cel court papers ......need help please

spacey2012

The first thing to do with any court papers is send a letter offering to resolve the dispute with Alternative Dispute resolution.
Obtain a certificate of postage.
This simple step appears to be missed out from most of the advice.
It is a very good bargaining tool for court later.
Where a plaintiff has refused an offer to resolute outright they often have the case stayed and dispute resolution ordered.
They may attempt to quote BPA guidelines, but they might as well quote Swahili to the judge.
Send this first as the keeper then start researching a robust defence of contractual penalty not genuine pre or post loss, see what mistakes they have made under POFA, do not use the BPA perverted interpretation.
No Locus standi as not propriety interest.
Hit the defence hard and quick, this gives them time to work out you are going in fighting.

4consumerrights

]

Redx wrote: »

I also got "told off" by bargepole in another thread yesterday due to the wrong information being given

QUOTE]

I've been "told off" or corrected by bargepole also ...... so don't worry too much about that and learn from his words of wisdom.

Stroma

We have all been told off by him, take it as constructive and learn by it

Redx

not really the point here, its not about me , the point is to have the correct info in one place (the sticky threads) and currently its not there, despite what others have said

it should be there because :-

1) so that members dont keep giving the wrong advice

2) so that when members are pointed to the sticky threads the advice is there or linked within

I know how forums work having managed them for over 12 years including sticky threads on them , but if this apathy means that its not addressed then maybe if the incorrect info keeps being given then maybe, just maybe something will be done about it, there seems enough confusion here and on pepipoo this week over CEL and the various places and types of court letters that it needs clarifying, especially when anpr are muddying the waters with fake court papers, possibly others too

clarity is what is needed here, not brownie points for correcting members innocent mistakes when trying to help others

I hope this OP gets the clarification he deserves, others too, because I for one havent had it so far, as can also be seen by points being raised and answered in the dozens of threads across the 2 forums on this subject , never mind the link I found on PPP to a pdf download explaining some of it

GabbaGabbaHey

Redx wrote: »

its alright for those "in the know" but forums are about explaining things and sticky threads are about explanations of commonly used phrases and acronyms etc, otherwise its pointless having them and pointless pointing people at them if the info isnt there or is out of date and not been amended (I have checked)

Perhaps I can bring a "newbie" perspective here.

I suspect that, like most newbies, my visit to this part of the forum was prompted by a threatening communication from a Parking Enforcer. So visiting here is a "distress purchase", while I am trying to understand what I need to do. There's a fairly steep learning curve, with lots of jargon, and very different processes to follow depending on the date of the alleged offence.

In the meantime, there are a number of experienced, helpful people here who are (understandably!) fed up with being asked the exact same questions day after day.

In similar circumstances (both on forums and in the real world), I have always found that the clearer and more comprehensive the instructions are, the less burden there is on the subject matter experts, freeing them up to concentrate on the questions where they can really add value.

One example: having done a reasonable amount of reading around the area yesterday, I asked a question about whether I could nominate the court where the hearing took place. I received suggestions to read the Newbies guide, and I eventually found the answer, but it was buried a number of links deep, and much of the information I read along the way was related to offences that occurred recently (whereas my alleged offence was in March 2012).

So: the more time spent getting the documentation correct and comprehensive, the less repetitive newbie questions will be asked.

bargepole

Redx wrote: »

... I also got "told off" by bargepole in another thread yesterday due to the wrong information being given ...

I'm sorry if you felt it was a "telling off", I was simply trying to correct something you posted which was inaccurate.

However, in my guide to PPC court claims, it says:

"1) The first step is the Claim Form (Particulars of Claim) N1, which will usually come from the Northampton bulk clearing centre, if done using Moneyclaim Online, or from Salford if done manually. It should contain a Court stamp, and a claim number in the format 9NN99999. If you are in any doubt as to whether it is genuine, telephone the Court and quote the claim number. MCOL claims will also have a password to allow you to respond online."

So that bit seems to have been missed.

The procedure for CEL is that they take their paperwork to Barnet County Court, who then forward it to the manual forms bulk centre at Salford, where the N1 claim form is generated. The form will have a Northampton stamp on it, but any response needs to go to Salford.

Once a defence has been entered, the N180 is sent out, and the case transferred to the defendant's local court, which probably won't be in Barnet, Salford or Northampton.

Hope that's all clear now.

