CCJ against my name I know nothing about

[charitynjw]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

You are, it would appear, claiming Class 2(B)-type undue influence [possibly Class 2(A)].

Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien (1994)

I believe that the burden of proof would be yours to prove. (ie you would need to clearly show 'influence, & having done so, that the influence was 'undue').

Just my ramblings, however...........others may have different views.

[Wilko74]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

Thank you for your replies.
Very interesting to hear those criminal case examples. I never intended to go down this route but it seems to be the only way to go. As pointed out before, I have not carried out a single transaction on this account irrelevant of my signature being on the application form. Could I/should I proceed this as a criminal case? She has had ample enough time to come clean about it but has always refused to discuss it.

[wales01man]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

A criminal case would involve the Police if they decide to act on it first call is the local Police station

[Wilko74]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

I happen to know a couple of police officers who are very good friends, so I can ask their advice too. I've always said its fraud but it's proving my innocence that's the tricky bit.

[Openlaw15]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

IMHO

It would appear that you are claiming 'non est factum'

A very hard one to substantiate.

In Saunders (1976), The House of Lords' Lord Reid (in the case cited below) states if there is a relationship of trust, including a man trusting his wife, a man of full capacity (ie legally aware having no mental impediments) in general unlikely to successfully claim non est factum (basically it means 'I don't recognise the document/ deed').

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1970/5.html

However, if you can prove it was fraud ie if your wife was convicted of fraud or there was evidence of fraud but the cases was disposed for various reasons, it may be possible to argue non est factum. Do you really want to have your ex partner put through a criminal investigation though? Alternatively the bank owes you general duties and if it were not to provide you with reasonable information requests, it could be viewed as breaching its duties, meaning you can claim damages against the bank.

[Wilko74]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

Ideally no, I don't want to put my ex through criminal proceedings but what she has done amounts to fraud. My credit rating is destroyed and I don't stand a chance of getting a mortgage for at least 6/12 months after all debts are settled, so if there is anyway of clearing my name then I'm all ears. Even if that means contacting the police, it's an option I might have to take up.

[Openlaw15]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

Ideally no, I don't want to put my ex through criminal proceedings but what she has done amounts to fraud. My credit rating is destroyed and I don't stand a chance of getting a mortgage for at least 6/12 months after all debts are settled, so if there is anyway of clearing my name then I'm all ears. Even if that means contacting the police, it's an option I might have to take up.

Raise the issue prior to the divorce so you can deduct the money she owes from her 50% either from the house sale or her other assets.

[charitynjw]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

Do you really want to have your ex partner put through a criminal investigation though?

..............that was the purpose behind my (above) post; & how would little'un feel about it?

[Wilko74]

Re: CCJ against my name I know nothing about

I tried to get her to take on this debt but it still works out in my favour to take a 50/50 split as usually it's 60/40 in favour of the mother. It would obviously affect little 'un massively and I don't intend on pursuing a case but I don't want her getting away Scott free either. She will never come clean about the CCJ, so is contacting the police the only option?