*** Won *** Judgment issued, but bar subsequently put in place ?

[kettlaness]

Hi All,

Using MoneyClaim online, I submitted a claim to the tune of £1,200.

I have followed all the correct procedures - submitting all documentation to both Defendant and Moneyclaim via Registered Post.

Early in May, I submitted my DQ, but it appeared that the Defendant did not.

At the end of May, I received notification in the post, stating that as the Defendant had not submitted documentation, a 'A General Sanctions Order' was made against them.
{It seems rather odd to me, that the Defendant didn't contact MoneyClaim at that stage - surely, they also received this information in the post ?}.

Mid June, I received documentation stating that I could request a default judgement.

I submitted a judgement and this was issued on the 19th of this month. On MoneyClaim, it showed that I could 'Request a Warrant', but I decided to allow the Defendant 14 days to make (immediate & full) payment.

However, on the MoneyClaim website, now it states that :

Judgement was submitted against the Defendant (*******) on 18/06/2018

Judgement was issued against the Defendant (*******) on 19/06/2018

A bar was put in place for Defendant (*******) on 26/06/2018


Having contacted MoneyClaim by telephone, I’ve been informed that a bar was put in place by the defendant, because they (the Defendant) say that they sent their Disclosure Questionnaire by Registered Post and that they have proof of doing so. MoneyClaim also told me, that they cannot yet locate the documentation.

It appears, that the defendant has contacted MoneyClaim, only after the judgement was issued and they received the request for payment. (Why didn't they contact MoneyClaim, after they received the General Sanctions Order ?)

It seems unlikely, in my opinion, that MoneyClaim might have ‘mislaid’ a document that they signed for. MoneyClaim have told me, that I'll have to wait to see if the document can be found and if it can, the judgement will be lifted and the claim might proceed to a court hearing.

To what degree (if any), will MoneyClaim check that the Defendant posted the DQ ? Will they ask the Defendant for the tracking number of the DQ and then use it on the Post Office ‘Track & Trace’ facility, to see if the letter was actually sent when they said ?

How long should I wait, to see if the document is found ?

[R0b]

Hello

What exactly does the general sanctions order state?

Procedurally, I don't think there is anything within the Civil Procedure Rules that allows the court to revoke an order unilaterally, unless an application to the court is made - I assume it was a general sanctions order, giving judgment in favour of you? In my view, an application to the Court would be needed and assuming its an error on the Court's part, then technically, the MOJ would be liable for any losses caused to the defendant.

However, I can see why they have done this, but I would question what part of the CPR allows them to revoke the judgment order unilaterally assuming the judgment has already been given. As above, it would require an application by the defendant so I am unsure why they have decided to mark the file as having a bar in place when the order has already been given!

I think we need more information from you and more specifically, to see the actual order itself (personal info redacted). I would also contact the court and ask what powers they have to revoke the judgment without an express application by the defendant or any further order by a judge.

[kettlaness]

Hello

What exactly does the general sanctions order state?

Procedurally, I don't think there is anything within the Civil Procedure Rules that allows the court to revoke an order unilaterally, unless an application to the court is made - I assume it was a general sanctions order, giving judgment in favour of you? In my view, an application to the Court would be needed and assuming its an error on the Court's part, then technically, the MOJ would be liable for any losses caused to the defendant.

However, I can see why they have done this, but I would question what part of the CPR allows them to revoke the judgment order unilaterally assuming the judgment has already been given. As above, it would require an application by the defendant so I am unsure why they have decided to mark the file as having a bar in place when the order has already been given!

I think we need more information from you and more specifically, to see the actual order itself (personal info redacted). I would also contact the court and ask what powers they have to revoke the judgment without an express application by the defendant or any further order by a judge.

The order was dated 29th May and it stated that :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Defendant, you have been sent Notice of Proposed Allocation to track which specified the date by which you were required to Return the Directions Questionnaire. You have failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the CCBC by the date specified in the Notice.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Defendant must file the Directions Questionnaire with the CCBC on or before 7 days from the service of this Order with CCBC (address given). If the Defendant does not comply with this notice your defence/counterclaim will automatically be struck out without further order of the Court and, subject to the Claimant having complied with this order, the Claimant will be at liberty to enter judgement".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I submitted a judgement on the 18th June and received by post (dated 19th June) a 'Notice of Judgement Entered' document, informing me that :

'In accordance with your request, judgement was entered against the Defendant on 19th June 2018'.

As the judgement was made in my favour, I then went on to the MoneyClaim site and requested full & immediate payment.

