Additional card holder issued CCJ by Ex partner

chattychappy

Fair enough - I don't really regard interest as costs and I don't really think the court fees of £245 are considerable, even on the amount here.

The point I was really making (and could have made clearer!) is that you don't (normally) get costs as in the other sides general legal costs. People often don't realise that. I have a few clients in the small claims track and they assume if they lose they could be up for whatever the other side has paid out for lawyers. Different if it's not small track.

Kyresa

chattychappy wrote: »

Fair enough - I don't really regard interest as costs and I don't really think the court fees of £245 are considerable, even on the amount here.

Neither did I, hence I wrote interest and costs

This guy is quibbling over £1200, to add another £500+ onto that is pretty much adding almost half the original amount again - that's quite considerable really!

chattychappy wrote: »

The point I was really making (and could have made clearer!) is that you don't (normally) get costs as in the other sides legal costs. People often don't realise that. I have a few clients in the small claims track and they assume if they lose they could be up for whatever the other side has paid out for lawyers.

Ok, but, luckily, in this case, we already know what he's liable to be hit for should the Ex not withdraw

Miss_Spendalot_2

Kyresa wrote: »

This guy is quibbling over £1200, to add another £500+ onto that is pretty much adding almost half the original amount again - that's quite considerable really!

I don't think he is quibbling over paying the money I think he is more concerned with the fact he has been given a CCJ.

As he has already said in other posts the ex has made it difficult for him to be treated fairly by sending these claims to an address she knew he never resided, It seems to me she was using underhanded tactics to ruin his financial profile, and it seems she probably has fulfilled her goal.

It wont cost him anything to get advice about whether the CCJ has been given to him fairly, so why would he thank me for costs ?

Kyresa

Miss_Spendalot wrote: »

I don't think he is quibbling over paying the money I think he is more concerned with the fact he has been given a CCJ.

Then we are reading a different thread:

gavandcarly wrote: »

I am not giving in this time I will do whatever it takes, she will not be getting the money from me...

However I would love for the court to tell her that, maybe then she will finally leave me alone.

Miss_Spendalot wrote: »

As he has already said in other posts the ex has made it difficult for him to be treated fairly by sending these claims to an address she knew he never resided, It seems to me she was using underhanded tactics to ruin his financial profile, and it seems she probably has fulfilled her goal.

It wont cost him anything to get advice about whether the CCJ has been given to him fairly, so why would he thank me for costs ?

She has waited 18 odd months and kept her side of the deal (as he requested).. how long is fair in your opinion? I'm sure she didn't even know his address in Dubai - what are the odds he's told her where he was living? I'm guessing not very high...

chattychappy

From my reading of the OP's posts, I do not think it a foregone conclusion that the deal was done.

Morally perhaps, but legally I think it is arguable based on the to-ing and fro-ing. The ex will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the offer was still open and that by taking the name off she was accepting on those terms.

I favour the ex, but I don't think it is as certain as people suggest.

Kyresa

chattychappy wrote: »

From my reading of the OP's posts, I do not think it a foregone conclusion that the deal was done.

Morally perhaps, but legally I think it is arguable based on the to-ing and fro-ing. The ex will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the offer was still open and that by taking the name off she was accepting on those terms.

I favour the ex, but I don't think it is as certain as people suggest.

In the small claims as litigants in person? It'll be two witness statements, he said she said... I'm doubting (as you have also said previously) it will really go that much in depth into the whys and wherefores of contract law - well, not until it gets to the Court of Appeal at the very least :rotfl:)

I favour the ex too.. (do you want to be the advocate for the defendant and I'll be for the claimant and we'll have a mock trial? lol)

udydudy

***********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.****

I do not have a law background but I would say you ex-OH is on strong grounds here. You clearly mentioned that "you would unreservedly" and also "on condition that you are indemnified and released from the mortgage first". I believe (I have only read the first page and this last page of the thread) she did release you from the mortgage first so she met her part of your conditions. AFAIK she does not have to specifically reply to your letter, her acceptance was by releasing you from the mortgage(which I believe would also indemnify your from it) , so you reneged on your written deal which she accepted in good faith. No court/Jury/Judge would look at you favourably on that point. What I could see in your favour as such is that you write to the courts asking for the judgement to be set aside as you were out of the country and did not know anything about the case/hearing. This may release you from the costs. BUt you would have to agree to pay £1200 which you so very "unreservedly" agreed to in writing.
You were n ot liable for the credit card liability but you were absolutely liable for half the mortgage liability so as such I would say imagine you standing in court saying I was not liable for £1200 of credit card liability but was liable for say £75000 of mortgage liability, my ex released me from £75000 liability and I will now not pay £1200 of "unreservedly" accepted agreement for the release because I was not legally liable for it then!!!