Redx

thanks, I did not miss that info and provided a link to the salford site but the problem was all the conflicting info and people being asked if they had acknowledged it online and which of the 3 courts it had come from ? , which court centre to reply to ? , is it online or post ? , etc - so confusion there

some people recommended pranksters guide yet others said it wasnt relevant to CEL in this case , more confusion

the later clarification above is extremely helpful as it was most of the info required, but it also needs some info adding about if and when the claim can be later transferred to a local court as per the GABBA reply above, never mind adding what spacey says earlier in this thread if that is also relevant ?

the hard part is collating it all in one place, especially as you wrote that post a year ago

now if you could please add the extra info to that post or within that thread itself , or add a link in that post to this one for extra clarity of the 2014 issues and developments, that would be great

basically , whatever needs adding , linking or clarifying on this non MCOL aspect , if that is possible ? by somebody ? , somewhere suitable ?

that way people like me wont be innocently providing inaccurate information and the inevitable small questions about the actual details wont occur either

thanks for the feedback

4consumerrights

Redx wrote: »

thanks, I did not miss that info and provided a link to the salford site but the problem was all the conflicting info and people being asked if they had acknowledged it online and which of the 3 courts it had come from ? , which court centre to reply to ? , is it online or post ? , etc - so confusion there

some people recommended pranksters guide yet others said it wasnt relevant to CEL in this case , more confusion

the later clarification above is extremely helpful as it was most of the info required, but it also needs some info adding about if and when the claim can be later transferred to a local court as per the GABBA reply above, never mind adding what spacey says earlier in this thread if that is also relevant ?

the hard part is collating it all in one place, especially as you wrote that post a year ago

now if you could please add the extra info to that post or within that thread itself , or add a link in that post to this one for extra clarity of the 2014 issues and developments, that would be great

basically , whatever needs adding , linking or clarifying on this non MCOL aspect , if that is possible ? by somebody ? , somewhere suitable ?

that way people like me wont be innocently providing inaccurate information and the inevitable small questions about the actual details wont occur either

thanks for the feedback

What exactly do you want clarifying here?

Any court paper received by an OP should state which court it comes from and where/how to reply.

There is ALL the information required by simply referring to the sticky thread links and the introduction guide by Crabman gives examples of fake ones. - fake ones are typically from ANPR who mysteriously have numerous Mr Hargreaves signatures.

Which Pranksters guide are you referring to in any case?

Prankster wrote them primarily with Parking Eye in mind - although the court process stages and tips for making without prejudice offers can be useful for other PPCs - care needs to be taken not to blindly copy and paste sections or indeed the basic defence sections which are not relevant to other PPCs

Many of these CEL claims are pre-POFA and keeper liabilty (not that they pursue keeper liabilty in any case- an attempt the driver's details to be coerced).

Redx

it is not for me to know what wants clarifying here , the point is to have the info clarified so myself and others DO NOT put info down that is incorrect , as has happened to myself and others this week due to all these CEL claims, I am also not about to go find them all again to quote what did or didnt need clarifying either , as there are maybe 2 dozen on here and pepipoo so far and probably more to come

pranksters v1 guides had outdated info so he himself said that he had produced a V2 with the corrected info, again I am not about to go find that info and quote it on here , we all read a lot of threads and info and I can assure you that what bargepole mentioned in his reply, and what gabba mentioned in his reply was either buried under a mountain of links or was not there in the first place because I looked and became more confused as time went on

the point is to collate it all in one section and give all the relevant acronyms etc

I think you are taking this personally now

so either, give the info , or dont , but dont expect me to know what you know otherwise it would not need to be clarified , the whole point of asking for clarification is that those who do know clarify it for those of us that dont know and have not been through the process, like the umkomass walkthrough does for the newbies that do not know the process

in this case I would have thought it obvious given that 3 addresses are being given out for the CEL claims and the people are being asked to go online and verify the claims and respond online when clearly you fill forms in and post them off !

my point was that if those links had the latest info and were also adapted to include this CEL scenario it would make it easier for everybody , whereas at the moment its like pulling hens teeth and those who know the score are not forthcoming (except maybe bargepole who has actually answered a lot of the missing info today in his previous post)

no point having stickies if they miss out this vital info, that is what I am saying, so they need adapting to the non-PE and non-MCOL (northampton online) environment

so if you wish to clarify then please do so, but do not take me to task over MY lack of knowledge in this area , I dont need the help personally as I dont have a CEL problem ; but I am NOT being "stepped on" all the time due to lack of this legal knowledge as this is a general parking issue forum, not a legal experts site where only they can participate

lauram25

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Ho87 CEL dont use MCOL they use the MCCC service in Salford its all paper based and manual

Ive sent the OP a private message and will sort defence for them.

They are not using POFA for these claims and I bet my bottom dollar the user has had a letter from "Debt enforcement action ltd"

Hi, i started a similar thread regarding the same thing but have not had much luck at the moment. as requested i read the newbies thread and its got so much information to take in.

am i right in thinking these are my steps
1 - send in or email over the acknowledge of service
2 - complain to co op head office as ive heard they are writing some penalties off
3 - prepare a defence and send it in within 14days - in my defence am i purely stating that the charge is not justified and not admit to being the driver - i dont actually own the car anymore.
4 - wait.

all help is greatly appreciated