'Abuse' of default judgments - government asks for response to proposed 'crackdown'

fermi

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/

Default County Court Judgments: A consultation on ensuring the process works fairly, for both creditors and debtors

Closes 21 Feb 2018
Opened 27 Dec 2017

Overview

We are interested in your views as to the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current processes for money claims issued in the County Court. Of particular interest, will be views from respondents on limiting the circumstances in which an individual may have a judgment made in default against them without their knowledge.
In the light of responses to this consultation, the Government will consider whether any changes are needed to the current arrangements and ask the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which govern processes in the civil courts, to consider any changes.
Any changes to current procedures, following consultation, would inevitably apply to all money claims, whether they arise from, say, a claim for lack of payment for a new fridge or television or are brought by a parking company seeking to enforce a parking infringement on private land. Both use the same process. Respondents sharing their experiences with us are therefore requested to make clear the type of claim they are referring to.
The paper is aimed in particular at those who have had experience of County Court judgments, whether as defendants or claimants, and bodies representing the interests of claimants or defendants, but responses will be welcome from anyone interested in the subject matter.

Give us your views

Online Survey

Related
Default county court judgments consultation 489.3 kB (PDF document)
Dyfarniadau Trwy Ddiffyg Llysoedd Sirol: Ymgynghoriad ar sicrhau bod y broses yn gweithio’n deg, i gredydwyr a dyledwyr 571.1 kB (PDF document)

fermi

The Daily Mail take on it;

(caution, contains their usual factual errors and bias)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

sourcrates

Judging by the amount of people who post about receiving a CCJ they knew nothing about, I would say it’s a widespread problem.

Definitely the system requires an overhaul.

Herbie21

fermi wrote: »

The Daily Mail take on it;

(caution, contains their usual factual errors and bias)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5214075/Action-debt-judgement-rogue-firms-abuse-announced.html

Sadly, the Daily Mail commentary is not accurate and they really should have read the Consultation in detail before giving the public the impression that a judgement obtained without the debtors knowledge will immediately be set aside.

The current position as outlined in the Consultation is as follows:

Currently, not receiving the claim is not a defence and the judgment would not be set aside on that basis alone.

If, however, the defendant has a defence (for example, that the money was not owed at all) and can establish that the documents were served at an address where the defendant could not have been aware of the claim, the court will consider the application to set the judgment aside.

The Consultation proposes that a judgment may be removed from Registry Trust on the following grounds:

• The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

• The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

• The defendant immediately pays in full

Thus, the defendant would be placed in the same position as a defendant who received the judgment and paid within 28 days of receiving it.

I have made further comments on this subject (posting as Bailiff Advice) over on the CAG forum:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?483835-The-Govt-plans-to-immediately-set-aside-all-backdoor-CCJs(3-Viewing)-nbsp

Oldwood

Herbie21, just been reading through this and the thread on CAG and I think you've made an error. You say that the proposal is that a set aside will only be granted if the defendant pays in full.

Looking at the consultation, this is clearly only when the defendant accepts they owe the money and would have paid in full had they known about the claim. It wouldn't apply to contested claims such as SB debts.