Interestingly, between 20th June and the morning of the 26th June (today), on the MoneyClaim site I had the facility to 'Request Warrant against the claim'; I didn't do this, as I thought that I was obliged to give the Defendant 14 days to make payment. However, when I went on MoneyClaim again, later this afternoon, I could see that 'a bar was put in place for the defendant', preventing me from requesting a warrant. Probably a good job, that I didn't request a warrant - I might have lost the costs of doing so - I was anticipating using HCEO.

I telephoned MoneyClaim and they didn't seem able to give a coherent explanation; they said that the Defendant claimed to have sent the DQ by registered post and that they could prove it had been posted. MoneyClaim said that IF this was the case, they (MoneyClaim) would have to "hold their hands up and acknowledge fault" and the judgement would then be removed - and we'd would effectively be back at the stage of submitting DQs again. MoneyClaim said that they had searched for the documentation from the Defendant, but had been unable to locate it. They said that they would be making further searches this week.

In a sense, I don't see what difference it makes, whether MoneyClaim find the defendant's DQ or not - if they find the DQ, we will presumably revert to that stage; if it isn't found, the Defendant will (presumably) send it again. All this - allegedly, because MoneyClaim has 'lost' the document - well that's the Defendant's version of events.

Surely, MoneyClaim would ask the defendant for the trackable barcode number, which can show whether the documentation was delivered to the Court - and whosoever signed for it ?

[kettlaness]

Hello

What exactly does the general sanctions order state?

Procedurally, I don't think there is anything within the Civil Procedure Rules that allows the court to revoke an order unilaterally, unless an application to the court is made - I assume it was a general sanctions order, giving judgment in favour of you? In my view, an application to the Court would be needed and assuming its an error on the Court's part, then technically, the MOJ would be liable for any losses caused to the defendant.

However, I can see why they have done this, but I would question what part of the CPR allows them to revoke the judgment order unilaterally assuming the judgment has already been given. As above, it would require an application by the defendant so I am unsure why they have decided to mark the file as having a bar in place when the order has already been given!

I think we need more information from you and more specifically, to see the actual order itself (personal info redacted). I would also contact the court and ask what powers they have to revoke the judgment without an express application by the defendant or any further order by a judge.

Thank you, by the way, for having the courtesy and time to make a reply - I greatly appreciate it !

[R0b]

Yes you are right, if the defendant can prove it then they need to send in that proof that it has been sent and usually that would be a tracking number of sorts if sent registered post so that should be pretty easy to prove.

The CPR does not make reference to any bar being put in place but the MCOL guidance says the following:

"Bar" - a bar is placed on a claim to stop a Judgment or Enforcement being issued against the Defendant. A bar is usually placed on the claim because a response has been received from the Defendant, or if an application has been made awaiting a decision by a Judge or court appointed Legal Advisor.

So it seems that the bar is there because they are carrying out a search to see if the document has been received. As you say if this is correct then the bar will likely be removed and revert to the DQ stage. However, you should keep the pressure on the Court and ask for regular updates, perhaps on Friday if there has been no further update.

[kettlaness]

I forgot to mention, on the 1st May, I received a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' - this informed me, that I had to complete a DQ and serve copies on all other parties.

I've been doing things 'by the book' - following instructions and submitting information to the appropriate parties, as and when requested. And yet, the Defendant hasn't sent any documentation to me ?

Accordingly, I sent copies of my DQ to MoneyClaim AND to the Claimant on the 8th May - the DQs had to be filed with the Court by 18th May. I've retained proof of posting and screen captures of the recipient's signatures. However, the Defendant certainly didn't send me a DQ and I'm not convinced that they sent one to MoneyClaim.

[kettlaness]

In a sense, I don't see what difference it makes, whether MoneyClaim find the defendant's DQ or not - if they find the DQ, we will presumably revert to that stage; if it isn't found, the Defendant will (presumably) send it again. All this - allegedly, because MoneyClaim has 'lost' the document - well that's the Defendant's version of events.

I'm wrong about this ^^^ .

I've just contacted MoneyClaim and they've told me that they have received proof that the DQ was posted to them by the Defendant. The Defendant provided a Tracking number which shows that MoneyClaim did sign for a document - which may, or may not have been the DQ.

MoneyClaim have told me, that they cannot find the document.

They stated that, if the document is found within 'about 5 days', the judgement will be lifted and we'll be back at the DQ stage. To my surprise, they told me that if they cannot locate the Defendant's document within the next 5 days, they will lift the bar and I'll be able to request a warrant - and I'll swiftly seek the services of a HCEO.

It seems a little 'harsh' on the Defendant, if the judgement is lifted because MoneyClaim 'lost' a document - and it appears, that the Defendant would not be allowed to re-send the missing DQ. Though as I mentioned above, there's no proof that the missing document is the DQ.

