04-23-2026, 10:47 AM
Yes, the failure to notify the court and DCB Legal of the move is not ideal, and a judge could in principle say that once you knew a claim was live you ought to have updated your address for service. So it would be wrong to pretend that point is completely irrelevant.
But it is not the decisive point here, and it does not cure the fundamental defect in the judgment.
The reason is simple. This CCJ was not entered on the basis that there had been a hearing which you missed, or that you failed to return some later form, or that the claim had been struck out and re-entered in some other way. The judgment specifically says that "you did not reply to the claim form". That is the basis on which judgment was entered. That statement is untrue. You did reply to the claim form. You filed an Acknowledgment of Service and then a Defence. There is evidence of both. The CNBC acknowledged receipt of the Defence, and DCB Legal later acknowledged it as well and engaged with you on the basis of a live defended claim.
That is why the address issue is secondary. Even if DCB Legal try to say that no N180 DQ, or whatever was received, or that later correspondence may have gone to the old address, that still does not justify a judgment which says you never replied to the claim form. A failure to respond later in the proceedings does not somehow erase the fact that the claim had already been acknowledged and defended. A defended claim does not revert to being undefended just because there may have been silence at a later stage.
So the sensible answer is this: yes, a judge may say you should have updated your address once proceedings were underway, and that point may attract some criticism. But it should not be fatal, because the actual judgment entered was based on something that was plainly false. The court is not being asked to excuse a defendant who ignored the claim. The court is being asked to correct a judgment that was entered in error on a claim that had already been defended.
That is the distinction that matters. Your move may explain why later paperwork was not received, but it does not make it true that you failed to reply to the claim form. And because the judgment was entered on that false basis, the set-aside remains very strong.
But it is not the decisive point here, and it does not cure the fundamental defect in the judgment.
The reason is simple. This CCJ was not entered on the basis that there had been a hearing which you missed, or that you failed to return some later form, or that the claim had been struck out and re-entered in some other way. The judgment specifically says that "you did not reply to the claim form". That is the basis on which judgment was entered. That statement is untrue. You did reply to the claim form. You filed an Acknowledgment of Service and then a Defence. There is evidence of both. The CNBC acknowledged receipt of the Defence, and DCB Legal later acknowledged it as well and engaged with you on the basis of a live defended claim.
That is why the address issue is secondary. Even if DCB Legal try to say that no N180 DQ, or whatever was received, or that later correspondence may have gone to the old address, that still does not justify a judgment which says you never replied to the claim form. A failure to respond later in the proceedings does not somehow erase the fact that the claim had already been acknowledged and defended. A defended claim does not revert to being undefended just because there may have been silence at a later stage.
So the sensible answer is this: yes, a judge may say you should have updated your address once proceedings were underway, and that point may attract some criticism. But it should not be fatal, because the actual judgment entered was based on something that was plainly false. The court is not being asked to excuse a defendant who ignored the claim. The court is being asked to correct a judgment that was entered in error on a claim that had already been defended.
That is the distinction that matters. Your move may explain why later paperwork was not received, but it does not make it true that you failed to reply to the claim form. And because the judgment was entered on that false basis, the set-aside remains very strong.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
