Category — Social Justice
16 September 2016
- Frightening flaws in UK law uncovered – urgent changes are needed
- British law allows firms to sue you without you knowing about it – this is an outrage
- Over 2000 people a day have Country Court judgements against them and have had no defence
Have you ever moved house? Have you ever sold a car? Have you ever parked your car in a hospital or supermarket car park? If so, it might be a good idea for you to check your credit record. You may find you have a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against you that you know nothing about.
Last year, three quarters of a million CCJs were issued by our country Courts by default, no defence was put in by those being sued and the cases did not even come to Court. They were just signed off electronically. But the consequences of those judgments for the people involved can be catastrophic.
It is frightening to learn that British justice allows County Courts to issue a judgment against you in this careless manner, without you ever receiving proper notification, having no chance to defend yourself against alleged debts and the case never even being heard in open court.
The Daily Mail has uncovered shocking evidence of the increase in the numbers of CCJs being issued without any defence being heard. In the past three years, the number of CCJs issued with no defence lodged has increased by 40%. Last year, over 2000 every day. Nearly a million families have had judgments against them, for alleged unpaid utility bills or parking fines which they often know nothing about – and which may not have anything to do with them. Many firms are making money easily in this way.
You often only discover this if you try to take out a loan or a mortgage and are refused. Once the CCJ is issued against you, it is lodged on your credit record and you have to go to Court to get it rescinded. This costs £255 and can take many months. In the meantime, you will be denied the finance you need.
Examples of this injustice are astonishing. The person who sold their car, told DVLA about it, the new owner parked in a private car park and received a ticket. The Parking firm wrote to the previous owner, at an old address, because they apparently received incorrect information. So the previous owner had no idea there was any problem, the parking firm did not have to prove to the Country Court that they knew who the owner of the car was at the time, nor that they had given the person they were suing a chance to defend themselves. No proof that they even knew there was any claim against them.
In another example, a young man left university digs, told the water company they were moving and gave them their new address, but a bill was sent to the old address. The bill was never paid because nobody knew about it, but a CCJ was then issued against the young man. When he wanted to buy a house he was refused a mortgage because of an unpaid bill nobody told him about.
Here are links to the Daily Mail investigation articles: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784421/Stranger-s-40-parking-ticket-cost-family-new-home.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784457/Huge-rise-debt-judgements-against-families.html
This is not justice. In any other sphere, someone trying to sue you, or requiring you to pay overdue debts, is required to make stringent efforts to contact you and ensure you have received the summons. For example, landlords trying to contact wayward tenants must prove they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure you have received the information about the case and had a proper chance to defend yourself. But when it comes to the County Courts, apparently this is not the case.
Ministers must urgently remedy this flaw in the law. It should be a requirement, before any CCJ is issued, that the person suing for payment proves to the court it has taken all reasonable steps to trace the defendant, is sure that the person they are naming is the relevant person responsible for the bill and that if it comes to light the firm did not take sufficient care to trace the defendant they should face penalties.
September 12, 2016 2 Comments