However, if the document isn't found and the judgement remains and I'm able to request a warrant, isn't almost certain, that the Defendant will ask for the judgement to be set aside ? And if this is the case, will a HCEO be able to act in such circumstances ?

Any thoughts/guidance/comments most gratefully received - 'thank you'.

[Amethyst]

Did the court say WHY defendant couldn't file a further copy of the DQ ? That would seem to make more sense all round, they have been provided evidence the Defendant did return the DQ ( or a random sheet of paper lol ) and therefore the strike out of the defence and subsequent default judgment is the courts 'fault'. .... it seems bonkers that they know they received something from the defendant, at the right time, and that they have lost it, but still force the defendant to apply to set aside a default judgment.... as yes indeed, that is what is likely to happen.

But that is down to the court and there isn't a great deal you can do - I would ( once the court have decided what to do with it) instead of issuing a warrant write to the claimant and ask them if they want to pay the judgment or intend to apply to court to set aside, which, if they do so promptly ( say within 14 days ) you are happy to consent to so the judgment can be set aside and the case proceed, however if they don't you will be requesting a warrant to start enforcement proceedings.

Point being, if they are fibbing, and just trying to cause you problems, they are far less likely to actually get a set aside after you have been Mr V.Reasonable throughout.... and it's only a delay of a couple weeks before you can file for the warrant and look to enforcement ( and of course they will have to pay the additional costs at that point ).

Of course I know nothing about the claim, the defendant etc so you have to judge whether that would be a sensible course of action, but it seems to me that is the best way of dealing with this court inflicted situation without costs and time wasted ramping up.


Oh, sorry missed a bit - if you get the warrant and instruct HCEO and an application to set aside is made, then the HCEO can't act and the warrant is suspended until after the set aside hearing which could be a few months off.

[kettlaness]

Did the court say WHY defendant couldn't file a further copy of the DQ ? That would seem to make more sense all round, they have been provided evidence the Defendant did return the DQ ( or a random sheet of paper lol ) and therefore the strike out of the defence and subsequent default judgment is the courts 'fault'. .... it seems bonkers that they know they received something from the defendant, at the right time, and that they have lost it, but still force the defendant to apply to set aside a default judgment.... as yes indeed, that is what is likely to happen.

Thank you for your reply - much appreciated !

The Court didn't say why the Defendant couldn't submit another DQ; however, the DQ was already 'late'.

The sequence of events is as follows :


DQ sent to ****** (Defendant) on 01/05/2018

DQ (Mine - the Claimant) filed on 10/05/2018

General sanctions order was made on 29/05/2018

The defence was struck out on 15/06/2018

The bar in place for ****** (Defendant) was removed on 18/06/2018

You (claimant) submitted a judgment against ****** (Defendant) on 18/06/2018 at 17:28:25

Your judgment against ****** (Defendant) was issued on 19/06/2018 at 19:08:40

A bar was put in place for ****** (Defendant) on 26/06/2018

MoneyClaim informed me, that shortly after the Defendant received the General sanctions order, they were 'allowed' more time (up to 10th June) to send the DQ and it was during this period of time, that it was (allegedly) sent by Registered Mail.

On the 22nd June, (having received judgement against them - and a request for payment) the Defendant contacted MoneyClaim and provided the tracking number for the DQ. Curious that the Defendant didn't contact MoneyClaim much earlier than this - such as when the defence was struck out.

I would ( once the court have decided what to do with it) instead of issuing a warrant write to the claimant and ask them if they want to pay the judgment or intend to apply to court to set aside, which, if they do so promptly ( say within 14 days ) you are happy to consent to so the judgment can be set aside and the case proceed, however if they don't you will be requesting a warrant to start enforcement proceedings.

I'm not sure that it is worth contacting the Defendant - they have only sent me one message, which was after the claim was first raised. They haven't sent me any further documentation - I sent them [By Registered Mail ] a copy of my DQ, but they haven't sent me a copy of their version.

[jaguarsuk]

I'm not sure that it is worth contacting the Defendant - they have only sent me one message, which was after the claim was first raised. They haven't sent me any further documentation - I sent them [By Registered Mail ] a copy of my DQ, but they haven't sent me a copy of their version.

I would heed Amethyst's advice, as if you apply for a Writ of Control as you intend to then you will lose the cost of that (£60) and the HCEO may charge you £75 for being unable to execute it if the defendant successfully applies and had the judgement set aside.

In my opinion you should consent to the set aside, but make it clear that only on the grounds the defendant bares the cost of it themselves and they may not claim costs for it.

If the defendant then chooses to do nothing you can move to enforcement as if the defendant applies to have it set aside you can demonstrate that they were not prompt in doing so and the judgement should stand.

