KNOCK KNOCK Mrs May, anyone at home ??? what are you doing about these CCJ's

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

the problem is the automated default , without the PPC having to do a trace or electoral roll check within "x" days" of the claim.


royal mail forwarding is 2 yrs max , so why are claims allowed for 6 yrs?

I am certain that will be addressed

Castle

Maybe there should be a box to complete when applying for a default judgement against an individual, (*), to confirm a trace has been carried out and that the defendant's address is correct as at the date of service.

(*)=Companies have to record their addresses at Companies House so no trace would be required.

pappa_golf

or quickly forgot about ,


do you honestly think the goverment will "do" anything ?

pappa_golf

Castle wrote: »

Maybe there should be a box to complete when applying for a default judgement against an individual, (*), to confirm a trace has been carried out and that the defendant's address is correct as at the date of service.

(*)=Companies have to record their addresses at Companies House so no trace would be required.

yes , and without a ticked box , sent back to do a trace and prove it.
anyone falsifying the "tick" could or should be fined and have licences revoked within 28 days

yotmon

It does sound a very poor system that is open to corruption. Basically, I can put a claim in for 'x' amount against fred bloggs, make up a fictitious address and be granted a ccj against him. And it will then cost him £255 to have it stayed. Or am i still missng something ?

pappa_golf

yotmon wrote: »

It does sound a very poor system that is open to corruption. Basically, I can put a claim in for 'x' amount against fred bloggs, make up a fictitious address and be granted a ccj against him. And it will then cost him £255 to have it stayed. Or am i still missng something ?

yup , "fred bloggs" would sooner pay you £150 to have it marked as satisfied , rather than a 50-50 chance in a set aside




and in the case of PE this happens a lot


PE actually (as per the norm) cases in court today for set asides http://www.bmpa.eu/court.html


over the last few yrs the ratio of claims/setasides is turning towards setasides on a daily basis

bargepole

yotmon wrote: »

It does sound a very poor system that is open to corruption. Basically, I can put a claim in for 'x' amount against fred bloggs, make up a fictitious address and be granted a ccj against him. And it will then cost him £255 to have it stayed. Or am i still missng something ?

Yes you could do that, but it would cost you £25 to issue the claim, and Mr Bloggs would be unaware of the judgment, so wouldn't pay you any money.

So what would be the point?

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

or quickly forgot about ,

do you honestly think the goverment will "do" anything ?

YES .... unlike her previous PM's Theresa has openly made statements. Failure to comply will bite her back.

This is the first time I can remember that a PM actually makes a statement in the way she has.
The investigation now taking placing will result in action.

Critics will just have to watch this space

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

YES .... unlike her previous PM's Theresa has openly made statements. Failure to comply will bite her back.

This is the first time I can remember that a PM actually makes a statement in the way she has.
The investigation now taking placing will result in action.

Critics will just have to watch this space

watching ,,,,,


ho0wever I think this will fizzle to a reform of the CC system to be DISCUSSED in the house of lords at 04.30am on wed dec 24th 2025

TDA

beamerguy wrote: »

YES .... unlike her previous PM's Theresa has openly made statements. Failure to comply will bite her back.

This is the first time I can remember that a PM actually makes a statement in the way she has.
The investigation now taking placing will result in action.

Critics will just have to watch this space

Not to mention the CCJ wouldn't go on Mr Bloggs credit file because the fictitious address would not link to the real Mr Bloggs.

As for suggestions that you should only be able to bring a claim up to two years after an incident, this is too blinkered a view. Court claims don't begin and end with parking tickets. There are a huge number of claims that would fall under the contract banner, from the £85 parking ticket dispute through to the multi-million pound big business dispute. There is nothing wrong with the statute of limitations as it is.

The problem is that a business claim does not rely on a three year old DVLA address which might be out of date. The best suggestion I've seen is the one above that you should have to sign a statement of truth that all reasonable attempts to verify the address have been taken prior to requesting a default judgment. At the very least the courts should be running this prior to entering one anyway. They could be given access to government databases to ensure the defendant has not moved, which could help massively reduce instances of default CCJs.

Having to deal with an application to set aside is a similar ball ache for a PPC and all they want is to get paid at the end of the day. I don't imagine they care whether the CCJ is on your file or not, it's all about the revenue.