Judgement Set Aside But Now What?

[DaydreamJay]

I would appreciate any help, or clarification on the following please:

 

1) In the early 90's I took out an unsecured personal loan with HSBC

 

2) I bought insurance to cover me in case of losing my job etc. I got

injured and the insurance wormed their way out of paying.

 

3) I refused to make anymore payments on the loan, this was around 1996, I

can't remember exactly when.

 

4) In 2004 HSBC via D G Solicitors obtained a CCJ against me and a subsequent Charging Order

 

5) I found out (via the internet) that I may have had a defence due to the

Limitations Act i.e. I had not made a payment nor admitted the debt in

writing in the 6 year period before the 2004 CCJ

 

6) I applied to have the CCJ set aside, I put my reasons in writing and also

attended.

 

7) HSBC didn't attend but sent a letter in saying that they hadn't received

my defense letter.

 

8) The judge nether the less awarded me that the judgement be set aside.

Great I thought.

 

9) I then get a letter through stating: "IT IS ORDERED THAT 1.Judgement be

set aside 2. The defendants letter do stand as a defence

 

10) Also enclosed is a "Notice that a Defence has been filed" and an

"Allocation questionnaire"

 

11) I didn't have the foggiest what an allocation questionnaire was so I

rang the court.

 

12) The (legally untrained) staff said that I need to fill it in and return

it and HSBC has to do the same in order for a convenient court date to be set.

 

Now this is where I am baffled - what did I just go through if it wasn't to

get my CCJ lifted and why do I need to go to court again? Does the term

"judgement set aside" simply mean that it is temporarily put on hold so that

the case can be re-opened? I thought I had won the case and that "judgement

set aside" meant that the original CCJ from 2004 was quashed.

 

Secondly if the case is being reopened will the Limitations Act mean any

payments I made in the previous six years as from the new court date or will it be from the original court date of 2004? If it is from the new court date it makes it easier for me to win as I can prove I haven't paid anything in the last 6 years as my online banking goes back that far.

 

Thirdly - even though I have requested many times HSBC are unable to provide any evidence to support that I even had a loan in the first place, neither can they say how much I paid and when and also what charges have been added as they "destroy their records after 7 years." This may br fair enough but what company in their right mind would destroy evidence of someone owing

them £10,000?

 

I would really really appreciate some advice on this - if you could offer

any advice or answers to my questions. Oh - and I can't afford a solicitor

otherwise I would be consulting one.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jay

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Daydreamjay, the Court did give judgement in your favour, but allowed HSBC

to appeal because they didn't receive a defense from you. Did you send them

your defense, and if you did, do you have a copy, and did you send it recorded delivery. If yes, have you got, or can you get, proof that they got your letter? If yes, then I would first complain to the Judge that they did

get your defense in time and they should not be appealing, or not for that

reason anyway.

You are arguing that the CCj should not have been applied as the debt was

statute barred. so whatever comes after that by way of payments by you

is irrelevant from the point of view of the CCJ. It does mean that you have

now acknowledged the debt, but your argument is that you were forced to pay as a result of the Court Order.

The fact that there is a CCJ means that it is not necessary to provide the

original agreement as proof of the debt since the CCJ does that.

 

As for destruction of data, this should be done when a loan has been repaid and kept for a further six years thereafter. This certainly applies to the

original agreement since you can argue that now there is now way of you

challenging the APR, the amount of loan, nor even if it was a properly

executed agreement. You could argue that since it has been destroyed there

is a likelihood that there was something wrong with the agreement that would not bear scrutiny now and was deliberately shredded since they could fall back on the CCJ as proof of the debt.

You can also claim that by destroying the paerwork, you have no opportunity

to reclaim the unlawful charges that were applied to your account back in

those days, so the actual debt figure is wrong. And while you cannot reclaim

those charges now, partly because you did not know they were reclaimable in those days it is aslo because HSBV say they have destroyed the details

anyway. However you are still being subject to a CCJ for a debt that was

incurred before the unlawful charges were applied. Does not seem equitable.

 

CCJs when correctly applied last until the debt is paid off if that is longer than six years-they do not expire through age.