Civil Enforcement Limited - Lying about dates

RustyRascal · 10 November 2017 at 2:58PM

Good afternoon all,

I have started fighting a case against CEL which feels to be in a good place, so I wanted to share something I found out this morning that could help put some nails in the coffins of the open cases of the unscrupulous bs-trds.

Having read through a number of posts on this and other forums around, I have noticed there is a common theme whereby CEL are sending out bulk particulars of claim, poorly mail merged, and in a large number of cases, not bothering to file an N215 (certificate of claim) which advises the court that they have sent their PoC! (If you are unsure whether or not the court has received your N215, call them (03001231056) with your claim number and just ask the question!)

To add insult to injury, they have the audacity to BACKDATE the Particulars of Claim documents (a lot of them were apparently sent on the 11th October!) so it implies to the court they stuck to the rules! (CPR 7.4)

This has NOT gone unnoticed, and following my conversation with helpdesk manager Amanda, there are a few complaints that have already been raised with the Customer Insight Team who are going to start official talks with CEL which will no doubt help defendants with their open cases. What she has requested is that I send through my case for her attention and she will forward it on.

If you have received a backdated PoC, still have your envelope, or can prove otherwise that the forms were received outside of the 14 days they are allowed then the court wants to hear from you so they can share this information with the Customer Insight Team who are building a file for CEL.

Where we may require some assistance is in forming a statement to send to Amanda for her to forward on. I was hoping that someone here could give us all a bit of template text that could help deliver a nice, powerful punch?

Thanks upfront,

RR

Loadsofchildren123 · 10 November 2017 at 3:33PM

Really glad to hear you've made some progress on this issue. Lots of posters on here have been sending my precedent complaint letters. CEL seems to have issued batch claims on 10 October that they can't keep up with.

MCOL are just ignoring the letters. In one case, an OP was told that his complaint letter was being treated as his Defence, which is just madness and completely outside their powers (time hadn't even closed for him to file).

The problem starts here:
A claim form where the PoC are to follow is NOT supposed to be served with a response pack. The response pack should come with the further PoC (rule 7.8(1)).
However, MCOL is not set up for this, so they send out the response pack with the Claim Form.
This leads Defendants to think they must acknowledge the claim (whereas in fact they don't have to do anything until after the PoC - see rule 10.3(1)(b)).

The next problem, when a premature AoS has been filed, is to calculate when the Defence is due.

As an AoS has been filed, the defence is due 14 days after service of the PoC. PoC are served 2nd day after postage, if that's a non-business day then count on to the next day.

Because CEL are backdating the PoC and not filing the certificate of service it is really important to inform the court of the actual date of service, complain about the backdating, and complain if the PoC are out of time (in which case the C should be applying for relief under rule 3.9).

Precedent letters are on lots of other CEL threads.

[Deleted User] · 10 November 2017 at 3:33PM

The issue is not that the documents are being backdated to one specific date, it is that exactly the same particulars are being served. those statements are also being served late with the earlier date, thereby also misleading the court.

Presumably a solicitor or employee is merely changing the defendant details and simply swapping the schedule as required for each new case.

This raises the questions:

1. Whether there was authority to amend in that way
2. Whether Ashley Cohen saw the newly constituted documents bearing in mind they are verified with a statement of truth.

To recycle a template in this way is clearly an abuse of process. Indeed a solicitor has been struck off for something very similar:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/sdt-and-sra-interventions/sdt-lesley-dee-layton/5063424.article

Interestingly, in the above referenced case, the court in the personal injury claim concerned simply struck out the claimants case entirely following an application by the defendant.

RustyRascal · 10 November 2017 at 3:54PM

Thank you for your speedy response guys!!

@Loadsofchildren, thank you and I am feeling very confident about the case, but only time will tell!!

I will definitely have a read of your precedent complaint letter!!!!

The problem starts here:
A claim form where the PoC are to follow is NOT supposed to be served with a response pack. The response pack should come with the further PoC (rule 7.8(1)).
However, MCOL is not set up for this, so they send out the response pack with the Claim Form.
This leads Defendants to think they must acknowledge the claim (whereas in fact they don't have to do anything until after the PoC - see rule 10.3(1)(b)).

