Daily Mail CCJ Advice 20/09/16

[numbers666]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/guides/article-3798933/Don-t-let-debt-ruling-knew-ruin-life-year-900-000-county-court-judgments-handed-s-fight-them.html

 

Please make them stop....can see a lot of people throwing 255.00 quid at these.

 

It's a shame as the old address issue needs to be out there, had the reporter \ editor done some proper research, this could have really got it out there.

 

Maybe needs moving elsewhere.....

Edited September 21, 2016 by numbers666
Not sure of sub forum to put it in��

[BankFodder]

Well I've had quite a lot of input into this article over the last week or two. This is the first time I've seen the article and I'm sorry to say that I think that it's rather a mess and not enormously helpful. I'm rather pleased that I wasn't quoted in it.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think the DM have backed away from a campaign about this, as there was a bit of a backlash from those interested in maintaining the system as it is currently operated. The Northampton bulk process must suit a lot of people and for DCA's not to have to use any new address found through tracing is very convenient. DCA's obtain CCJ's years after any defaults and i just wonder how many times they issue claims to a different address to that they have found for the debtor through tracing e.g credit records.

[BankFodder]

The County Court Users' Association have said that the system is fair and transparent and that only a tiny fraction of people are adversely affected.

No surprises there.

[oleg]

The County Court Users' Association have said that the system is fair and transparent and that only a tiny fraction of people are adversely affected.

No surprises there.

.

The fraction being tiny, presumably they wouldn't mind stating what % ?

[BankFodder]

These are the notes which I provided to the Daily Mail and also to Radio Four Money Box prior to my interview

 

 

Default CCJ are a really important issue and it is getting worse. The issue of default judgements is very serious and the damage they cause is usually quite disproportionate to the matter for which the judgement was issued.

I think that there are a number of points that I would flag up.

Once a default judgement is issued, then there is no distinction between the kind of default judgement and the issue in hand. This means that in principle they all carry equal weight and they also carry equal weight with a judgement which is issued after a claim has been defended and a judge has had the evidence.

This surely cannot be correct.

To my mind, CC J's or clearly to show that they are default judgements and that they were undefended – or else that they were fully defended and that the judgement was handed down after a judge had considered the evidence. This seems to me to be basic fairness and also good sense.

The second issue is that the credit reference system is largely out of control. It is not particularly regulated. It is not transparent and people don't understand it. An important matter here is that it is not tariff driven. This means that you can have a judgement or a debt of £5 and it will have the same effect upon your life as a judgement for £100 or £1500 or £20,000.

Furthermore, even though a debt which is marked on the credit reference agency register is marked as "settled" it still amounts to The Black Spot in terms of its effect on attempt to get credit et cetera. Potential lenders always err on the side of caution and frankly I think that they are extremely conservative.

As the Daily Mail has highlighted, the issue of default judgements for unpaid parking tickets is extremely serious – at the very least in terms of its volume. It seems to me to be completely unfair to allow a default judgement for an unpaid parking ticket to be registered along with all the other debts et cetera on the credit reference agency register so that an unpaid parking ticket is treated as a sign of un-creditworthiness along with everything else.

This is complete nonsense. It is grossly unfair. Unpaid parking tickets and similar matters should be removed from the system completely. It goes against all sense of justice that a judgement for a parking ticket – even if it is a defended judgement – should be used as an indicator of somebody's creditworthiness and willing to repay their debts. I think that this undermines the entire system of credit scoring – and as I have already said at the very least, it undermines the principle of justice.

In my view, the parking industry – which is basically a bunch of cowboys involved in bounty hunting and who if they weren't making people pay exorbitant sums for five-minute mistakes, would be fitting car alarms somewhere or standing that nightclub doors, are very happy to use the default judgement system and the resulting credit reference agency system for their own purposes to punish and to frighten people into paying them their money. Parking companies are completely non-productive. Somehow or other they have managed to convince the supermarkets that their own customers are their enemy and that it would be better off for a customer to pay a week's shopping money to the parking company rather than spend in the store. How did that happen?

So you can see that my view of this is much wider than CCJ's.

I appreciate that it is a problem and that individuals do have a responsibility to keep people informed of changes of address. But equally, we are hearing of a huge amount of inefficiency on the behalf of debt collection agencies parking companies and so forth. And of course, it crosses my mind (uncharitably) that many of these people are actually not too bothered that they are using out of date data.

So,

 

• default judgements should clearly be marked – default.
  
• default judgements not related to the Consumer Credit Act or mortgages, should not find their way onto the credit reference agency register. Maybe there should be another register, but it should have nothing to do with the assessment of ability to repay.
  
  
• Where a default judgement is challenged on the basis that the papers were not received, then there should be an automatic set aside – free of charge – conditional on judgement to be filed within 14 days, the default judgement to be restored in default.
   
  
• And in the end, there should be a substantial overhaul of the credit reference agency system and in particular the period of six years Purgatory which currently applies to all judgements, should become subject to tariffs. The tariff could even be extended in some cases to as long as 12 years if that would sweeten the bitter pill for judgement creditors. Mortgages are already subject to a 12 year limitation. (Personally I think 12 years would be much too long except for extremely large sums of money remaining unpaid)
  It's really quite absurd that you can commit some criminal offences and yet they will be wiped from your record within a couple of years in some circumstances but it won't if it comes to a £5 debt, accidentally incurred. This can blight your life for six years.”
  

 

 

Since then I have also heard a suggestion that all bulk issued claim forms should be sent by recorded delivery. This is an excellent idea

[Ganymede]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/guides/article-3798933/Don-t-let-debt-ruling-knew-ruin-life-year-900-000-county-court-judgments-handed-s-fight-them.html

 

Please make them stop....can see a lot of people throwing 255.00 quid at these.

 

It's a shame as the old address issue needs to be out there, had the reporter \ editor done some proper research, this could have really got it out there.

 

Maybe needs moving elsewhere.....

 

But it does cost £255 to make an application to set aside.

 

Not sure what your issue is with that.

[numbers666]

Hi Gany,

 

My concern was the way the article read, that an automatic SA is granted on application. No where did it say that you need a valid reason on top of incorrect address to be successful. That is why I consider a lot of 255 quid's throw at it, with no certainty of success. If the incorrect address is the only reason then the variation is the better option financially. Credit file is trashed anyway.

 

BF's post 6 by far reads more structured and helpful.

 

And yes, I believe that it should be SA on application, wiped from CRA files, pending a new hearing. In many cases, these unregulated CRA's dole out punitive punishments for such small amounts, on judgements by default, often in cases where the debtor was not aware. By SA, the debtor has the opportunity to defend, or pay before any registration on their records. This has to be a better solution.

 

We also need some regulation on what can be reported, and an easier recourse to have erroneous data removed, without resorting to pulling hens teeth.

 

And perhaps, a sliding scale of cost of application, based on debt value, the same as value is relevant to the cost of a creditor issuing a CCJ. No way an application for a debt of 50/100 quid should cost 255.00 it's prohibiting for some that are not entitled to remission.

 

C

[Ganymede]

Ah ok I see, good points.

 

£255 is a ridiculous amount.