.

 

The injustice of the claim in the first place cant really be considered by the courts service or every one of the 85% of claims that go unchallenged would have to be flagged up and the system would just grind to a halt.

 

What is clear from debt purchasing and parking threads is that there is a problem of the supposed creditor taking advantage of the "gone away" letter to make a spurious or at best doubtful claims in the full knowledge that the defendant cant defend due to ignorance of the claim.

 

This is apparent by the demands for payment after the judgement being sent to the correct( new) address immediately afterwards.

 

Some companies DO deliberately send stuff to old addresses when they have been informed of a change of address or even after a new address for service of documents is given to them via the courts.

 

I have personal experience of this and as it has happened twice I do not think it a coincidence or just bad luck.

[dx100uk]

If a debt was statute barred at the time of claim issuance

Then it is STILL statute barred

 

A set aside should be free via mutual consent

Or you sue the claimant at the hearing for your £255 plus costs

[brassnecked]

Sounds like a plan DX, these people need more than a mild tolchock for their shenanigans.

[dx100uk]

too right

[brassnecked]

Thing is some like Lowell, or Arrows, in the face of their potentially fraudulent claim will try to say their default CCJ on SB debt trumps the SB as they now have a CCJ so the CCJ should stand Needs a judge to slap them down severely in that event.

[AndyOrch]

Thread moved to Financial Legal Issues Forum

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Bailiff Advice]

The Consultation proposes that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

 

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

 

• The defendant immediately pays in full

 

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

 

 

 

So if for instance a judgement had been obtained by a debt purchasing company against a statute barred debt, the debtor making an application to court to remove the judgment would only succeed in his application......if he immediately pays the judgment in full.

 

This could be good news for debt purchasing companies????

 

It would seem that my above analysis is indeed correct.

[dx100uk]

not unless they are going to re write the statute barred laws its not

[AndyOrch]

It would seem that my above analysis is indeed correct.

 

Correct with regards to what ?

 

Why would anyone pay a statue barred debt once it was set a side ?

 

 

Andy

[Bailiff Advice]

The following responses to the Consultation have been posted online:

 

The Law Society’s response

 

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/policy-campaigns/consultation-responses/moj-consultation-on-default-county-court-judgments-law-society-response/

 

 

The Bar Council's response.

 

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/638967/default_county_court_judgments.pdf