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

beamerguy

Guess Theresa May told porkies to the Daily Mail

"Theresa May has pledged to root out abuse of county court judgments following a Daily Mail investigation."

fil_cad

Pure tory propaganda

beamerguy

Theresa May still fast asleep

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

beamerguy

Why did Theresa May lie about her interest in these CCJ's

THE WOMAN HAS DONE NOTHING

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

Why did Theresa May lie about her interest in these CCJ's

I do wish people would check the facts before making sweeping statements.

The following comes into effect on 1 October: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

This follows extensive consultation with various parties (you might guess the identity of some, I couldn't possibly comment, and nor could the Prankster), and the MoJ were under direct instructions from No.10 to get this sorted.

What it will do, is to throw a very large spanner into the works of the robo-claim production lines of the likes of Gladstones, BW Legal etc, because there are now a load of hoops to jump through before claims can be issued. It will also affect bulk debt purchasers such as Lowell Portfolio.

The wheels of Government do grind slowly, but they keep on grinding.

Redx

looks good as far as setting out the rules and having proper forms to go back and forth

doesnt mention anything about checking for an up to date address before sending out the forms , so it could go to an old address like now and not be seen for over 30 days or more anyway

unless there will be some sort of system that ensures they have identified the correct address for the alleged debtor ?

but a vast improvement on what goes on now and only less than 5 weeks to go

so thanks for the link and the heads up

pappa_golf

I thought she stated that she was going to bring an end to "crefit clamping", where the person was taken to court in there absence , and found out about a CCJ much later

I see she has addressed this rather well (or not)

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

I do wish people would check the facts before making sweeping statements.

The following comes into effect on 1 October: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

This follows extensive consultation with various parties (you might guess the identity of some, I couldn't possibly comment, and nor could the Prankster), and the MoJ were under direct instructions from No.10 to get this sorted.

What it will do, is to throw a very large spanner into the works of the robo-claim production lines of the likes of Gladstones, BW Legal etc, because there are now a load of hoops to jump through before claims can be issued. It will also affect bulk debt purchasers such as Lowell Portfolio.

The wheels of Government do grind slowly, but they keep on grinding.

Thanks bargepole and something the majority did not
have a clue about unfortunately otherwise comments
would cease !!

Redx has a good point saying ....
"doesnt mention anything about checking for an up to date address before sending out the forms , so it could go to an old address like now and not be seen for over 30 days or more anyway"

3.4 If the debtor does not reply to the Letter of Claim within 30 days of the date at the top of the letter, the creditor may start court proceedings, subject to any
remaining obligations the creditor may have to the debtor (for example, under
the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook). Account should be taken of the
possibility that a reply was posted towards the end of the 30-day period.
And that's what this CCJ problem is all about .... not knowing about
a Letter of claim in the first place ?

So probably the robo-claims bunch will have a field day
for the next month now

Computersaysno

beamerguy wrote: »

Thanks bargepole and something the majority did not
have a clue about unfortunately otherwise comments
would cease !!

Redx has a good point saying ....
"doesnt mention anything about checking for an up to date address before sending out the forms , so it could go to an old address like now and not be seen for over 30 days or more anyway"

3.4 If the debtor does not reply to the Letter of Claim within 30 days of the date at the top of the letter, the creditor may start court proceedings, subject to any
remaining obligations the creditor may have to the debtor (for example, under
the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook). Account should be taken of the
possibility that a reply was posted towards the end of the 30-day period.
And that's what this CCJ problem is all about .... not knowing about
a Letter of claim in the first place ?

So probably the robo-claims bunch will have a field day
for the next month now

This does NOTHING to address the 'debtor not at this address' issue??? Which was one of the big issues leading to many set asides and thereby wasting court time.


Or am I missing something?

bargepole

Computersaysno wrote: »

This does NOTHING to address the 'debtor not at this address' issue??? Which was one of the big issues leading to many set asides and thereby wasting court time.


Or am I missing something?

Indeed it doesn't, and this was a disappointing aspect of the consultation with the MoJ.

They felt that the new Protocol had to apply to all types of debt claims, not specifically PPCs, and that service to the last known address was acceptable.

There is also the factor that the Court Service is now run as a profit centre, hence the recent increase in the set-aside fee from £80 to £155, then to £255. They quite like having a few of those to top up the coffers.

It is being suggested that the new independent CoP should mandate that any PCNs which are over X months old cannot be the subject of a Claim unless the current address has been verified. We'll see what happens with that.