• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Advice on setting Aside CCJ after Claimant has closed case

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Advice on setting Aside CCJ after Claimant has closed case

    Hi All,

    I hope someone can help, I'm panicking like mad with all the legal jargon.

    To lay out the story, I took on a pub business in Feb 2013 living on site. In 2014 I signed an agreement with Barclays for their credit card services (credit card terminal etc). Unfortunately, the business didn't go so well and in Oct 2015 I was made bankrupt.

    Yesterday I received a call from a company called CRC Collections. They said they are going to take me to High Court as I have not paid my CCJ off that they got in court in April 2017 against me. They said it was for Barclays credit card services. I explained at no point did I receive any documentation and was not aware of the debt. It appears they did little due diligence in tracing an actual address and said they couldn't find any sign of a bankruptcy. I had moved out of the property some 12 months prior to them going to court with a debt I was totally unaware of in the first place. I also explained if the alleged debt was indeed Barclay card then this would be covered by the Bankruptcy Order at the time. They asked for evidence of the order which I emailed to them this morning. The subsequently replied:

    "We tried to search for the case on the govt site but did not show the bankruptcy record. However, the enclosed proof is fine and will now close the case."

    They also told me that I would have to apply to the court to have the CCJ set aside.

    Now, the N244 form scares me. Reading various guides on filing it in they refer to using legal speak, the witness statement appears to be set out in a very particular way using very particular "court" language which I simply don't understand. I have been quoted £249 by a company online to do the leg work and format the form but when I asked about recovering costs they didn't seem so interested in helping with that part. I feel its unfair that I have to pay the £255 fee to the court and if I requested their assitance another £249 to a legal firm, I read on a guide on legalbeagles:

    "If the court agrees to set aside the CCJ, you should always ask the court to make an order for the other side to pay your application fees and other associated costs incurred. There is a general rule that the successful part should be entitled to their application fees and costs in connection with the application (see Rule 44.2(2)(a), Part 44 CPR – click here for link). When a court considers making an order for costs, it will take into account a number of factors such as whether the costs are reasonable and proportionate."

    I am happy the case has been dropped, i didnt sleep at all last night, but i am now a nervous wreck on how to file my application in the correct way to get the right result, the CCJ set aside and if possible recover my costs as I feel if I had been aware of the potential case I could have acted beforehand showing my Bankruptcy Order and the case would have been closed before going to court.

    many thanks for any advice / help you can offer
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Celestine

    Comment


    • #3
      Sorry I missed this tag. Where are you at with your set aside application?

      If they failed to serve documents at correct address then you should be able to recover your filing costs for the set aside but unfortunately not any legal costs incurred.
      "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

      I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

      If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

      If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

      Comment

      View our Terms and Conditions

      LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

      If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


      If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
      Working...
      X