Additional card holder issued CCJ by Ex partner

gavandcarly

I wouldn't say I own half of it as it was bought on HER credit card, therefore it is all hers.

This is exactly the reason why i don't understand why I should be made to pay half of her credit card off, when she has bought things with it and kept them... and its not even my credit card

mjm3346

As a CCJ has already been obtained the debt does not become statute barred, it is fully live from the date of judgement for 6 years and after that may need permission from the court to keep chasing it.

jonesMUFCforever

Facts here - The credit card cannot enforce the debt against OP as he was an additional card holder.
The letter he sent the solicitor makes it clear he would pay half if his name was taken off the mortgage - she has - HE has to pay - end of.
That letter is what she will rely on in court to obtain a CCJ. Note here it will be the ex that OP has to pay not the card lender.

If you get a solicitor's letter he should have got legal advice before replying - ignorance of the law is no defence.

chattychappy

gavandcarly wrote: »

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?

Based on what you have said, I probably wouldn't bother. There is a good chance you will eventually lose. I'm rather busy at the moment and £1200 against that risk plus the time involved colours my decision.

Your circumstances are different.. if you have the time and/or the motivation then you could have a go. If you lose either the set aside (you shouldn't) or the ultimate claim, then the costs implication for you are small. £1200 is small claims track, so there is limited facility to recover costs. For this reason you might be able to extract a compromise - it will be costly for her if she is using a solicitor. Do be prepared to lose though. I'm only saying it might be worth "having a go" because the financial downside risk for you is relatively limited.

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Facts here -
...
The letter he sent the solicitor makes it clear he would pay half if his name was taken off the mortgage - she has - HE has to pay - end of.

Well, you've made a finding of fact and agreed it looks that way. But there is an argument that the offer was not intended to be legally binding or that it lapsed through passage of time. (As per my post #17.) Weak, perhaps, but arguable. Once the default judgment is set aside, this might create enough doubt for a deal to be done. Also there may also be facts we are not aware of.

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

That letter is what she will rely on in court to obtain a CCJ.

I'm sure she will! No real harm in the CCJ. There will be some court fees and limited solicitors costs. Provided the OP pays up promptly it won't appear on CRA databases. And as it stands, the OP is having to pay anyway.

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Note here it will be the ex that OP has to pay not the card lender.

I think all the posts about what was spent on the card etc., are irrelevant unless there are issues around counterclaims. The CC has no cause of action against the OP.

jonesMUFCforever

Some of your post I find very confusing eg Why write to the solicitor if he did not want it to be legally binding? Read up on the law ignorance is no defence.
''NO real harm in getting a CCJ'' - what planet are you on - it will take 6 years for it to drop off his credit report and in the meantime he won't get any kind of credit!

chattychappy

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Some of your post I find very confusing eg Why write to the solicitor if he did not want it to be legally binding?

The use of "goodwill gesture" in the letter suggests that this may not have been consideration for having the name removed from the mortgage.

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Read up on the law ignorance is no defence.

Thanks for that!

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

''NO real harm in getting a CCJ'' - what planet are you on - it will take 6 years for it to drop off his credit report and in the meantime he won't get any kind of credit!

A CCJ only appears on a CRA if you don't pay it off. I think you get about a month (can't remember). We are not talking late payments/defaults on a CC. This is a private action between individuals. People sue each other all the time.

If a CCJ has been recorded with a CRA but is then set aside, it must be removed from the CRA.

How does it work on your planet?

skintdad

If you think the CCJ being recorded doesnt matter as you already have one please rethink. I got a £3k CCJ recorded against me in 2004 and my credit file was already shot. DVLA hit me for another CCJ in 2006 for not paying £80 fine for not taxing a car I'd scrapped a year earlier. It was only £100 inc fees but I thought as my credit file was already wrecked that it didnt matter. Wrong, now my circumstances have changed I'm counting down the days til that second CCJ drops off my file in September. If I'd just paid it in 2006 then I'd have been CCJ and debt free in May 2010

jonesMUFCforever

Chathappy - I'll tell you how it works on my planet - if I tell a solicitor that if you take my name off the mortgage then I will pay £2400 being half of a credit card debt where I was an additional card holder then that is what I would do.
Trying to squirm out of it doesn't do it for me.

Kyresa

gavandcarly wrote: »

In 2010 her solicitor sent me a letter demanding half of her credit card balance.

I replied with the following on 24/08/10: I am unreservedly prepared to accept point (1) of your clients proposed settlement on the condition that I am indemnified and released from the mortgage first; should this criterion be satisfied, I will happily pay the whole sum of the credit card liabilities of £1200, as a sign of my goodwill.

You may be in luck - Anson's Law of Contract (quite a major textbook). 29th Edition, page 44

Acceptance is not normally complete unless and until it is communicated to the offeror. Lindley LJ said: "unquestionably, as a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a binding contract, not only that it should be accepted, but that acceptance should be notified".

HOWEVER, you've implied in the first email you've quoted from that if she does Z, then you will do Y and the ex has done Z which has indicated an acceptance - she's even mailed you that she needs to talk about it. This is the variation to the rule (see P.45 of above referenced book). (the case on this is Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co - prob one of the first tort cases any law student learns (after Fisher and Bell of course..!!!)

And this is where we're missing some information that is vital. What did you do after that email of March 2011. Did you call her? Did she talk you through the process as she said she would, did she talk about getting the money back - what did you say in response?


You'd get the CCJ set aside, but she can then just apply to the court again and I think you could be on dodgy ground (depending on the convo in March 2011).

Based on the information you've provided us with so far, the least hassle option for you would be to go for the set aside and pay the £1200 to be honest.

chattychappy

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Chathappy - I'll tell you how it works on my planet - if I tell a solicitor that if you take my name off the mortgage then I will pay £2400 being half of a credit card debt where I was an additional card holder then that is what I would do.
Trying to squirm out of it doesn't do it for me.

Yeah.. it doesn't do it for you. But the OP IS trying to "squirm out" and that is what we are advising on.

Kyresa wrote: »

You may be in luck - Anson's Law of Contract (quite a major textbook). 29th Edition, page 44

Acceptance is not normally complete unless and until it is communicated to the offeror. Lindley LJ said: "unquestionably, as a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a binding contract, not only that it should be accepted, but that acceptance should be notified".

Yep, as you go on to suggest, acceptance can be implied by performance. I don't want to go too much into a contract law analysis, because if nothing else this is more of an offer to settle/accord+satisfaction situation rather than a conventional contract.

Litigation is a hassle and an expense. There is limited scope for a victor to recover costs from the losing side in a small claim. I believe there might be sufficient uncertainty in this given the wording the OP used and the passage of time to make it worth the effort. I really wouldn't put it any stronger than that.