CCJ set aside

Sonic17

Hi,
I have some more to add to this post. My court date for the set aside is this coming Fri 29th Sept. I have discovered after a break-down of the original bill for the summons and subsequent judgement that the period for NI contributions for which I was billed includes a period of over a year when I was claiming job seekers allowance. I have received a letter from the benefit archive office confirming this and that I was awarded tax credits for this period.

I have called NI contributions about this and they say that as I was registered self employed prior to this I should have contacted them to say that I was no longer self employed when I was claiming JS allowance. However, I was unaware that I needed to do this as I believed that the very fact that I was getting NI tax credits for being unemployed was self explanatory that I could not be self employed at the same time as being unemployed. (Basically my work at the time completely dried up until I had no other option but to sign on).

Does the fact that my judgement amount for NI contributions includes a period for when I was claiming JS allowance become an additional defence for having the original judgment set aside??? Because even if I do still owe contributions it will certainly be less than the original summons claimed I owed.

Thanks for any further help here.

Sonic17

Just an update on the result of the court verdict on this matter. I faxed copies of the documents to the court and HM revenue 3 days prior to the hearing. The documents were a letter from social security stating I was claiming JS allowance and being awarded NI contribution credits for some of the period I was billed and also a letter from my solicitor stating that my flat where summons was sent was sold 18 months prior.

My main hope was that, had I received the summons and therefore been able to defend myself, then it would have altered the amount of the original judgement because I did not owe all the money.

Prior to the hearing, which was delayed by half an hour, I had the opportunity to chat to the HM revenue guy. It was all very amiable and I stated that the purpose of the set aside hearing for me was not to avoid payment at all but simply to pay the correct amount that I owe and have a new judgment if necessary to reflect this. And that by having the judgment set aside i was able to maintain a good credit record as I wanted to apply for finance to build a house. And by having it set aside it would not alter my resolve to pay and clear what I owed.

He even told me that he felt that the judge would 95% decide im my favour. I explained that whatever happened i wanted to settle my account there and then as I had brought cash with me.

However, he was hoping to adjourn the hearing as he was unsure how much I actually owed in light of the period when I was claiming JS allowance and said that Newcastle (where it is calculated) can take 2 or 3 months to do so. I explained to him that I was hoping to settle it all today and was even happy to pay some money on account even if he was unsure of how much I owed.

In court however, the judge didn't seem interested in the amount or whether the amount of the original judgment was incorrect. He said that this would have been a matter for appeal. All he was concerned with was this - was the original summons served correctly.?? I had to admit that although it was served at the wrong address, the Nat Ins were unaware of my correct address because I had not informed them. I explained that this was not done on purpose, merely something that did not occur to me.


As it was therefore served at last known address he could find no fault with the service and could consequently find no grounds to set aside. i even explained that had I been able to defend myself it would have altered the amount and result of the verdict. But this did not seem to matter.


I began to to realise that I was not going to achieve the set aside. But in hind-sight I was very thank-ful for my chat with the HM revenue guy before-hand. I don't think it was going how he had 'expected' either. He scribbled a note to me asking if I had the full amount in cash on me of the original summons. I nodded and he scribbled that I should offer that amount.

So I did. The judge then allowed to adjourn for a few minutes for us to agree terms and amount. I agreed to pay the original amount on the grounds that when they had re-calculated what I owed minus the period I was claiming JS allowance, they would then refund me the over-payment or if I wished the amount would be a credit for future payments. On this basis the HM revenue was happy to allow the set aside. The judge accepted and set aside the judgment.

This was all I was hoping to achieve. I never wanted to get out of paying what I really owed. Neither was HM revenue wanting to over-charge me. I paid and achieved the set aside. Any over-payment will be refunded or credited.

This has been worth it. My mortgage broker says that A CCJ that is satisfied is not regarded as highly as a CCJ that is not there at all.

Finally I am very grateful to the HM revenue guy as he seemed to genuinely wish to be helpful to me at the same time as not compromising the HM revenue's interests.

rog2

I am pleased that it has worked out well for you and I hope that you get your refund, from HMRC, without any problem.
Rog2

mrslawrence2003

Sonic17 wrote:

Just an update on the result of the court verdict on this matter. I faxed copies of the documents to the court and HM revenue 3 days prior to the hearing. The documents were a letter from social security stating I was claiming JS allowance and being awarded NI contribution credits for some of the period I was billed and also a letter from my solicitor stating that my flat where summons was sent was sold 18 months prior.

My main hope was that, had I received the summons and therefore been able to defend myself, then it would have altered the amount of the original judgement because I did not owe all the money.

Prior to the hearing, which was delayed by half an hour, I had the opportunity to chat to the HM revenue guy. It was all very amiable and I stated that the purpose of the set aside hearing for me was not to avoid payment at all but simply to pay the correct amount that I owe and have a new judgment if necessary to reflect this. And that by having the judgment set aside i was able to maintain a good credit record as I wanted to apply for finance to build a house. And by having it set aside it would not alter my resolve to pay and clear what I owed.

He even told me that he felt that the judge would 95% decide im my favour. I explained that whatever happened i wanted to settle my account there and then as I had brought cash with me.

However, he was hoping to adjourn the hearing as he was unsure how much I actually owed in light of the period when I was claiming JS allowance and said that Newcastle (where it is calculated) can take 2 or 3 months to do so. I explained to him that I was hoping to settle it all today and was even happy to pay some money on account even if he was unsure of how much I owed.

In court however, the judge didn't seem interested in the amount or whether the amount of the original judgment was incorrect. He said that this would have been a matter for appeal. All he was concerned with was this - was the original summons served correctly.?? I had to admit that although it was served at the wrong address, the Nat Ins were unaware of my correct address because I had not informed them. I explained that this was not done on purpose, merely something that did not occur to me.


As it was therefore served at last known address he could find no fault with the service and could consequently find no grounds to set aside. i even explained that had I been able to defend myself it would have altered the amount and result of the verdict. But this did not seem to matter.


I began to to realise that I was not going to achieve the set aside. But in hind-sight I was very thank-ful for my chat with the HM revenue guy before-hand. I don't think it was going how he had 'expected' either. He scribbled a note to me asking if I had the full amount in cash on me of the original summons. I nodded and he scribbled that I should offer that amount.

So I did. The judge then allowed to adjourn for a few minutes for us to agree terms and amount. I agreed to pay the original amount on the grounds that when they had re-calculated what I owed minus the period I was claiming JS allowance, they would then refund me the over-payment or if I wished the amount would be a credit for future payments. On this basis the HM revenue was happy to allow the set aside. The judge accepted and set aside the judgment.

This was all I was hoping to achieve. I never wanted to get out of paying what I really owed. Neither was HM revenue wanting to over-charge me. I paid and achieved the set aside. Any over-payment will be refunded or credited.

This has been worth it. My mortgage broker says that A CCJ that is satisfied is not regarded as highly as a CCJ that is not there at all.

Finally I am very grateful to the HM revenue guy as he seemed to genuinely wish to be helpful to me at the same time as not compromising the HM revenue's interests.

congratulations on the outcome, sounds like you handled the matter very well - you should be proud of yourself! :T :T :T :T