Additional card holder issued CCJ by Ex partner

Tixy

She could try to enforce the CCJ - possibly bailiffs, possibly an attachment of earnings if you started work for a UK employer, possibly (although unlikely) petition for your bankruptcy.
Also the CCJ could make it hard for you to get credit in the UK, rent a property etc (though as you state you already have a CCJ anyway).

She could technically apply to make you bankrupt in your absence anyway - but if you have no assets its not goingto get her anywhere practically.
She could also techinically apply to the court to be allowed to enforce the debt after 6years are up, though this is unusual to be granted it is a possibility.

Miss_Spendalot_2

If he agreed to pay the credit card debt because he was under the impression he was legally obligated to, then would that not make a difference if he now realises that he was not ? could he not argue that point ? It seems very unfair to me to be honest. I hope that you can resolve this matter if not that you learn something from it, Good luck to you.......

gavandcarly

perfect thank you very much.

If I am honest my credit rating is terrible anyways, so I doubt having another CCJ will make it any worse.

My wife has an excellent credit rating so I suppose if we do go back to the UK we can rent a house in her name..

Just one last thing, if I get the judgement set aside, do the court automatically provide a new hearing date, or will she have to re-apply for another hearing?

Thanks so much for your help.

gavandcarly

Thanks Miss Spendalot... That is a very good point: If he agreed to pay the credit card debt because he was under the impression he was legally obligated to, then would that not make a difference if he now realises that he was not ? could he not argue that point ?

Can anyone offer any advice on this point?

EarthBoy

gavandcarly wrote: »

Thanks Miss Spendalot... That is a very good point: If he agreed to pay the credit card debt because he was under the impression he was legally obligated to, then would that not make a difference if he now realises that he was not ? could he not argue that point ?

Can anyone offer any advice on this point?

I think it's unlikely you will get very far with that argument. If you were legally obliged to pay it then you wouldn't have had to "offer" to pay anything, would you? They could have just sent you a bill for it.

chattychappy

gavandcarly wrote: »

I stated that I would pay the £1200 as a goodwill gesture, I did not state that I was liable for the balance.

She never agreed to the deal, and did not contact me back for 7 months... Surely she should have agreed to the deal, and not waited 7 months?

If you made an offer, she was entitled to accept it until it lapses, was withdrawn by you, rejected (included rejected by implication - such as making a counter offer). Mere passage of time isn't usually enough for it to lapse unless you specified a time limit or a "very long time" elapsed.

Also, if you specified a method of acceptance then this could get you off the hook if this wasn't followed.

Actually this is good contract law stuff for 1st year law students! Add a few tales of letters crossing in the post and it would be an exam question!

gavandcarly wrote: »

and I only offered to give her £1200 as a gesture of goodwill... no formal agreement was made

I will be harsh, but people often band around legalistic words - saying something is a "goodwill gesture" or something is "without prejudice" etc.

A court would look at your document as a whole and try to determine its objective. It does seem to me that you made an offer intending to be bound by it on acceptance. But I wouldn't be as categorical about it as other posters - I agree that this is slightly contradicted by your use of "goodwill gesture". If I was working for you I would argue that what you meant was that once you were off the mortgage then you would give her the money but without a contractual obligation.

gavandcarly wrote: »

Thanks Miss Spendalot... That is a very good point: If he agreed to pay the credit card debt because he was under the impression he was legally obligated to, then would that not make a difference if he now realises that he was not ? could he not argue that point ?

I would say irrelevant unless it was the solicitor acting for the other party that misled the OP as to what the law is. Solicitors do have some conduct issues when the opposing party is unrepresented.

gavandcarly

ChattyChappy, thank you very much for your response.

In your opinion would you say that there is no point in getting the judgement set aside?

I am going to look for all the paperwork/correspondence etc later on today to see if there is anything else that might help me.

meer53

Did you actually use the credit card ? Would your ex be able to come up with evidence of your spending on the card ? How has she come up with the figure of £1200 ?

gavandcarly

Nope I didn't use the credit card, and she is stating £1200 as the balance apparently was £2400 and she is saying that I should pay half of it.

The card was used by her to purchase furniture for a house that we bought together, when I moved out of the house she kept all of the furniture.....

blossomhill_2

I have no legal knowledge but ...

gavandcarly wrote: »

The card was used by her to purchase furniture for a house that we bought together, when I moved out of the house she kept all of the furniture.....

...doesn't that mean you own half the furniture and could counter claim for the return of it to you, or for her to buy you out of it?