CEL Claim Form - Advice on Defence Please

Berribear

As I have not recived a reply from CEL for the two complaints of:-

• Backdating PoC
• Failure to Send Contract with PoC

I intend to write two more letters to them, LoC, please could you review them before I send them, if you can spare the time?:-




Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd


RE - Claim Number XXXXXX

I wrote to you on the 3rd November to draw your attention to the fact that you had deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).







I have not received a reply from you explaining why you deliberately, backdated the Particulars of Claim, nor have I received the certificate of service that I requested you to send.


I have contacted the County Court Business Centre, who have confirmed that they have not received a signed N215 Certificate of Service, which would be supported by a Statement of Truth.


This would appear to be a clear attempt to avoid the consequences, via CPR 32.14, of filing false evidence.




Where there is an assertion that documents have been deliberately backdated / or misdated and that a correctly filed and signed N215 would make this evident then I believe this is very important as it constitutes an attempt to hide this breach from the court.




Given CEL's multiple breaches of the CPR, I will be writing to the Court to give consideration, under its inherent case management powers, to strike out the claim. The court's powers to do so are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.

If the court is not minded to make an order of its own volition, then the court has the power to treat this letter as an application rather than asking me to issue a Notice of Application – the power to do this is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) which provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice.
The court’s powers to strike out a claim are contained in CPR Rule 3.4 and the “test” is if:
(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or
(b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process; or
(c) there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.


Due to your flagrant disregard of the CPR rules, I would advise Civil Enforcement to withdraw proceedings in this matter and expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm this


Yours Faithfully,
XXXXX





Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd

23rd November 2017

RE - Claim Number XXXXX



I wrote to you on the 7th November to draw to your attention to the fact that you failed to provide me with a copy of the contract with the claim form you sent. You are therefore in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules allege

As I have not received a reply from with a copy of the contract you allege I am in breach of, I will be writing to the court to draw their attention to CEL's multiple breaches of the CPR. I will asking the Court to give consideration, under its inherent case management powers, to strike out the claim. The court's powers to do so are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.




If the court is not minded to make an order of its own volition, then the court has the power to treat this letter as an application rather than asking me to issue a Notice of Application – the power to do this is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) which provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice.
The court’s powers to strike out a claim are contained in CPR Rule 3.4 and the “test” is if:
(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or
(b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process; or
(c) there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.


Due to your flagrant disregard of the CPR rules, I would advise Civil Enforcement to withdraw proceedings in this matter and expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm this




Yours Faithfully,



XXXX

Loadsofchildren123

Berribear wrote: »

Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd


RE - Claim Number XXXXXX

I wrote to you on the 3rd November to draw your attention to the fact that you had deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).







I have not received a reply from you explaining why you deliberately, backdated the Particulars of Claim, nor have I received the certificate of service that I requested you to send.


I have contacted the County Court Business Centre, who have confirmed that they have not received a signed N215 Certificate of Service, which would be supported by a Statement of Truth.


This would appear to be a clear attempt to avoid the consequences, via CPR 32.14, of filing false evidence.




Where there is an assertion that documents have been deliberately backdated / or misdated and that a correctly filed and signed N215 would make this evident then I believe this is very important as it constitutes an attempt to hide this breach from the court.




Given CEL's multiple breaches of the CPR, I will be writing to the Court to give consideration, under its inherent case management powers, to strike out the claim. The court's powers to do so are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.

If the court is not minded to make an order of its own volition, then the court has the power to treat this letter as an application rather than asking me to issue a Notice of Application – the power to do this is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) which provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice.
The court’s powers to strike out a claim are contained in CPR Rule 3.4 and the “test” is if:
(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or
(b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process; or
(c) there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.


Due to your flagrant disregard of the CPR rules, I invite would advise Civil Enforcement you to withdraw your claim proceedings in this matter and expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm this


Yours Faithfully,
XXXXX





Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd

23rd November 2017

RE - Claim Number XXXXX



I wrote to you on the 7th November to draw to your attention to the fact that you failed to provide me with a copy of the contract with the claim form you sent. You are therefore in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules allege

As I have not received a reply from with a copy of the contract you allege I am in breach of, I will be writing to the court to draw their attention to CEL's multiple breaches of the CPR. I will asking the Court to give consideration, under its inherent case management powers, to strike out the claim. The court's powers to do so are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.




If the court is not minded to make an order of its own volition, then the court has the power to treat this letter as an application rather than asking me to issue a Notice of Application – the power to do this is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) which provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice.
The court’s powers to strike out a claim are contained in CPR Rule 3.4 and the “test” is if:
(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or
(b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process; or
(c) there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.


Due to your flagrant disregard of the CPR rules, I invite would advise Civil Enforcement you to withdraw your claim proceedings in this matter and expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm this


Yours Faithfully,

XXXX

I would delete the bits about court powers, just say you'll be inviting the court to strike the claim and invite them to withdraw.
Good letters.

Berribear

Thank you LoC, you're a Star!

