Can CCJ be removed after set aside judgement

williecity

cymruchris said:

The original CCJ if you have been to court - and was set aside - will be removed - however the updates are usually only sent to the CRA's once a month - and then the CRA's although they update their records fairly quickly - might not show it on your 'free credit report' as that usually only updates once a month as well. If it's still showing on your files after 2 months have passed - then you can chase it up to find out why it's still there.

If you now have a new judgment - that will also be applied to your files - however if you pay in full within 30 days - it will be removed again. So there's a chance that the new judgment may appear temporarily depending on how quickly you pay it off. If you take too long - you'll be back to square one - so make sure you don't dilly dally and get it satisfied asap. 

Thanks for the detailed information

Yahoo_Mail

It's still not clear what's gone on.

Was the judgement set aside or not?  Merely applying for a set aside will not remove the CCJ, the set aside needs to be granted. So was it?

williecity

Yahoo_Mail said:

It's still not clear what's gone on.

Was the judgement set aside or not?  Merely applying for a set aside will not remove the CCJ, the set aside needs to be granted. So was it?

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.
Seems you are saying this means it was not set aside.

PixelPound

williecity said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

It's still not clear what's gone on.

Was the judgement set aside or not?  Merely applying for a set aside will not remove the CCJ, the set aside needs to be granted. So was it?

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.
Seems you are saying this means it was not set aside.

What did the Judge order at the set aside hearing? You will have got an outcome notification.
If it goes along the lines of "Judgment dated XXX be set aside" then the CCJ is removed and it goes back to the claim stage. This is because often people get CCJ's issues to old addresses and have enough info to be able to submit a defence.

What did it say? It sounds from what you have posted that the Judge just varied the amount owed rather than set aside, which would mean the 28 day rule doesn't apply - unless the Judge ordered something e.g. "that the Judgement be set aside if the settlement sum is paid within 28 days" or similar.

twhitehousescat

williecity said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

It's still not clear what's gone on.

Was the judgement set aside or not?  Merely applying for a set aside will not remove the CCJ, the set aside needs to be granted. So was it?

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.
Seems you are saying this means it was not set aside.

NO ! there have been 3 court cases (occassions)

1 the first where you did not defend and were found guilty , and given ccj
3 the setaside hearing which set the situation back to a point where you had not recieved court papers yet 
3 the second attemp by the claimant to bring a case , you lost by default , or lost , whatever and are or have paid within 28 days 

situations 2 and 3 are not at same time , 2 is first , then they submit claim and situation 3 happens then , judgews do not hear 2 and 3 together as the defendant has not got papewrwork or defended case 

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.

No , the setaside stopped / finished / annulled / exsponged , or in fact totally removed the ccj , in fact its as if the whole fist case never happend 

The judgement was to pay the initial judgemet

NO , in case 3 the just stated you hadnt. to pay an amout that was the same as one 

Yahoo_Mail

twhitehousescat said:

williecity said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

It's still not clear what's gone on.

Was the judgement set aside or not?  Merely applying for a set aside will not remove the CCJ, the set aside needs to be granted. So was it?

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.
Seems you are saying this means it was not set aside.

NO ! there have been 3 court cases (occassions)

1 the first where you did not defend and were found guilty , and given ccj
3 the setaside hearing which set the situation back to a point where you had not recieved court papers yet 
3 the second attemp by the claimant to bring a case , you lost by default , or lost , whatever and are or have paid within 28 days 

situations 2 and 3 are not at same time , 2 is first , then they submit claim and situation 3 happens then , judgews do not hear 2 and 3 together as the defendant has not got papewrwork or defended case 

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.

No , the setaside stopped / finished / annulled / exsponged , or in fact totally removed the ccj , in fact its as if the whole fist case never happend 

The judgement was to pay the initial judgemet

NO , in case 3 the just stated you hadnt. to pay an amout that was the same as one 

I don't believe there was a "Case 3."  I suspect, as nic_c has said, that the set aside hearing just ended up with the initial order being varied, rather than set aside.  The OP needs to clarify what EXACTLY has happened.  Right now it's as clear as mud.

williecity

twhitehousescat said:

williecity said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

It's still not clear what's gone on.

Was the judgement set aside or not?  Merely applying for a set aside will not remove the CCJ, the set aside needs to be granted. So was it?

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.
Seems you are saying this means it was not set aside.

NO ! there have been 3 court cases (occassions)

1 the first where you did not defend and were found guilty , and given ccj
3 the setaside hearing which set the situation back to a point where you had not recieved court papers yet 
3 the second attemp by the claimant to bring a case , you lost by default , or lost , whatever and are or have paid within 28 days 

situations 2 and 3 are not at same time , 2 is first , then they submit claim and situation 3 happens then , judgews do not hear 2 and 3 together as the defendant has not got papewrwork or defended case 

The judgement was to pay the initial judgement.

No , the setaside stopped / finished / annulled / exsponged , or in fact totally removed the ccj , in fact its as if the whole fist case never happend 

The judgement was to pay the initial judgemet

NO , in case 3 the just stated you hadnt. to pay an amout that was the same as one 

You are right. I was referring to the set aside hearing. Thanks