CCJ set aside

Sonic17

Hi,
I have a CCJ which I have applied to have set aside - with a hearing date set for 3 weeks time. Basically the original judgment was for National Ins contributions. The correspondence was sent to my previous flat earlier this year and the judgment issued in april of this year (which i only recently
discovered). But I sold my flat in 2004 and can prove this to be so.

I have read that a summons being sent to wrong address is a good reason to have a judgment set aside by right. But I have also read that this is only the
case if I think I don't owe the money. I have contacted NI contributions and am happy to bring my payments up to date but am worried that by doing so I
am admitting that I 'do' owe the money to which the original judgment relates, and therefore compromise having it set aside.

I am quite happy to turn up at the hearing, hopefully have the judgment set aside but then pay what I owe.

Would I be better not to pay anything yet and say at the hearing that i am not sure I owe the money.??

I am also worried that NI contributions will argue that the judgment should stand as I should have informed them of my new address legally and so they
had no option to serve communication at the only address they had - which I suppose is fair enough. But it still doesn't change thae fact that I was
unable to respond to a summons that I knew nothing about.

I would very much appreciate any advice in this matter.

Kind regards

Dr.Shoe_2

If you're going to pay anyway, won't that show the CCJ as being settled?

rog2

I don't know if this will be of any use, but I have a Tax problem, and have found help at: https://www.taxaid.org.uk
They are a charity that can give independent help an d advice on all tax matters.

Sonic17

Thanks for your replies. Sorry for not responding earlier, I thought I'd set my profile to send an email to notify me of replies but hadn't.

Yes if I pay it will say satisfied however it will still remain on my credit file and I would rather it wasn't. Had I received the summons or earlier communication I would have paid it and wouldn't now have a CCJ on my credit file for the next 6 years. Saying it is satisfied is not as good as it not being there at all.

And rog2, thankyou for the tax aid link. I shall look into that more.

oakdale_minx

I think (not 100% sure) that if a judgement is granted and you pay within 28 days it isn't added to the register and doesn't show on your credit record.

Sonic17

Yep that is correct but I only discovered the CCJ via my credit file recently. And the judgement was made back in April so paying now would mean it would remain for 6 years (albeit satisfied).

I'm not trying to have the claim set aside so as not to pay the sum. I'm willing to admit that I owe and indeed pay the sum. I only really want it set aside so that the CCJ is no longer on my credit file. This is how i came to discover it as I'm currently (or was) applying for a new mortgage and this CCJ has been discovered. Had I received the summons or the earlier communication I would have paid it directly.

Really I only want the court to allow me to respond as if I had received the summons or even judgment afresh. Because even had I known of the judgement after the fact but within 28 days and paid it, the CCJ would be removed from my credit file.

When I sold my flat back in 2004 (where summons was sent) i received a very large sum of equity so i could show the court that it wasn't from lack of funds that I didn't pay. I simply wasn't aware of the summons.

Does anyone know how a judge would respond to this??

Thanks for replies so far.

file_wizzard

Basically the long and the short of it is that although non-service is listed a due cause to enable set aside, it is very rarely the reality these days as most Judges are very aware that this is used as a common “excuse”.

You also have the problem that you should of legally informed the tax office of the change of address, so if you get the "wrong" Judge he may not be particularly sympathetic.

Also the Judge will evaluate the application for set aside on the grounds that you will need to demonstrate that on the balance of probability that you would have been able to adequatly defend the original claim, therefore if you admit the sum is owed and is not in dispute the judge will do one of two things;

1. Uphold the original order, and you will need to pay the sum owed, and have the CCJ on you credit file marked as satisfied.
2. Set aside the original order, and make an immediate & subsequent order in admission, which will specify a forthwith payment (or schedule if agreed)

If it is No. 1 you will have still have to pay forthwith (or apply for a variation), if it is No. 2 the original order will be set aside (deleted from your file) and the subsequent order will need to be satisfied in full within 28 days, if this achieved then no further entry’s will be made to your credit file

Sonic17

Thanks file_wizzard. I think I'll admit that I owe the money and try and show that I would have paid had I been able to respond to the summons. I would be perfectly happy with a judge going for option 2 that you mentioned, because as I said earlier I'm not trying to get out of paying - simply to have the CCJ removed from my credit file on the grounds that I 'would' have paid had I received the summons.

I was thinking of paying the sum before-hand in the hope that the NI contributions would not wish to bother defending the set aside (although they told me they 'would' object to it even if I paid prior to hearing). Do you think this would help if I paid it prior to the hearing? My thinking is that at least the judge could see that I'm not going through all this to simply to try and avoid payment.
My argument being I was wrong not to give my new address, however I did not know I owed the money but would have paid had I received the summons.

This is the truth of the matter but I'm not sure how it stands as a defence to having it set aside.

rog2

Sonic17 wrote:

Thanks file_wizzard. I think I'll admit that I owe the money and try and show that I would have paid had I been able to respond to the summons. I would be perfectly happy with a judge going for option 2 that you mentioned, because as I said earlier I'm not trying to get out of paying - simply to have the CCJ removed from my credit file on the grounds that I 'would' have paid had I received the summons.

I was thinking of paying the sum before-hand in the hope that the NI contributions would not wish to bother defending the set aside (although they told me they 'would' object to it even if I paid prior to hearing). Do you think this would help if I paid it prior to the hearing? My thinking is that at least the judge could see that I'm not going through all this to simply to try and avoid payment.
My argument being I was wrong not to give my new address, however I did not know I owed the money but would have paid had I received the summons.

This is the truth of the matter but I'm not sure how it stands as a defence to having it set aside.

It may, or may not, stand as a defence, but it seems a very arrogant stance to adopt, especially in the light of your willingness to pay.
I think that you need to get someone, Solicitor or Tax Advisor, to represent you. Also, independently of this case, you are entitled to complain about the service you receive from any part of the Civil Service.
They are quick to come down heavy on Joe Public, but they don't like it when they are criticised.

file_wizzard

Sonic17 wrote:

Thanks file_wizzard. I think I'll admit that I owe the money and try and show that I would have paid had I been able to respond to the summons. I would be perfectly happy with a judge going for option 2 that you mentioned, because as I said earlier I'm not trying to get out of paying - simply to have the CCJ removed from my credit file on the grounds that I 'would' have paid had I received the summons.

Mindful that the hearing is only 3 weeks away you are best to let the Judge decide, it is highly unlikely that the IR would agree to set aside as it sets a precedent for other cases which they will not wish to encourage.

Also at the end of the day it depends entirely on which judge you get, most are very sympathetic and may award option 2 if you agree to settle the claim forthwith, however the overriding principal is that set-aside shall not be awarded purely for non service

Sonic17

Thanks for your replies. I'll report back on how it goes.