Berribear

I have just completed and posted my N180 DQ (signed for) to the Court and served a copy (proof of postage) to CEL


I included a version of ixworth's superb complaint letter about lack of N215 form and edited it slightly, as my PoC wasn't sent late, it was just backdated. Letter here for anyone who wants to copy and edit.


Thanks ixworth:-




County Court Business Centre
St Katharine's House,
21-27 St Katharine's St,
Northampton NN1 2LH


Claim Number DXXXXXX
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am submitting a completed Directions Questionnaire N180 with regard to Claim Form XXXXXX. I am including this letter to bring to the Court’s attention to some facts about the way that this claim is being handled by the Claimant (Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL)).



Deliberately Backdating the Particulars of Claim
The Claim form issued on 10th October 2017, gave virtually no indication of what the claim related to; instead stating that further Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form.
The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were sent on 27th October 2017, however both PoC and the covering letter were backdated to the 11th October 2017. I enclose a copy of the envelope which shows that the PoC were posted on 27th October 2017, and a copy of the backdated covering letter to corroborate these dates.

Given the fact that the separate PoC , and covering letter appear to have been generated automatically from a standard template (presumably on 11th October 2017) rather than being crafted by hand, I can only assume that the Claimant did this to try to gain an advantage, by making it appear that I had filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I request that the Court formally note this on the Court file.

Failure to submit an N215
I would direct you to the fact that CEL has failed to submit to the court a signed N215 Certificate of Service which would be supported by a Statement of Truth. This would appear to be a clear attempt to avoid the consequences, via CPR 32.14, of filing false evidence. I believe claimants are required to submit a signed N215 to the court whenever they provide separate PoC for an MCOL claim.

I’m not sure of the importance of this rule under normal circumstances but where there is an assertion that documents have been deliberately backdated / or misdated and that a correctly filed and signed N215 would make this evident, then I believe this is very important as it constitutes an attempt to hide this breach from the court.

Failure to comply with pre-court protocol
CEL has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevented a full defence being filed, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract and details of how it is claimed the driver breached its terms has never been provided to me.

The limited information CEL eventually provided to me did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs, nor a copy of the “Letter before County Court Claim” that was supposed to have been sent to me (I have no record of having received this), nor a copy of the landowner contract under which they assert authority to operate, nor a copy of the full terms set out in the signage, nor a map showing where the signs were located etc. I understand that these should all have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim properly or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction.

In Summary
I have set out in this letter CEL’s failures to comply with the CPR. Its failure to comply with the rules put me, an ordinary Litigant in Person, at a significant disadvantage. Two examples of the prejudice caused to me is that I have been given no opportunity to consider the basis, or the strength, of the claim, and my defence to it, and no opportunity to engage in discussions with the Claimant, with a view to reaching agreement or at least narrowing the issues.

Given CEL's multiple breaches of the CPR, I ask the court to give consideration, under its inherent case management powers, to strike out the claim. The court's powers to do so are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2) (c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.

If the court is not minded to make an order of its own volition, then the court has the power to treat this letter as an application rather than asking me to issue a Notice of Application – the power to do this is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2) (b) which provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice.

The court’s powers to strike out a claim are contained in CPR Rule 3.4 and the “test” is if:
(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or


(b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process; or
(c) there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.

CEL is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules. These sorts of blatant, and from my research, routine breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person, who are not well versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas a commercial Claimant such as CEL has no such excuse.

If the court is minded to allow this claim to continue, when it issues directions I ask that it provides for Witness Statements to be served sequentially (CEL first), due to CEL’s failure to comply with their pre-action obligations and their still inadequate Particulars of Claim. I am having difficulty understanding how CEL is going to evidence their claim and, on the assumption that they will provide this information (that I should already have had) in their Witness Statement then it appears right and fair that I should have sight of it before having to file my own evidence.


Yours Faithfully,



XXXXXXX (Defendant)

Berribear

I’ve had a small victory of sorts!

The CEL Claim was transferred to my local court where the District Judge considered the papers in the case.

He has ordered that the Particulars of Claim are struck out, because they disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim!

However……he has given CEL a second chance and has ordered that they must file and serve POC complying fully with CPR 16.4 by 4pm 8th January 2018. In default the claim will be struck out.

I will then have until 4pm 22nd January 2018 to file an amended defence. The file will then be refereed back to the District Judge for further directions

This order was made without a hearing, and the parties have a right to apply for a set aside, with the appropriate fee

So let’s see what the 8th January brings

Loadsofchildren123

Berrybear that’s good news (and your daughter’s one on your other thread). Expect CEL to discontinue, or just to ignore so it gets struck out (you may have to remind the court to do this when 8 Jan comes and goes).

Have a look at peperlini’s thread. When they discontinue write in and ask for your costs. Peperlini has posted her documents which were based on a costs argument I had drafted a few months ago. It’s worth a shot, particularly given that order. You’ll have to adapt it to include in the R27 section the shenanigans over the PoC and this order being made. If your case was post-1 October you may also need to add in a section about failure to comply with the Protocol, not just the PD, but I can help with that.