Set aside - is that the end of a County Court Claim ?

[Dogwithabone]

Can a CCJ that has been set aside because the Claim papers were never served on the defendant be restored or reinstated without a new claim being issued, or a copy of the original Claim form being served on the defendant?

[charitynjw]

Can a CCJ that has been set aside because the Claim papers were never served on the defendant be restored or reinstated without a new claim being issued, or a copy of the original Claim form being served on the defendant?

Hi & welcome to LB.
A set aside is what it says on the tin.....the judgment is set aside (sort of in limbo) & the case goes back to being a live claim.

[Dogwithabone]

Hi & welcome to LB.
A set aside is what it says on the tin.....the judgment is set aside (sort of in limbo) & the case goes back to being a live claim.

Thank you for the welcome, and the reply.

As the claim reverts to being a claim in progress, I presume then, that the rules in respect of serving the claim form and associated papers apply as they would to any other claim during the 4 months allowed for service after the claim is issued by the Court, in other words, service no later than 4 months after the date the Judgment was set aside ?

[charitynjw]

Thank you for the welcome, and the reply.

As the claim reverts to being a claim in progress, I presume then, that the rules in respect of serving the claim form and associated papers apply as they would to any other claim during the 4 months allowed for service after the claim is issued by the Court, in other words, service no later than 4 months after the date the Judgment was set aside ?

No, the claim will be presumed to be served correctly unless proven otherwise.
It can, under certain circumstances, be served at a last known address, but the court will expect a certain amount of due diligence in indentifying a current address if served after that length of time.
Have you moved since 2015?
If so, are you on the electoral register at your current address?

[Dogwithabone]

No, the claim will be presumed to be served correctly unless proven otherwise.
It can, under certain circumstances, be served at a last known address, but the court will expect a certain amount of due diligence in indentifying a current address if served after that length of time.
Have you moved since 2015?
If so, are you on the electoral register at your current address?

The CCJ was set aside after the Court accepted that the Claim form had been served at an address that the claimant had been informed that I had long since moved away from, and that I had a credible defence to the Claim.
The Judge made the set aside conditional on my filing and serving a Defence within 14 days. I could not file a Defence on the response paperwork that should have been served with the Claim form because I had still had not been served with the Claim form, so to comply as best as I could with the set aside Order, I filed and served a statement outlining what my Defence would be, and pointing out that I still had not been served with the Claim form or a copy of it.
Over two years after the Court ordered the CCJ set aside and a Defence to be filed and served, I still have not been served with the original or any other Claim form or a copy. How do I go about demonstrating and proving this negative, non-event to the Court ?

[Amethyst]

Has the CCJ actually been set aside? ( has it been removed from the register ?)

Have you spoken to the court at all to find out what the current status of the claim is? If your statement was accepted as defence and the claim set aside, then it may be stayed or the other side may have discontinued so it is worth checking the status if you haven't already.

[Dogwithabone]

Has the CCJ actually been set aside? ( has it been removed from the register ?)

Have you spoken to the court at all to find out what the current status of the claim is? If your statement was accepted as defence and the claim set aside, then it may be stayed or the other side may have discontinued so it is worth checking the status if you haven't already.

The Order setting aside the Judgment said :

" IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The Judgment is set aside on condition that the defendant files a defence and serving it on the Claimant's
Solicitors by 6 February 2017.
2. Costs in the case. "

I filed and served a statement outlining what my defence would be by the due date, and nothing more was heard or received from the Court until 9 June 2017 when an Order made, not by a Judge but by a "Proper Officer", instructing me to file a Directions Questionnaire by 20 June 2017 was received in the post.
Circumstances caused me to file the DQ on 21 June 2017, one day later than stated in the 9 June 2017 Order, and I was assured by the Court's public counter staff that being one day late in filing would not present any problem.
On the following day, 22 June 2017 the Claimant's solicitor applied to the Court for Judgment in the same terms as the previously set aside CCJ to be entered on the grounds that my Defence had been automatically struck out.
Three months later, on 22 September 2017, and without the original Claim form, or a copy, ever having been served at any stage or at any time, or the claim ever having been heard before any Court, the Court made an Order in precisely the terms asked for by the Claimant's solicitor, in effect restoring/re-instating the set aside CCJ but with several thousand pounds worth of costs and ''mesne profits'' added to the original sum of approaching £14,000.