[kettlaness]

I would heed Amethyst's advice, as if you apply for a Writ of Control as you intend to then you will lose the cost of that (£60) and the HCEO may charge you £75 for being unable to execute it if the defendant successfully applies and had the judgement set aside.

Good point ! - which I take note of and will follow.

In my opinion you should consent to the set aside, but make it clear that only on the grounds the defendant bares the cost of it themselves and they may not claim costs for it.

If the defendant then chooses to do nothing you can move to enforcement as if the defendant applies to have it set aside you can demonstrate that they were not prompt in doing so and the judgement should stand.

As mentioned by Amethyst, I could write to the claimant and ask them if they want to pay the judgement or whether they intend to apply to court to set aside - but I'd be very surprised, if they replied. A problem that I've experienced throughout, is that the Defendant has shared very little information with me and virtually everything that they have done, has been a reaction to my own actions.

I'm concerned that if they do get a set aside, they'll continue to drag their heels and stall the process as much as possible. An example of this, is with regard to the DQ, which should have been submitted by 18th May; they failed to do this and were given an extra allowance of time up until the 10th June.

Should I actually write to the Defendant, to see if they are going for a set aside, or should I simply give them a couple of weeks to see if & how they act ?

The Defendant alleges that the DQ was sent to MoneyClaim about 3 weeks ago, given that MoneyClaim can't find it and they have already spent two days searching, it'll be interesting to see if it comes to light in the next 5 days.

Looking further into the future, if I have the opportunity to use a HCEO, it'll be very important that I get the company name correct. On documentation that I've received from them (this includes the receipt for purchase) the company name is given as ABCD; but an Internet search tells me, that they are a LTD company. Neither 'Limited' or 'LTD' appears on any documentation, so what name should I provide to a HCEO ? with the 'LTD' after the company name or without ?

As an aside, I've found the replies that I've been given on this thread to be very helpful - "thank you" to those who have taken the time & trouble to respond - I hope that you win the lottery, very soon !

[jaguarsuk]

Should I actually write to the Defendant, to see if they are going for a set aside, or should I simply give them a couple of weeks to see if & how they act ?



Looking further into the future, if I have the opportunity to use a HCEO, it'll be very important that I get the company name correct. On documentation that I've received from them (this includes the receipt for purchase) the company name is given as ABCD; but an Internet search tells me, that they are a LTD company. Neither 'Limited' or 'LTD' appears on any documentation, so what name should I provide to a HCEO ? with the 'LTD' after the company name or without ?

As an aside, I've found the replies that I've been given on this thread to be very helpful - "thank you" to those who have taken the time & trouble to respond - I hope that you win the lottery, very soon !

Write to them inviting them to pay the judgement and consenting should they choose to the set aside on the basis they bear the cost of it themselves. Give them a 14 day window to either pay or confirm their application to the court.

If they do nothing you can demonstrate you have been reasonable, they have had the chance to promptly apply for set aside with your consent and that the judgement should stand should they later make an application.

You can then confidently move to enforcement.

Whatever name is on the Judgement is the name that will be placed on the writ and that's the name the HCEO will execute on.

Thank you for your kind words, I hope I win the lottery soon too.

[kettlaness]

Write to them inviting them to pay the judgement and consenting should they choose to the set aside on the basis they bear the cost of it themselves.

On what basis (why ?) might I have to pay (or share) the cost of set aside ?

How much might such costs be ?

If they do apply for set aside, how likely is it that it will be granted ? - Is it something that in most cases is granted almost automatically ?

Thank you for your kind words, I hope I win the lottery soon too.

Your luck will need to be rather better than my own.

[jaguarsuk]

On what basis (why ?) might I have to pay (or share) the cost of set aside ?

How much might such costs be ?

If they do apply for set aside, how likely is it that it will be granted ? - Is it something that in most cases is granted almost automatically ?

Usually the cost of a set aside application is recoverable from the claimant by the defendant because the claimant is often the one at fault for the judgement incorrectly being entered (sending the form to an old address or such like).

It'll cost the defendant £100 with your consent.

If they apply for a set aside promptly then I'd say they've probably got about a 99% chance of success as it is a court error, hence why it's strange the court are not able to return straight to the DQ stage.

If the defendant applies after 30 days from the date they found out about the judgement (so the date they contacted the court) then you can defend the application on the grounds that it was not made promptly and as such the CCJ should stand as entered.

[Amethyst]

Is there a risk of the Ltd company going into admin/liquidation before you are able to enforce ? If so then I would be a bit more wary of the set aside, as having the judgment puts you on the list of creditors higher than not.

Does the Ltd company you have found with the same name have the correct address / director etc. Would you be sending the HCEO to business premises ? The claim has been brought against the company name ( whether or not you put Ltd at the end of it - but the company name rather than the director ) ( just checking )