Major crackdown on abuse of 'debt' judgement by rogue parking

markudman

Major crackdown on abuse of 'debt' judgement by rogue parking and utility firms is announced thanks to Mail probe
Ministers will pledge action on abuse of county court judgments by rogue firms
Anyone who has had a CCJ without their knowledge will have it removed
A Mail investigation revealed thousands are unfairly given devasting CCJs
Would you like to tell the MoJ about an unfair CCJ sent to an old address? Contribute to the consultation here
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/
A major crackdown on the abuse of county court judgments by rogue parking and utility firms is announced today.
Ministers pledge that anyone who has had a debt judgment passed against them without their knowledge will immediately have it struck from their record.
The announcement comes after a Daily Mail investigation revealed thousands of people have devastating county court judgments (CCJs) passed against them without any chance to defend themselves.
Private parking and utility firms making claims for supposed debts – some as small as 1p – often give courts old addresses, so warnings and information about court dates are missed.
The rulings do not come to light until years later when someone finds their application for a mortgage, loan or a mobile phone contract is rejected due to the CCJ’s effect on their credit rating.
Cases exposed by the Mail include a family left homeless because of a CCJ for a parking ticket that was meant for a stranger and a newlywed couple who missed out on buying their dream home because a water bill was posted to the groom’s old student address.
Following our investigation, the Government launched a probe and has been meeting with consumer groups over the past year.
Today the Ministry of Justice announced its crackdown as it launches a public consultation on CCJs, inviting anyone who has had an unfair ruling against them to get in touch.
Officials will focus particularly on how parking companies and unscrupulous debt agencies have been abusing the CCJ system.
Justice Minister Dominic Raab said: ‘We want to protect vulnerable consumers from abuse by rogue companies that can destroy the credit rating of innocent people without them even knowing about it. Debts should be paid, not exploited by a minority of cowboys who need reining in. I welcome the Daily Mail shining a light on this problem – we intend to tackle it.’
Last year, the Mail Investigations Unit revealed how abuse of the CCJ system is crippling the finances of thousands of families across the country.
Over the past four years, the number of CCJs has risen by almost two-thirds, with more than one million issued in 2016. In more than 80 per cent of cases – 2,000 a day – judgments are issued with no defence heard in court.
Ministers are particularly concerned by the fact that, in many cases, individuals do not even know that court action is being taken against them.
Although claim forms are issued to defendants, there are no checks to make sure the papers have actually been received. In many cases they are sent to old addresses and never forwarded on.
While CCJs can be appealed, not receiving the claim because it was sent to an old address is currently not a defence and the judgment would not be set aside on this basis. The appeal process takes as long as a year and costs £255.
The Government now plans to immediately set aside all CCJs for those who can prove to a judge that they did not know about it when it was passed.
Ministers are also considering moves to make firms prove they have sent courts correct address details when making claims.
Would you like to tell the MoJ about an unfair CCJ sent to an old address? Contribute to the consultation here
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/

markudman

Left homeless by stranger's fine
Kristian Hancocks and his family were left homeless after he got a CCJ because of a stranger’s parking ticket.
The 40-year-old engineer discovered the court order last year when he was refused a mortgage on a new house.
By that point, he and his wife Laura, 35, had exchanged contracts on their previous home. The couple and their two children were forced to lodge with relatives for months and are now renting.
The cause of the CCJ was a £40 parking ticket incurred by someone who had bought their old car. Parking firm ParkingEye sent warnings in their name to an address where they hadn’t lived for five years. Mr Hancocks, from Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, contacted ParkingEye but was told a 28-day time limit had passed so they could not appeal. The CCJ was for £170 after associated costs were added. Mr Hancocks said it had left them ‘at the end of our tethers’.
ParkingEye said that if individuals can prove they got a CCJ due to the firm receiving ‘incorrect address details, we will consent to the judgment being set aside’

pappa_golf

this "pledge has been going on for several years , Mrs May PROMISED to do something about it ,,,,,,,,,,then forgot

KeithP

From the forum rules:

Q. What are the rules on copyright?

A. We ask forum users not to copy long text from other publications/websites as it may breach their copyright. If you want to let people know about something you saw or read elsewhere please use short quotes and state where you got them from, preferably by giving a link to the article.

pappa_golf

PS , the ministry of justice was well aware of this several yrs agom and acted

they raised the cost of a set aside from (was it) £65 to £255


that how much "your" goverment thinks of you!

markudman

Sorry I'll remember next time:embarasse

pappa_golf

markudman wrote: »

Sorry I'll remember next time:embarasse

september 2016 , all pronises but no action , the facts can be clearly seen by looking at the number of parking set asides in the court lists every day , we dont need a 200.000 page report taking 10 yrs to do and costing %5 million , we need action now !

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

The_Deep

How on earth can a judge award a judgement for a penny?

pappa_golf

was it judged or just a default ccj? , the automated system keeps ticking away

(long time since I read it)

[Deleted User]

:exclamati Soapbox klaxon :exclamati

that how much "your" goverment thinks of you!

Actually i don't think the government understand the law/legal system at all well -
it's nothing personal.

they raised the cost of a set aside from (was it) £65 to £255

That'll be the scheme of 'making justice pay for itself' (don't even get me started on that) nearly all court fees went up. Many fees doubled overnight. No thought went into application fees now becoming several times the cost of small claims issue fees.

Many of my vulnerable clients face a court issue fee of £10,000 just to start their claim. Employment tribunal saw a more than 50% reduction in the number of claims (until those fees were found to be unlawful)

Mrs May's record in front of our own Courts (starting with her time as Home Sec) is woeful. The sooner that the fees are addressed, which will no doubt require an assertive PM and lord chancellor, the better.

...and back to matters of parking.

bargepole

pappa_golf wrote: »

this "pledge has been going on for several years , Mrs May PROMISED to do something about it ,,,,,,,,,,then forgot

No she didn't.

The more excitable and impatient posters on this board fail to recognise how long it takes for any major changes in Government legislation to come to fruition. Betty Boothroyd was clamped in 2010, and it then took 2 years for POFA 2012, banning private clamping, to reach the statute book.

Some of us have had meetings in Whitehall about this unknown CCJ issue, and this consultation has been launched following those. It was made clear by senior members of the Civil Service that 'no.10 was pushing for action', and the consultation is the evidence of that. There is no doubt in Government circles that PPCs, and debt purchasing companies, are in the firing line.

But they did also say that the higher court fee levels, including the £255 set aside fee, were helping to balance the HMCTS books, and any changes made to the procedures for claim issue would have to balance the interests of genuine creditors, debtors, and the efficiency of the court service.