Idiot I know (I paid up), but court claim form issued

claxtome

Slight grammatical error in paragraph 1 "Soptober" and the same in paragraph 10 (a).

What would help the regulars is explaining the circumstances that lead to a PCN being issued. Remember to phrase it with terms 'the driver' and 'the keeper'

ro80rob

OK
Sorry for the missing info.

The 'driver' one evening used a pub car park that was normally free for 30 mins, after which a small charge (less than £3 to park all day) was engaged. The driver thought that after 6 PM, parking was free.

Problem was, driver was 50 mins, not 30 and didn't pay the fee.

Result, we are where we are and I'm under pressure (see earlier posts) to get this sorted.

So, I have written a draft defence (prev. post) based on guidance here and I ask for comment.

Also....
Having re-read the bit in the Claim form marked under 'Particulars of claim', The claimant (I guess it is CEL who wrote it) state that they 'will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'. What is that about, and what are they likely to send. The issue date of the form is 05/Oct/17, so I guess if they send anything it would be any time now.

Do I wait till I see these 'particulars', or just get on and send in the defence? It just seems wrong in that if I hadn't done the AoS online, I'd have had to submit the defence already, without knowing the 'particulars', if they arrive.

It also grates that a sub £3 debt can instantly turn into a £60 then £100 then £236 then £359. All of these figures are completely out of proportion and unreasonable. I'm an engineer, and we like to use factors of 10 for safety margins, or over rating of things, to try and make sure that they don't brake. None of the above figures come close to a factor of 10 above the £3.

It also stinks that being ureasonable is not an argument that is acceptable. Where is the sense of fairness (sorry, rose tinted glasses moment).

The whole place is going to hell in a hand cart.

Come the revolution, I think there are definitely going to have to be at least some excesses!

Cheers... Rob.

Coupon-mad

Wait for the particulars.

If you search the forum, or Google 'CEL particulars' you will see it's just a letter/enclosures.

ro80rob

OK waiting for 'particulars'

Back to my draft though. What about the opening statement. It is a fact of the matter, but perhaps a tad unusual. OK to go with it?

Cheers... Rob.

Coupon-mad

The court should note that without my knowledge, authority or consent, using information from the Claim Form, a relative has paid the ‘Total due’ stated figure of £236.00 via Civil Enforcement Limited’s automated online payment system and a receipt (ID Number 5555555) obtained.

You could add this was unauthorised, has left the family budget with a loss and yet is no admission of liability for any part of this claim on your part. As such, you defend the claim in its entirety and ask that (should you successfully defend the matter at a hearing, or if CEL discontinue after wasting yours and the court's time, as they so often do, just before a hearing date) the Court orders a refund of that money which was paid in error by a third party, a person who was intimidated and misled by the Claimant's allegations of liability.

ro80rob

Food for thought, thankyou.
If this were me, well I wouldn't have paid.

but...

I'm back at the point with my wife's words ringing in my ears.

At this time, CEL have been paid what they were asking for and much more than they deserve. They are now effectively chasing a much smaller amount (£123) to make the claim upto the full amount. It seems that even if my daughter loses, they are unlikely to be awarded more than £200.
I am at this point wanting it not to go to court. To say that the court environment would be out of my, or rather her comfort zone, is more than true.

Poking a stick at them since they have got some money might not be the best for my daughter to avoid court. 'As they so often do' fold is the same as saying that they do on occaision make it there, and the fact that they have some money really does mean they have something to lose.

I think I will re-draft the opening statement to include some of your wording, which really does reinforce the position, but maybe tone down the latter part. I am sure that if it went to court, and she did win, it wouldn't be beyond the pale to ask for it back then.
I realise that it's all supposed to be impartial, but surely judges must be getting fed up to the back teeth with all this money for nothing claim business, where there are an awful lot of 'no shows' on the day.

Cheers... Rob.

Coupon-mad

'As they so often do' fold is the same as saying that they do on occaision make it there,

OK let me spell it out - we have NEVER seen CEL continue to a hearing, when someone has used a defence from this forum. And we've seen well over a hundred CEL claims since 2016 (I've lost count but it's 3 figures).

I was merely hedging my advice because I know from BMPA figures and from a Parking Prankster report, that CEL do on the very odd occasion rock up to a hearing. But IMHO that will be when someone has used a weak or template crap defence (not from here) and there was one case where the person got decent money from a counter-claim, which forces the case to a hearing if the victim pays the court fee, if the Claimant drops out:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5655023

But you don't need a counter-claim, I wasn't suggesting that, and can see a hearing is not what you want.

I reiterate, we've never seen a hearing as a result of a defended case here, from CEL. They ALWAYS discontinue, thus far. Also take heart and be aware that a case can be settled right up to the day of a hearing.

I realise that it's all supposed to be impartial, but surely judges must be getting fed up to the back teeth with all this money for nothing claim business, where there are an awful lot of 'no shows' on the day.

Manchester Court & Skipton Court are, so if either are your area, count yourself lucky. Don't balk at the idea of that hearing!

ro80rob

Help/instruction please

OK, I am waiting for the 'particulars' letter which according to the text in the 'Particulars of Claim' section of the Claim form the claimant states they will....
'provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form'.

Now... The Issue date is 05/Oct/17. I believe that 5 days are assumed as the time to 'service' the claim. That means that I should have had something in the post by today (i.e. 14 days after 10th Oct). I have recieved nothing.

What do I do now. I'm keen to get this defence sent in, but it references 'particulars' that I haven't had.
Any idea what is going on and does this change my defence, or am I good to go with the draft shown in my earlier post?

Cheers.... Rob.

Umkomaas

Please read the other CEL threads on the first and second threads pages. There are a number of similar queries and responses from today. Johnersh has given some very sound advice using his lawyer background.

You need to be all over the other current CEL cases as there’s lots to glean from them. And things move on apace.

KeithP

One thing is certain... you must not submit your defence before receiving the Particulars of Claim.
To do that would be admitting that the rubbish information so far provided was sufficient to allow you to write a defence.

You have (at least) 14 days to submit your defence after receiving the PoCs.