04-27-2026, 03:13 PM
No. If judgment was entered on 24 March 2026, the one-calendar-month window has now gone. Paying now would not fully remove the CCJ. At this stage, payment would ordinarily only allow it to be marked as "satisfied", whereas a set-aside is what removes it completely from the register and from credit files.
I would not try to argue that the lack of a timely response from DCB Legal or CNBC somehow preserved your right to pay late and still have it treated as if it were paid within the one-month cancellation window. That is not how the system works. The one-month rule runs from the date of judgment, not from when they choose to reply to you.
So you are now choosing between two different outcomes.
If you pay now, the CCJ would remain on the register and credit file but be marked "satisfied". That may still be worthwhile if your priority is the cheapest and quickest way to stop matters getting any worse. If you apply for a set aside and succeed, the judgment should be set aside and completely removed.
Given the new CNBC explanation, the N244 is still the route if your aim is full removal, but the fee-recovery point is less certain than before. The application fee is now a real part of the decision. On the other hand, paying now no longer gives you full removal anyway, so it is not the clean solution it would have been within the first month.
Attach the DQ and sanctions order because they are now central to the application chronology. They show the procedural steps CNBC say occurred before judgment was entered, and they need to be exhibited so the application can address that sequence directly.
I would not try to argue that the lack of a timely response from DCB Legal or CNBC somehow preserved your right to pay late and still have it treated as if it were paid within the one-month cancellation window. That is not how the system works. The one-month rule runs from the date of judgment, not from when they choose to reply to you.
So you are now choosing between two different outcomes.
If you pay now, the CCJ would remain on the register and credit file but be marked "satisfied". That may still be worthwhile if your priority is the cheapest and quickest way to stop matters getting any worse. If you apply for a set aside and succeed, the judgment should be set aside and completely removed.
Given the new CNBC explanation, the N244 is still the route if your aim is full removal, but the fee-recovery point is less certain than before. The application fee is now a real part of the decision. On the other hand, paying now no longer gives you full removal anyway, so it is not the clean solution it would have been within the first month.
Attach the DQ and sanctions order because they are now central to the application chronology. They show the procedural steps CNBC say occurred before judgment was entered, and they need to be exhibited so the application can address that sequence directly.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
