I rented my flat out while I lived abroad for a couple of years, unfortunately the tenant wrecked it. To recover the cost of damage I took him to court. As he had left no forwarding address I had to use a trace agency, and after he failed to respond the court granted me judgement. When the court bailiffs tried to recover the money it was discovered that the tenant had moved again without leaving a forwarding address. By using the trace agency again his latest address was found and the court bailiffs again paid him a visit, following their visit the tenant applied for the judgement to be set
aside. Following a telephone hearing the judge ordered that the original judgement to be set aside and new hearing date has been set.
I have been told by the court that I have to pay for the cost of the new hearing. The question I am asking is why should I have to pay when I have already been granted judgment and it is the tenant who has instigated the further court action.
Regards.
aside. Following a telephone hearing the judge ordered that the original judgement to be set aside and new hearing date has been set.
I have been told by the court that I have to pay for the cost of the new hearing. The question I am asking is why should I have to pay when I have already been granted judgment and it is the tenant who has instigated the further court action.
Regards.