Tweet
Ive applied for a Set Aside of a CCJ which isn't actually in my name, neither is the correspondence from the Claimant Lowells Solicitors. The case is due to be heard next Wednesday (16th May 2018) although now I'm wondering if I should have just left it be. Your advice would be much appreciated.
By way of background I am applying to the Court to set the CCJ judgement aside based on the argument I have not had the opportunity to engage with the Claimant over the alleged debt (£345), nor did I have the opportunity to submit a defence as I didn’t receive a copy of the Claim Form until after the expiry of the response time limit.
I moved house on 19th December 2017 from Bristol to Somerset therefore I did not receive the three letters issued by the Claimant addressed to a Lianne dated 17th December 2017, 31st January 2018, and 13th February 2018. At the time of moving property I contacted all of my known business correspondence such as banks, insurers, DVLA etc.
Having been unable to drive during the later stages of pregnancy and after giving birth on 25th March 2018 with an extended stay in hospital due to health complications I was finally able to meet with my previous landlord on 22nd April 2018 to collect my post. This was the first opportunity I had to read the correspondence from the Claimant and the Claim Form addressed to Lianne and in haste submitted an application for the judgement to be set aside on the same day.
Lianne x xxxxxxxxxxx is not nor ever has been my forename, maiden name or surname but it's very close in spelling to my maiden name.
The Claimant correspondence addressed to Lianne Xxxxxxx relates to a debt which the Claimant states was incurred in 2005, some 13 years ago and for which I have no recollection. I presume a credit check was undertaken at the time the credit agreement was entered into therefore I've asked the Claimant provide evidence of the original contractual agreement and credit check to ensure there isn’t a case of mistaken identity.
Due to the historical nature of this alleged debt I would also like to assert the debt falls under the Limitation Act 1980 and therefore statute barred.
The Claimant letter incorrectly addressed and dated 17th December 2017 states that the debt relates to an agreement between Lianne and TMobile dated 2nd March 2005. Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5; an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
I am not aware of having made a payment toward the debt during this time, and I have not written to the Claimant admitting I owe the debt.
I understand if a debt is barred under statute the Claimant has run out of time to use certain types of action including CCJ.
I also understand the burden of proof now falls to the Claimant to prove otherwise.
However I can't help but feel I should have just ignored this? Or is that a case of wishful thinking as the thought of a hearing and leaving my 6 week old baby is very distressing.
By way of background I am applying to the Court to set the CCJ judgement aside based on the argument I have not had the opportunity to engage with the Claimant over the alleged debt (£345), nor did I have the opportunity to submit a defence as I didn’t receive a copy of the Claim Form until after the expiry of the response time limit.
I moved house on 19th December 2017 from Bristol to Somerset therefore I did not receive the three letters issued by the Claimant addressed to a Lianne dated 17th December 2017, 31st January 2018, and 13th February 2018. At the time of moving property I contacted all of my known business correspondence such as banks, insurers, DVLA etc.
Having been unable to drive during the later stages of pregnancy and after giving birth on 25th March 2018 with an extended stay in hospital due to health complications I was finally able to meet with my previous landlord on 22nd April 2018 to collect my post. This was the first opportunity I had to read the correspondence from the Claimant and the Claim Form addressed to Lianne and in haste submitted an application for the judgement to be set aside on the same day.
Lianne x xxxxxxxxxxx is not nor ever has been my forename, maiden name or surname but it's very close in spelling to my maiden name.
The Claimant correspondence addressed to Lianne Xxxxxxx relates to a debt which the Claimant states was incurred in 2005, some 13 years ago and for which I have no recollection. I presume a credit check was undertaken at the time the credit agreement was entered into therefore I've asked the Claimant provide evidence of the original contractual agreement and credit check to ensure there isn’t a case of mistaken identity.
Due to the historical nature of this alleged debt I would also like to assert the debt falls under the Limitation Act 1980 and therefore statute barred.
The Claimant letter incorrectly addressed and dated 17th December 2017 states that the debt relates to an agreement between Lianne and TMobile dated 2nd March 2005. Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5; an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
I am not aware of having made a payment toward the debt during this time, and I have not written to the Claimant admitting I owe the debt.
I understand if a debt is barred under statute the Claimant has run out of time to use certain types of action including CCJ.
I also understand the burden of proof now falls to the Claimant to prove otherwise.
However I can't help but feel I should have just ignored this? Or is that a case of wishful thinking as the thought of a hearing and leaving my 6 week old baby is very distressing.
Well done.
Comment