Unfortunately this is well out of my comfort zone, and I have absolutely no idea how this is combatted, but completely agree, it is HUGELY misleading!

@Johnersh - as for the PoC being a mass mail out, they recognise this, but it ridiculously feels as though they are powerless to do anything at helpdesk level, which is mental, hence Amanda requesting I email my evidence to her helpdesk inbox (as opposed to the ccbcaq email that I submitted my defence too) and she can send it on directly to the team who manage this process.

Fundamentally it is broken, and when i mentioned to her that i know of at LEAST 5 other cases of people receiving PoC's dated 11th October on the 25th, 30th and 31st October she seemed to be able to almost finish the sentence off for me!

I was SLIGHTLY worried that there is no-one in the county court who is legally trained...that wasn't something I was expecting them to tell me, but hopefully this case goes to my local court and i can get the judge to look at the evidence of their misdealings...

Loadsofchildren123 · 10 November 2017 at 4:03PM

If you look on here you will find a hell of a lot more than 5 other cases, all in the last fortnight. There are at least a dozen, at a guess, that I know of and I don't have time to follow all of them. Plus some people just read and don't post, so this doesn't include them.

Loadsofchildren123 · 10 November 2017 at 4:08PM

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5727770&page=3
This is the one told that his complaint constituted his defence (see posts 59 onwards)

Loadsofchildren123 · 10 November 2017 at 4:12PM

Easiest way to find the precedent letters is probably to search my posts. I'm currently confining myself solely to CEL threads, I just can't keep up with them. I've posted precedents on several of them, and on two general CEL advice threads.

I can confirm that ALL the PoCs and covering letters are dated 11 October, but they are being sent out on different days, very end of October/beginning of November.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73391953#post73391953
This is a new one from yesterday, PoCs sent on 1st November dated 11 October. Just the tip of the iceberg.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5731471&page=2
these ones too
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5741371

RustyRascal · 10 November 2017 at 4:25PM

This is amazing, thank you! I will be sure to have a skim through your replies (of which i can already see there are tonnes!!!!) and see what I can find.

Anyone who can show their evidence easily (letter + envelope) should send one of your complaint letters to the county court business centre for the attention of Amanda Beck to bulkcentre.helpdesk@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and she will forward them on to the Customer Insight Team.

Obviously the more they receive, the more of an impact it will have!

Just to belt and braces it, the email should probably state that the contents are not part of the defence and should not be shared with CEL at this stage (unless you think it would be ok for this...you clearly know better than I do!!).

Thanks again,

RR

Loadsofchildren123 · 10 November 2017 at 4:28PM

RustyRascal wrote: »

This is amazing, thank you! I will be sure to have a skim through your replies (of which i can already see there are tonnes!!!!) and see what I can find.

Anyone who can show their evidence easily (letter + envelope) should send one of your complaint letters to the county court business centre for the attention of Amanda Beck to [EMAIL="bulkcentre.helpdesk@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk"]bulkcentre.helpdesk@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL] and she will forward them on to the Customer Insight Team.

Obviously the more they receive, the more of an impact it will have!

Just to belt and braces it, the email should probably state that the contents are not part of the defence and should not be shared with CEL at this stage (unless you think it would be ok for this...you clearly know better than I do!!).

Thanks again,

RR

I think given 777's experience (being told his complaint was being treated as his defence) it would be sensible to state somewhere "This letter is not my defence. it is a letter of complaint and in order to record the correct date for service of my defence"

RustyRascal · 10 November 2017 at 4:37PM

I think given 777's experience (being told his complaint was being treated as his defence) it would be sensible to state somewhere "This letter is not my defence. it is a letter of complaint and in order to record the correct date for service of my defence"

Perfect! That sounds like a good way to cover bases!

Eaglehawk · 10 November 2017 at 4:40PM

By not filing a N215 (certificate of claim) would there be a case that they are not be able to prove they sent the PoC's and then not able to rely on them later?

Civil Enforcement Limited - Lying about dates

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free