CCJ still marked - even though court case won
Discussion
I'll skim over the first bit this part has been dealt with.
- Colleague sold a car a few years ago.
- All dealt with
- 2 years later a letter arrives from a parking co, invoicing him for £X amount.
Long story short he appealed.
Appeal was declined
Monetary requests kept going up
He paid it to stop it getting any bigger.
In the meantime, he found out he had been given a CCJ against him for it (??).
He took further action ending up court (which cost him money/time) but it was found in his favour and he won the case.
He was awarded a nominal amount and even had to ask the judge to add to that the fine he paid.
Basically he's a few hundred down after taking time out etc.
Since the case is settled in his favour, there must be a way to get the CCJ removed.
(However the judge said he can't remove the CCJ).
G.
- Colleague sold a car a few years ago.
- All dealt with
- 2 years later a letter arrives from a parking co, invoicing him for £X amount.
Long story short he appealed.
Appeal was declined
Monetary requests kept going up
He paid it to stop it getting any bigger.
In the meantime, he found out he had been given a CCJ against him for it (??).
He took further action ending up court (which cost him money/time) but it was found in his favour and he won the case.
He was awarded a nominal amount and even had to ask the judge to add to that the fine he paid.
Basically he's a few hundred down after taking time out etc.
Since the case is settled in his favour, there must be a way to get the CCJ removed.
(However the judge said he can't remove the CCJ).
G.
I suspect that you might mean Experian though...Gallen said:
He took further action ending up court (which cost him money/time) but it was found in his favour and he won the case.
He was awarded a nominal amount and even had to ask the judge to add to that the fine he paid.
Since the case is settled in his favour, there must be a way to get the CCJ removed.
(However the judge said he can't remove the CCJ).
If he appealed, and the appeal was denied, then what was that "further action" and how, exactly, did it relate to the original judgement? I suspect the answer to that question is critical in saying why the CCJ can't be/hasn't been removed.He was awarded a nominal amount and even had to ask the judge to add to that the fine he paid.
Since the case is settled in his favour, there must be a way to get the CCJ removed.
(However the judge said he can't remove the CCJ).
Thanks for the constructive responses everyone.
Ok,
I skimmed the initial part of the Original Post as I didn't want it to digress from CCJ to something else.
However to answer Q's:
The car was sold 2 years previous to the "contravention".
He moved address at least once within that time.
Transpires that the V5 was not updated and possibly lost by DVLA (although it was posted off). Therefore any correspondence relating to the vehicle would have (a) been incorrectly sent to him and (b) to his old address.
Therefore the CCJ would have been filed unbeknown to him and only became apparent when applying for something or other.
G.
Ok,
I skimmed the initial part of the Original Post as I didn't want it to digress from CCJ to something else.
However to answer Q's:
The car was sold 2 years previous to the "contravention".
He moved address at least once within that time.
Transpires that the V5 was not updated and possibly lost by DVLA (although it was posted off). Therefore any correspondence relating to the vehicle would have (a) been incorrectly sent to him and (b) to his old address.
Therefore the CCJ would have been filed unbeknown to him and only became apparent when applying for something or other.
G.
But when he found out about the CCJ did he THEN go to court & say "I never got the claim,please set that judgment aside & set it for a hearing of the dispute",and at that hearing he then won his money back?
If so there will be an order of the court saying "Judgment set aside,case to go to trial,blah blah blah" which he can show to Experian as proof that CCJ is no more.
If so there will be an order of the court saying "Judgment set aside,case to go to trial,blah blah blah" which he can show to Experian as proof that CCJ is no more.
In the 1980s, I got a CCJ awarded against me when the Inland Revenue sued me for money I didn't owe them.
I appealed and won, so no money changed hands, but 8 years on I discovered the CCJ was still recorded when I applied for a mortgage.
I had to pay a small fee to have the record of it expunged even though it should never have been awarded against me - it was about £5 IIRC.
As a result, I had to get a bridging loan for the house until it was settled for about a fortnight, which cost me £111 in interest, so I applied for tax relief on the interest which used to be discretionary - and was given the full amount!
Is it just me, but the whole civil court system seems inconsistent and a bit of a lottery?
I appealed and won, so no money changed hands, but 8 years on I discovered the CCJ was still recorded when I applied for a mortgage.
I had to pay a small fee to have the record of it expunged even though it should never have been awarded against me - it was about £5 IIRC.
As a result, I had to get a bridging loan for the house until it was settled for about a fortnight, which cost me £111 in interest, so I applied for tax relief on the interest which used to be discretionary - and was given the full amount!
Is it just me, but the whole civil court system seems inconsistent and a bit of a lottery?
kowalski655 said:
But when he found out about the CCJ did he THEN go to court & say "I never got the claim,please set that judgment aside & set it for a hearing of the dispute",and at that hearing he then won his money back?
If so there will be an order of the court saying "Judgment set aside,case to go to trial,blah blah blah" which he can show to Experian as proof that CCJ is no more.
Hi - and thanks for further responses.If so there will be an order of the court saying "Judgment set aside,case to go to trial,blah blah blah" which he can show to Experian as proof that CCJ is no more.
No - he didn't say that. He was focussed on proving he wasn't liable for the parking charge.
However the judge couldn't then remove the CCJ apparently.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff