Tweet
Hi all,
Between 2010 and 2012 I went through some serious financial difficulties. I am recovering now but of course, there are still repercussions. I was unable to meet the minimum payments on my Post Office credit card (issued by the Bank of Ireland) and fell into arrears. They appointed a solicitor to chase those arrears who immediately issued county court proceedings against me. Upon receipt of the papers I telephoned them and agreed to make a lower monthly payment which they told me I must confirm by filling in the papers to that effect and returning them, which I did.
A CCJ was issued against me in January of 2012. The thing is, the default on the account was not issued until June 2012. Therefore, the CCJ was brought against me before the account was defaulted. Can that be done? I continue to make my monthly payments and have never missed one.
I know it doesn't make a lot of difference in the great scheme of things but I thought this might give me grounds to challenge. Does anyone know anything about this kind of thing?
The solicitor which dealt with it initially has since been closed down by the regulators which suggests it may have been somewhat loose with its conduct.
Between 2010 and 2012 I went through some serious financial difficulties. I am recovering now but of course, there are still repercussions. I was unable to meet the minimum payments on my Post Office credit card (issued by the Bank of Ireland) and fell into arrears. They appointed a solicitor to chase those arrears who immediately issued county court proceedings against me. Upon receipt of the papers I telephoned them and agreed to make a lower monthly payment which they told me I must confirm by filling in the papers to that effect and returning them, which I did.
A CCJ was issued against me in January of 2012. The thing is, the default on the account was not issued until June 2012. Therefore, the CCJ was brought against me before the account was defaulted. Can that be done? I continue to make my monthly payments and have never missed one.
I know it doesn't make a lot of difference in the great scheme of things but I thought this might give me grounds to challenge. Does anyone know anything about this kind of thing?
The solicitor which dealt with it initially has since been closed down by the regulators which suggests it may have been somewhat loose with its conduct.
Comment