Hi there(posted 7170 days ago)It sounds as if your solicitor is doing the right things. Applying to set aside the CCJ is the correct move. It should be set aside if (1) you have a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the case and (2) you have applied promptly. Also, it is necessary to explain why you didn't respond to the claim (which is because you didn't get it).
It sounds as if you do have a reasonable prospect of defending the claim from what you say. Once you defend a claim on the basis of it being statute barred it is up to the lender to prove that it is not - in legal jargon, the 'burden of proof' shifts to the claimant.
There may be an issue about acknowledging the debt but it isn't possible to comment without knowing more about it. Solicitor's have been known to inadvertently acknowledge debts on behalf of their clients (I am not saying that this has happened here) but creditors (and their solicitors) have also been known to claim there has been acknowledgment when there hasn't.
Ultimately, providing you get the CCJ set aside and have an opportunity to defend the claim, it may be that the judge will have to make a decision on whether there has been an acknowledgment or not. Over the years there have been many cases, old and new, on what amouts to an an a knowledgment and what does not.
If you are permitted to defend the claim, you will be able to ask for 'disclosure' of any relevant documents that you need from the claimant, e.g. the mortgage deed.
If the limitations/statute barred defence fails, there may still be a defence against some of the interest that the lender is claiming. There is good case law to say that where a claimant unnecessarily and unreasonably delays the issue of proceedings, it may be deprived of some of its interest, which is at the discretion of the court. This is the same as the 'unnecessary and prejudicial delay' that you mention in your post. This could possibly reduce the interest element of the claim by perhaps 50%. I can provide details of the cases if you would like them.
I would think that there is a good chance of the CCJ being set aside but can't be more positive without knowing more about the case. It would in my view be a miscarriage of justice if you have an arguable defence and are not allowed to put it to the court. This would be contrary to the 'overriding objective' of the Civil Proceedure Rules' (CPR 1), one of which is to deal with cases 'justly'. There is also lots of case law on set asides that makes the same point.
Please post again or email me if you have any more queries.
All the best
Guy