Judgment in default (again)

IronWolf

doubledotcom said:

If you want evidence of having sent it and it was accepted by their SMTP, system you only need to look at the sent email header metadata. Somewhere in there (you can copy and paste it here, just redact your own email address as "XXX@XXX.XXX", and I can tell you whether it was accepted and therefore served.

The email headers are the forensic trail:

• Each SMTP hop adds a Received: line.
• The bottom-most Received: header (closest to the recipient domain) is the one that matters.
• If you see something like:

Received: from yourmailserver.example.com
    by mx.justice.gov.uk with ESMTPS id ABC123
    for <dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk>;

That is evidence the justice.gov.uk mail server accepted the message.

Service is effective because the MoJ has formally designated dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk as an address for service by email. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 6.20 & PD 6A), once a party has agreed or designated that service may be effected by email, service is complete when the email is transmitted to that address and accepted by the recipient’s mail server.

The SMTP protocol requires the recipient’s server to return “250 OK” before adding its own “Received:” header. That header shows the justice.gov.uk mail exchanger took responsibility for delivery. At that point the sender has discharged their duty. Because the MoJ accept service by email, the presence of the recipient’s “Received:” header in the message is sufficient proof that the claim form and attachment were served.

Whether they then filtered it to spam, quarantined it, or failed internally is irrelevant to the fact of service.

I don't see any "received" in the email header. All it says is

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:36:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFAwMrCst1Ly=mcqSduegPxb51LCh25SYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: M1###
From:< ####@gmail.com>
To: DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000028daa9063c162bf8"

--00000000000028daa9063c162bf8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028daa5063c162bf6"

--00000000000028daa5063c162bf6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I have no idea what's happened, but it's in her sent folder and there was no bounce email. I'm guessing this might by why they say they never received it.

My wife has submitted the complaint to HMCTS (it's an online form now and the email address doesn't work) so we'll see what happens.

Car1980

I don't think they're going to forensically try and disprove they received it. A screenshot of your email program with it in sent items will be enough.

IronWolf

Update on the case. My wife got a reply from HMCTS. The case has been referred to a district judge for directions on how to proceed. I guess they will decide if the judgment is set aside and the case continues. They said it will take 8-10 weeks, so my wife has paid the CCJ to protect her credit record, and for the off-chance that they don't set it aside. She has requested that the claimant is ordered to repay it by the judge in the event that they do set aside the judgment. From a search online this isn't uncommon as people have to protect their credit, so hopefully there are no issues. It already seems to have affected her credit. Her credit card limit got reduced suddenly a couple of weeks ago.

Coupon-mad

Oooh I hope the judge orders the second bit but I am sorry to say I don't think that extra request will be picked up unless you really shove evidence (receipt) at the CNBC that she paid it under protest (only due to the court error) and the Order should require the Claimant to refund the monies wrongfully forced - by CNBC error - to be paid for a claim that was always defended in full.

She needs to email again and insist her email is placed before the CNBC judge.

But I am afraid experience says this was a big mistake. This should never have been paid under these temporary error circumstances.

I hope you'll get your money back.

I hope you will prove me wrong!

doubledotcom

IronWolf said:

doubledotcom said:

If you want evidence of having sent it and it was accepted by their SMTP, system you only need to look at the sent email header metadata. Somewhere in there (you can copy and paste it here, just redact your own email address as "XXX@XXX.XXX", and I can tell you whether it was accepted and therefore served.

The email headers are the forensic trail:

• Each SMTP hop adds a Received: line.
• The bottom-most Received: header (closest to the recipient domain) is the one that matters.
• If you see something like:

Received: from yourmailserver.example.com
    by mx.justice.gov.uk with ESMTPS id ABC123
    for <dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk>;

That is evidence the justice.gov.uk mail server accepted the message.