Phew...mate be a gentleman and just pay up the whole amount....£6-700 extra is not really going to hurt financially. the headache that comes with it surely will. If your ex decides that she will pursue you for the mortgage liability you have worse things coming. especially if she decides to pursue you in dubai!! Dubai aint exactly UK when it comes to law enforcement!!.
Even if she cannot pursue you in dubai she can always pursue you when you get back irrespective if you rent in your new OH's name. As you would need to earn. unless you go bankrupt in the UK now and then get released from all liabilities in one years time. your choice

kation

This is a fascinating thread and judging by the 4 pages (so far), with all the differening views and opinions, likely to carry on for sometime.

FWIW:
If I was living in the UK I would probably apply to have the judgement set aside, goto court and fight it - £1800+ is worth spending a day or two preparing for; worst case you end up paying it. If I was living in Dubai I would probably forgot about it, if you end up back in the UK it will be for the following reasons:
1. You lose job & things go bad - £1800 will be a small problem
2. You find a really really good job in the UK - £1800 will be a small problem

It sucks that she got a CCJ without you having chance to defend it - but equally she probably had an expectation that you would pay the money after your letter/email.

chattychappy

Kyresa wrote: »

I favour the ex too.. (do you want to be the advocate for the defendant and I'll be for the claimant and we'll have a mock trial? lol)

Ha ha ha... no thanks!

It will just come down to the judge on the day. Perhaps he just got divorced in similar circumstances. Perhaps the ex doesn't show up, or doesn't want to represent herself and her sol says it's not worth paying for representation the cost of which she cannot reclaim. Perhaps she doesn't bother to start the claim again because her life has moved on.

Yep, no esoteric debates about contract law. But it wasn't a simple case of the ex accepting the deal by either saying she accepted it or just performing her side. At #35 there seemed to be a breakdown in negotiation. So if we had a mock trial, I'd argue that she went ahead despite agreement not being reached. The indemnity thing (whatever that meant in the circs) wasn't provided or addressed and that was part of the OP's offer and I'd argue that too.

The point is, clients of mine have got off in weaker situations than this. If I were advising the ex, I would say not to bother because of the amount involved - unless she was prepared to do it DIY.

kation wrote: »

This is a fascinating thread and judging by the 4 pages (so far), with all the differening views and opinions, likely to carry on for sometime.

I was thinking that too. Rather odd it's gone on so long when it's not really a CC query anyway. I think it is because people want to tell the OP he should pay up rather than assist or encourage him to do otherwise - even if they see the opportunity for set aside.

Kyresa

chattychappy wrote: »

Ha ha ha... no thanks!

It will just come down to the judge on the day. Perhaps he just got divorced in similar circumstances. Perhaps the ex doesn't show up, or doesn't want to represent herself and her sol says it's not worth paying for representation the cost of which she cannot reclaim. Perhaps she doesn't bother to start the claim again because her life has moved on.

Yep, no esoteric debates about contract law. But it wasn't a simple case of the ex accepting the deal by either saying she accepted it or just performing her side. At #35 there seemed to be a breakdown in negotiation. So if we had a mock trial, I'd argue that she went ahead despite agreement not being reached. The indemnity thing (whatever that meant in the circs) wasn't provided or addressed and that was part of the OP's offer and I'd argue that too.

The point is, clients of mine have got off in weaker situations than this. If I were advising the ex, I would say not to bother because of the amount involved - unless she was prepared to do it DIY.



I was thinking that too. Rather odd it's gone on so long when it's not really a CC query anyway. I think it is because people want to tell the OP he should pay up rather than assist or encourage him to do otherwise - even if they see the opportunity for set aside.

Lets also not forget that we don't have the other sides witness statement - it's amazing how different a story based on the same facts can be told.. you know that