[Amethyst]

Had you filed/served any response to their application ? Did you not receive notification that your defence had been struck out and why? Because the DQ was filed one day late ?

[Dogwithabone]

Had you filed/served any response to their application ? Did you not receive notification that your defence had been struck out and why? Because the DQ was filed one day late ?

An accurate and comprehensive answer to these specific questions needs some referring back through correspondence and phone call records, which I should have time to do later today or this evening, but in the meantime could you please provide some clarification with regard to the effect on proceedings of the fact that the sealed Claim form and POC have never been served at any time from the date the Claim was first issued up to the present day ?

[Amethyst]

If it wasn't ordered by the court ( and from your order it doesn't seem that it was ) then it is unlikely there is any sanction however how things went from that point depend exactly what you entered as your defence to comply with the order ( it isn't clear if you entered a defence or just sent a statement to the court to say you hadn't received particulars ) and if you responded to their application to strike out your defence ( and what their application was based upon).

Judgment was awarded against you due to your defence being struck out in Sept 2017 ? nearly 2 years ago ?

[Dogwithabone]

If it wasn't ordered by the court ( and from your order it doesn't seem that it was ) then it is unlikely there is any sanction however how things went from that point depend exactly what you entered as your defence to comply with the order ( it isn't clear if you entered a defence or just sent a statement to the court to say you hadn't received particulars ) and if you responded to their application to strike out your defence ( and what their application was based upon).

Judgment was awarded against you due to your defence being struck out in Sept 2017 ? nearly 2 years ago ?

I filed and served a statement outlining my Defence, and pointing out that the Claim Form had not yet been served, before 6 February 2017, the time limit in the Order made at the set aside hearing. Nothing more was heard or received from the Court until 9 June 2017 when an 'Unless' Order made, not by a Judge but by a "Proper Officer", instructing me to file a Directions Questionnaire by 20 June 2017 was received in the post. It is worthy of note at this juncture that, in keeping with the dubiously shambolic documentation that characterized this spurious claim from the beginning, the DQ attached to the 'Unless' Order was in fact a Small Claims Track form, despite the Claim being well in excess of the Small Claims Track monetary limit.

I was not able to file the DQ on 20 June 2017, but it was filed on 21 June 2017, one day after the time limit stated in the 9 June 2017 Order, and I was assured by the Court's public counter staff that being one day late in filing would not present any problem due to the 9 June 2017 Order not being posted until 12 June 2017 and therefore deemed to have been served on 14 June 2017, and the time limit on the Order not taking effect until 7 days after service, giving me until 21 June 2017 to file the DQ and/or to apply to have the Order set aside, varied, or revoked. At the request of the Court office staff, and to avoid wasting the Court's time, and having been assured by the Court staff that it was not necessary, I did not apply to have the 9 June 2017 Order varied to allow for filing one day later than the time limit date of 20 June 2017.

The Claimant's solicitor then acted immediately, but not by making an application to have my Defence struck out. The Application made on 22 June 2017 - the next day after the DQ was filed - was for Judgment in precisely the same terms as the previously set aside Default Judgment to be entered on the grounds that my Defence had been automatically struck out owing to my DQ having been filed one day out of time. The concept of my Defence having been struck out was therefore simply a notional suggestion to the Court on the part of the Claimant's solicitor, and not an ordered or notified action on the part of the Court.

I was made aware that the 22 June 2017 Application had been accepted by the Court 23 days later when I received a Notice of Hearing of Application (dated 12 July 2017) on 15 July 2017. I telephoned the Court office immediately on receipt of the 12 July 2017 Notice and was assured that it was simply an "administrative mistake" and that the matter would be investigated and rectified. Having heard nothing more from the Court by 30 August 2017, I telephoned the Court office again and was told that the matter had not been resolved and that the 22 June 2017 Application for the set aside Default Judgment to be re-entered was listed for hearing on 22 September 2017.

