mjt2013
-
Posts
488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
-
It's not actually that unusual. Say for example A sues B and C who are husband and wife for an unpaid loan, both B and C are Defendants and the debt is joint and several. B may admit the debt and receive a judgment whereas C may defend the claim on the bias that she was unduly influenced by B to sign the loan agreement. In relation to C the claim could then be stayed if A doesn't intend to proceed with the claim against her. Another way of looking at it would be if B didn't want to defend the claim, it would be very unfair for B to be forced to do so because C had filed a defence! In relation to the OPs case, I think the judge who heard the application to set aside the judgment was harsh but technically correct because each Defendant should file their own defence (or a single defence signed by both) and therefore, in default of a defence, judgment was properly entered. The question then is just whether the OP was able to convince the judge that, nonetheless, the partner had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and clearly this was not the case.
-
I think it will probably depend on what lenders you and your friend are talking to. There are some which specialise in lending to bankrupts/people with poor credit whereas the vast majority won't. Having a CCJ and a charge doesn't stop you from getting credit per se but the lending criteria will be much stricter as a result.
-
County Court judgements included in an IVA, how do i remove?
mjt2013 replied to Jaclen2209's topic in Financial Legal Issues
I'm a little bit unclear here but if you're saying the CCJs have been paid as part of the IVA then you should apply to the court for a certificate of satisfaction, I don't think you need to use an N244 or even attend court. -
You're not legally bound to provide it at this stage but if you don't you run the risk of being taken to court and then you'll pretty much have to provide it if you want to avoid liability. If you have this evidence why not provide it and help to sort the matter out?
-
Court Claim MKDP old HSBC debt***Claim Struck Out***
mjt2013 replied to factor59's topic in Legal Successes
Be mindful that when you come back from holiday you'll only have a few days to request any documents the other side have listed so you'll want to get on to that ASAP once you return. -
So that people can help with this, have you been given permission to appeal or did you appeal in time or do are you seeking permission as well?
-
Could you please type out the full wording of the order including any preamble?
-
I would say that they're served PoC but defective, a car with a wheel missing is still a car
-
Did you send in your defence to the court? This seems rather odd.
-
Are you sure you submitted your defence on time? If you submitted a defence form, regardless of what was actually said in it, the court wouldn't have been able to just enter a judgment which sounds like what has happened here. The court would have had to deal with the claim in some way even if just to strike out the defence without a hearing.
-
Yes, that's true. Perhaps a redetermination would be the OP's best bet.
-
I don't wish to be over dramatic but one enforcement method would be bankruptcy which, although perhaps rather futile if you have no assets, could be used precisely because there are no other real enforcement options. I would be way about applying to set aside the judgment even if you're exempt from the court fee because you wouldn't be exempt from the other side's legal costs and unless you can at least run some argument that suggests a defence I think you may just end up increasing your debt. I'm not really sure where this information gets you to be honest but I would ultimately suggest that you really try to negotiate payments with the creditor because if you are too bullish in saying that you can't pay then they could consider bankruptcy just to spite you.
-
It would be a ground 8 mandatory claim in all likelihood because the rent wouldn't have been paid once two months passes. Once the receiver is appointed they are entitled to the rent, not the landlord so continuing to pay the landlord is the same as paying it to your neighbour.
-
The receiver can unfortunately evict you if you continue paying the landlord post appointment.
-
Pac Man, if you feel that you're not getting much help then you've got to try to help yourself. This forum has loads of info, draft defences and templates you can consider. If you were to say "I've read up, I think I should do x next" then that gives people here something to advise you on. If things aren't moving fast enough on your thread then being pro active will really help.