Service is effective because the MoJ has formally designated dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk as an address for service by email. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 6.20 & PD 6A), once a party has agreed or designated that service may be effected by email, service is complete when the email is transmitted to that address and accepted by the recipient’s mail server.

The SMTP protocol requires the recipient’s server to return “250 OK” before adding its own “Received:” header. That header shows the justice.gov.uk mail exchanger took responsibility for delivery. At that point the sender has discharged their duty. Because the MoJ accept service by email, the presence of the recipient’s “Received:” header in the message is sufficient proof that the claim form and attachment were served.

Whether they then filtered it to spam, quarantined it, or failed internally is irrelevant to the fact of service.

I don't see any "received" in the email header. All it says is

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:36:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFAwMrCst1Ly=mcqSduegPxb51LCh25SYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: M1###
From:< ####@gmail.com>
To: DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000028daa9063c162bf8"

--00000000000028daa9063c162bf8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028daa5063c162bf6"

--00000000000028daa5063c162bf6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I have no idea what's happened, but it's in her sent folder and there was no bounce email. I'm guessing this might by why they say they never received it.

My wife has submitted the complaint to HMCTS (it's an online form now and the email address doesn't work) so we'll see what happens.

You’ve just uncovered the key forensic point: those aren’t the full headers. What you pasted is only the message headers, not the transport headers. Gmail hides the SMTP “Received:” chain unless you explicitly open Show original.

That view never includes the SMTP transport headers, so it does not show any of the “Received” lines that prove whether the email was actually transmitted or accepted by the justice.gov.uk mail server. Email clients hide the transport headers by default, which is why the section you've posted only shows the MIME structure and not the delivery trail.

What you’re seeing is exactly what you’d expect if you copied the body headers from the message view. Those never include the SMTP hops.

To see the full transport headers in Gmail, for example when using a browser, you have to open the original message source. The steps are straightforward: open the message in your Sent folder, click the three dots menu next to the reply arrow, and select “Show original”. That opens a new tab containing the complete header chain, including all SMTP “Received” lines. Those are the entries that confirm whether Gmail handed the message off and whether the MoJ server accepted it.

Without that full header view, we cannot see the delivery path and cannot confirm whether the message ever reached the justice.gov.uk mail server.

IronWolf

doubledotcom said:

IronWolf said:

doubledotcom said:

If you want evidence of having sent it and it was accepted by their SMTP, system you only need to look at the sent email header metadata. Somewhere in there (you can copy and paste it here, just redact your own email address as "XXX@XXX.XXX", and I can tell you whether it was accepted and therefore served.

The email headers are the forensic trail:

• Each SMTP hop adds a Received: line.
• The bottom-most Received: header (closest to the recipient domain) is the one that matters.
• If you see something like:

Received: from yourmailserver.example.com
    by mx.justice.gov.uk with ESMTPS id ABC123
    for <dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk>;

That is evidence the justice.gov.uk mail server accepted the message.

Service is effective because the MoJ has formally designated dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk as an address for service by email. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 6.20 & PD 6A), once a party has agreed or designated that service may be effected by email, service is complete when the email is transmitted to that address and accepted by the recipient’s mail server.

The SMTP protocol requires the recipient’s server to return “250 OK” before adding its own “Received:” header. That header shows the justice.gov.uk mail exchanger took responsibility for delivery. At that point the sender has discharged their duty. Because the MoJ accept service by email, the presence of the recipient’s “Received:” header in the message is sufficient proof that the claim form and attachment were served.

Whether they then filtered it to spam, quarantined it, or failed internally is irrelevant to the fact of service.

I don't see any "received" in the email header. All it says is

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:36:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFAwMrCst1Ly=mcqSduegPxb51LCh25SYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: M1###
From:< ####@gmail.com>
To: DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000028daa9063c162bf8"

--00000000000028daa9063c162bf8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000028daa5063c162bf6"

--00000000000028daa5063c162bf6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I have no idea what's happened, but it's in her sent folder and there was no bounce email. I'm guessing this might by why they say they never received it.