The matter remained unresolved after several more phone calls to the Court and on 11 September 2017 I submitted a written statement to the Court explaining the entire sequence of events to date, asking for my Defence to be restored, for the 22 June 2017 Application to be dismissed, and the matter to be listed for hearing on the earliest available date.

On 22 September 2017, however, and still without the original Claim Form, or a copy, ever having been served at any stage or at any time, and without my ever having had any opportunity to argue a Defence before the Court, an Order was made in the exact terms asked for by the Claimant's solicitor, in effect restoring and re-entering the Default Judgment which had been set aside 8 months earlier on 23 January 2017 when the Court found that there had been no service of the Claim Form and POC, both having been returned to the Court by the Royal Mail, and that I had a viable Defence to a Claim for which the Claimant was unable to produce any accounts or other records.

[Dogwithabone]

The last paragraph in my post #11 above takes everything back to my original question, which was :

Can a CCJ that has been set aside because the Claim papers were never served on the defendant be restored or reinstated without a new claim being issued, or a copy of the original Claim form being served on the defendant ?

Or put another way, can County Court money claim proceedings begin, or formally commence, absent proper service of an unexpired Claim Form ?

[Amethyst]

Yes. You needed to apply for relief from sanctions if your defence was struck out due to having filed your directions questionnaire late following the unless order. It is nearly two years after that event though and you will need, if you make the application now, to explain the delay - you should also include the failure of the original claimant to serve documents on you as previously ordered.

[Dogwithabone]

Yes. You needed to apply for relief from sanctions if your defence was struck out due to having filed your directions questionnaire late following the unless order. It is nearly two years after that event though and you will need, if you make the application now, to explain the delay - you should also include the failure of the original claimant to serve documents on you as previously ordered.

I'm puzzled by your reference to the Claimant being ordered to ''serve documents''. No such Order was either applied for or made by the Court at any stage in the proceedings, and nor has the Claimant ever served a valid Claim Form from when the Claim was issued on 30 August 2016 to this day.

At the hearing setting aside the (default) Judgment it was ordered by the Judge that I must file and serve a Defence within 14 days. This Order was complied with and on hearing nothing more from the Court until 4 months later when the Unless Order to file a DQ was made, I assumed that the Claimant had decided not to pursue this groundless and thoroughly dishonest claim any further.

I am finding it very difficult to understand how a Judgment in favour of of the Claimant that has been set aside solely on the grounds of non-service of the Claim Form can be re-entered by the Court in the circumstances of a second and continuing failure on the part of the Claimant to serve a valid Claim Form after the original (default) Judgment was set aside, and solely on the strength of an incorrect assertion on the part of the Claimant's solicitor that my Defence, in his words, " stood automatically struck out". I simply cannot believe that this is how the Courts and the Justice system should or do work.

[Dogwithabone]

Yes. You needed to apply for relief from sanctions if your defence was struck out due to having filed your directions questionnaire late following the unless order. It is nearly two years after that event though and you will need, if you make the application now, to explain the delay - you should also include the failure of the original claimant to serve documents on you as previously ordered.

I'm puzzled by your reference to the Claimant being ordered to ''serve documents''. No such Order was either applied for or made by the Court at any stage in the proceedings, and nor has the Claimant ever served a valid Claim Form from when the Claim was issued on 30 August 2016 to this day.

At the hearing setting aside the (default) Judgment it was ordered by the Judge that I must file and serve a Defence within 14 days. This Order was complied with and on hearing nothing more from the Court until 4 months later when the Unless Order to file a DQ was made, I assumed that the Claimant had decided not to pursue this groundless and thoroughly dishonest claim any further.

I am finding it very difficult to understand how a Judgment in favour of of the Claimant that has been set aside solely on the grounds of non-service of the Claim Form can be re-entered by the Court in the circumstances of a second and continuing failure on the part of the Claimant to serve a valid Claim Form after the original (default) Judgment was set aside, and solely on the strength of an incorrect assertion on the part of the Claimant's solicitor that my Defence, in his words, " stood automatically struck out". I simply cannot believe that this is how the Courts and the Justice system should or do work.