CCJ on file

Munch

sourcrates wrote: »

Makes no difference now as you have a CCJ by default.

Fat bellys advice is good, I'd suggest you follow it.

So I could put a CCJ on to anyone by sending it to a wrong address? That's so crazy how that works! I mean a verbal agreement stands up in court right?

I'm not having a go, I appreciate any input. Just seems the system is flawed.

fatbelly

Munch wrote: »

So I could put a CCJ on to anyone by sending it to a wrong address? That's so crazy how that works! .... Just seems the system is flawed.

Theresa says she's looking into it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786132/I-ll-end-credit-rating-scandal-pledges-PM-acts-Mail-exposes-rulings-ruined-lives.html

But don't hold your breath on that one.

sourcrates

Munch wrote: »

So I could put a CCJ on to anyone by sending it to a wrong address? That's so crazy how that works! I mean a verbal agreement stands up in court right?

I'm not having a go, I appreciate any input. Just seems the system is flawed.

You right, its a crazy system.

You'll get no argument there from me.

Lots of posts on these forums from people this has happened to.

matttye

fatbelly wrote: »

Theresa says she's looking into it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786132/I-ll-end-credit-rating-scandal-pledges-PM-acts-Mail-exposes-rulings-ruined-lives.html

But don't hold your breath on that one.

It's good that she's looking into it but what else can a company do other than serve court papers at the debtor's last known address?

A CCJ appearing on someone's credit file may result in the person contacting the court to arrange payment.

If a CCJ was made in absence and the person has a defence to the claim there is a procedure to have it set aside.

The system works!

Edit: actually, the only thing I don't think is good about the current system is that if court papers are sent to the wrong address, the person loses out on the option of mediation etc. prior to the court making a judgment.

fatbelly

matttye wrote: »

Edit: actually, the only thing I don't think is good about the current system is that if court papers are sent to the wrong address, the person loses out on the option of mediation etc. prior to the court making a judgment.

They lose out on the opportunity to file a defence, unless they can stump up £255 and persuade a judge on the three tests for set aside.

It's the abuse of the system that needs to be looked into. Creditors often get a ccj (by default) at a previous address then pretty quickly find out where the debtor is now living! Odd, that.

But, like you, I can't see the court process changing. Maybe removing the FCA licence from the worst offenders might improve things a bit.

pappa_golf

fatbelly wrote: »

They lose out on the opportunity to file a defence, unless they can stump up £255 and persuade a judge on the three tests for set aside.

It's the abuse of the system that needs to be looked into. Creditors often get a ccj (by default) at a previous address then pretty quickly find out where the debtor is now living! Odd, that.

But, like you, I can't see the court process changing. Maybe removing the FCA licence from the worst offenders might improve things a bit.

its called blackmail , pay us and we will mark it as settled

in the case of private parking tickets and default CCJs , progress is happening

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/mp-chris-evans-states-courts-must-learn.html

sourcrates

pappa_golf wrote: »

its called blackmail , pay us and we will mark it as settled

in the case of private parking tickets and default CCJs , progress is happening

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/mp-chris-evans-states-courts-must-learn.html

Seems to be a nice little earner for parking eye doesn't it !!!

It's the sort of thing that really boils my blood, and if it happened to me, I would fight them with every once of knowledge I could muster.

Unfair charges, from wherever they originate, especially ones such as this, that can result in a CCJ, are, you may of guessed, my pet hate in life.

fatbelly

I don't think you can treat parking penalty claims differently to other claims.

The courts gave the likes of Parking Eye a green light to charge what they like and use the court process to the full in the Beavis case.

But the setaside fee is too high.

pappa_golf

do you know who paid for the startup of PE , the goverment gave them a buisness loan , and retained 8% of the profits , thats upto about 2 yrs ago when it was sold to capita for 54 million

PE was used in the telegraph , but this is happening with the likes of excel/vcs using a compsany called B+W legal on cases going back to 2011

anothrer player is a company called MIL collections , they are buying old cases for a £1, then continuing

however its recently been found that the parking Cos agreements with the DVLA forbit the sale of info

people are now hitting back with £750 claims for DPA

PS the bevis case just set the amout payable as reasonable on a NON paid for (cannot add time) car park