My wife has submitted the complaint to HMCTS (it's an online form now and the email address doesn't work) so we'll see what happens.

You’ve just uncovered the key forensic point: those aren’t the full headers. What you pasted is only the message headers, not the transport headers. Gmail hides the SMTP “Received:” chain unless you explicitly open Show original.

That view never includes the SMTP transport headers, so it does not show any of the “Received” lines that prove whether the email was actually transmitted or accepted by the justice.gov.uk mail server. Email clients hide the transport headers by default, which is why the section you've posted only shows the MIME structure and not the delivery trail.

What you’re seeing is exactly what you’d expect if you copied the body headers from the message view. Those never include the SMTP hops.

To see the full transport headers in Gmail, for example when using a browser, you have to open the original message source. The steps are straightforward: open the message in your Sent folder, click the three dots menu next to the reply arrow, and select “Show original”. That opens a new tab containing the complete header chain, including all SMTP “Received” lines. Those are the entries that confirm whether Gmail handed the message off and whether the MoJ server accepted it.

Without that full header view, we cannot see the delivery path and cannot confirm whether the message ever reached the justice.gov.uk mail server.

That is from the "Show original" view in Gmail. There are no received headers for that or any other sent emails. Only emails in my inbox show the received headers.

IronWolf

Coupon-mad said:

Oooh I hope the judge orders the second bit but I am sorry to say I don't think that extra request will be picked up unless you really shove evidence (receipt) at the CNBC that she paid it under protest (only due to the court error) and the Order should require the Claimant to refund the monies wrongfully forced - by CNBC error - to be paid for a claim that was always defended in full.

She needs to email again and insist her email is placed before the CNBC judge.

But I am afraid experience says this was a big mistake. This should never have been paid under these temporary error circumstances.

I hope you'll get your money back.

I hope you will prove me wrong!

We'll see. It just wasn't worth the risk for her for a small amount of money, given she's on here on a visa as well and has a mortgage. I have no evidence they received the email itself, only that it was sent, so it seemed precarious.

She has sent notice to the court that the payment was made under protest, and notified the Claimant as well that it was made under protest. If the judge sets aside the judgment, we'll see how they respond. Even if they don't pay her back immediately, if she eventually wins the case, I don't see how they can keep it. She'll go back to the court if necessary to get it back.

IronWolf

Update: The judgment was set aside. DCBL have contacted my wife and said that in order to avoid costs and fees, they are prepared to settle for £120, and if she agrees, they will refund the extra paid.

She replied no. Give me the money back. Will see what happens.

Back to court we go it seems.

Coupon-mad

But there is nothing in it for them to do anything. She should never have paid. There's no reason for them to pay it back unless she actively sues them.

The claim is over and all they need do is tell the court is has been settled.

UNLESS the CNBC Order says they must repay the sum she paid in error. Does the CNBC Order cover it?

This is why she had to be at the CNBC like a Rottweiler.

If the CNBC merely set aside the CCJ then she has no way forward. It was always going to be set aside and by paying, she lost all her leverage and her right to defend. We did warn you, I think. It was a mistake: money down the drain unless she sues for it back.

IronWolf

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81873536#Comment_81873536

Why would she have lost her right to defend? That doesn't make any sense, and DCBL wouldn't have offered to settle if she lost her defence.

She told the court she made the payment under protest to protect her credit record. The court case is continuing, and she has a clear right to restitution of the sum paid as it's unjust enrichment. She'll sue them and report them to the SRA if they refuse to. She didn't make the payment in error. She had a court order which compelled her to pay an amount and she did. She had no way of knowing if the judgment would be set aside.

We haven't had any communication from the court so have no idea what the court order said. DCBL are the ones that notified her that it had been set aside. When we checked MCOL we can see that it was set aside on 5 January.

She has emailed the court to ask why she hasn't received anything and what is now happening.