KFC parking, CEL & county court

JohnTee2017

I have just spoken with an Advisor at CCBC who seemed very knowledgable and helpful.
Despite explaining my circumstances I am advised that my deadline is today and that I should submit by 4pm.
I was unable to speak directly with Amanda-Helpdesk Manager but the Advisor did speak with her whilst I was put on-hold. As a result, I am requested to resend my previous emails to her.
Although I didn't confirm with the advisor, I assume Amanda agreed with my Defence submission today.
Advisor reminded me to include late PoC delivery in my defence statement.

JohnTee2017

I know you're all busy so rather that repost my full Defence with amendments I thought it may help if I just ask for critique on the changes:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 11/10/2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.
Also, the claimant has not provided detailed “Particulars of Claim” as stated on “Claim Form”. The sparse “Particulars of Claim” dated 11/10/17 arrived after 30th October 2017 in an envelope dated 1st November 2017. Arriving after 30th October 2017 is against Rule 7.4(1)(b) and is without applying for relief ref Rule 3.8 and 3.9. Prior to receipt I informed Claimant and CCBC of late filing. I have had no response.

f) Alternatively, and as previously requested 13th March 2017, the Defendant asks the Claimant to provide complete and detailed Particulars and to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

10. The additional particulars of claim are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen, Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr. Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr. Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine - did you get this filed?

JohnTee2017

Hi
Yes, filed just in time. Sent to ccbcaq email address as requested by the Advisor but to be on the safe side I also tried to inform the same through my Money Claim login. it failed! Ive since logged back in and it does confirm my Defence received. I only mention this in case other defendants experience similar problems.
Also, emails re Late PoC emailed to Amanda.
I will of course post any updates.
Thanks

nosferatu1001

I would also make a separate complaint
they cannot arbitrarily ignore their own rules - i.e. CPR9 and CPR15.4 - and to do so to a litigant in person against a serial litigant is disgusting.

Loadsofchildren123

see yesterday's developments and my advice from yesterday about the late/backdated PoC and MCOL's failure to address it here:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5727770

JohnTee2017

FYI

The court is not able to strike out a case of its own volition. If you wish to do this are required to make an application (N244) with a fee to request that the case be struck out. The fee payable is £100.00 without a Court hearing and £255.00 with a court hearing.

The above, with details of how to apply, has been received from CCBC in response to my request re late filing of PoC.

nosferatu1001

Yes, the court IS able to do so. It has inherent case management powers, including striking claims.
They have chosen not to use them, or they just dont understand their own rules!

JohnTee2017

Update: re nosferatu1001 reply.
I sent a response stating that they do have powers and that they should help protect against the scare tactics CEL employ etc.
This week I have been asked to resend the "date proof" showing late PoC receipt. I await their response.

JohnTee2017

Advice:
I have receive a Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track. Form N180
It is my intent to respond "no, i do not agree that its most appropriate" because of a lack of detailed claim information it would make defence impossible.
A lack of information has already been detailed in my original defence. Which makes me wonder why or how my case can have been deemed suitable for allocation to the small claims track? And if i do accept that it is acceptable will i then lose part of my defence?
Included in this documentation is the offer of Mediation. In fact Mediation is not available if you dont have enough information about the claim.
I am now starting to second guess and rather than make a mistake I thought id ask for help here.