Advice on CEL response to CCJ set aside application

Coupon-mad

I agree, the post by Legal Magpie is yet again unhelpful and misleading, whether it is intended or not. We know what we are doing here.

Quite possibly the OP may not get the £255 fee awarded back (most cases do not award it back) but if you don't ask your Judge for your costs against a scammer, you don't get, and defending what are ALWAYS scam claims is not something to want to duck.

benzini86

Thanks guys really really appreciate the advice.
I am going to ignore the offer letter and take the set aside to court and fight it.
Is there any advice for my defence etc , would be much appreciated.
In my view CEL made no effort to properly serve paperwork on me, I didn't receive anything from them and as explained Advantis, a debt collection company were able to find me and send me a letter within two days!!

Wiseguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree, the post by Legal Magpie is yet again unhelpful and misleading, whether it is intended or not. We know what we are doing here.

Quite possibly the OP may not get the £255 fee awarded back (most cases do not award it back) but if you don't ask your Judge for your costs against a scammer, you don't get, and defending what are ALWAYS scam claims is not something to want to duck.

The_Deep wrote: »

Indeed Quentin, reading some of Legal Magpie's previous posts, I am concerned that he/she may be misleading people.

What LegalMagpie is referring to is the technical terms used by the courts. A 'regular' judgment is where the procedural rules have been followed and therefore the judgment given is a sound one. An 'irregular' judgment is where the procedural rules have not been followed because of some happening of an event or perhaps where the judge has done something outside of his/her powers.

In the context of a default judgment and application to set aside, irregular judgments would fall under CPR 13.2 because where one of those conditions has been satisfied, the court must set aside as of right i.e. defective service of a claim form, which is the point being made here about sending to the correct address and/or taking steps to ascertain the last known address.

In short, if CEL had taken steps to ascertain the last known address in accordance with the CPR and/or it otherwise followed the procedural rules then the judgment would be a regular one and then the OP would have to rely on CPR 13.3 (because not receiving the claim form even if the procedural rules are followed is an exercise of discretion, not as of right).

I would agree with LegalMagpie's analysis in that if the judgment is set aside under CPR 13.3 there is generally no automatic recovery of costs, unless you can prove issues around conduct or reasonableness. Not misleading, just not the best of explanations for those who aren't legally trained.