Ccbc cel help me

Umkomaas

Thanks for continued support, but posts seem to take hours to show up, maybe it's my internet.

They shouldn’t do, once posted. But this isn’t an ‘Online Helpline’ where you have a ‘virtual’ discussion with an Online Adviser.

We are a very small group of volunteers, dealing with dozens of different threads about different parking companies all at the same time. Today, so far, I’ve only seen two other regulars advising on the forum. We often don’t get back to people for a little while, but as long as the thread stays on the first couple of pages, you will usually get a response within a couple of hours or so, but if the board is manic (often) it can take longer.

linsforbes

Pre Action Protocol

CEL haven't complied with
2.1
3.1 (iii) 3.2, 3.4,
4.1,
5.1,5.2

Therefore ,surely this should not have gone to litigation, as Claim was issued after 1st October.

Lamilad

linsforbes wrote: »

Pre Action Protocol

CEL haven't complied with
2.1
3.1 (iii) 3.2, 3.4,
4.1,
5.1,5.2

Therefore ,surely this should not have gone to litigation, as Claim was issued after 1st October.

A minor detail such as complying with court process won't stop these scammers trying to con some money out of you.

All the above goes into your defence along with a suggestion that the claim be struck out for not complying

Redx

CEL dont ponder these claims , they are roboclaims with the aim of scaring people into paying up, so they issue hundreds of them

I doubt that anybody has studied your case, certainly not until they see what defence has been filed by the defendant

they have to pay a court filing fee once the CCBC has allocated a local court, so they may make a decision at that stage , or let it "time out"

you must assume they are going ahead until proved otherwise

the unknown factor in this at this moment in time is what the CCBC will do in the light of the new protocols in place

ie:- the judge may decide to throw the claim out due to these issues , or they may not

in a few months time when people have reported back on their claims we will get an idea of how the CCBC is handling these claims issued after 01 oct 2017

but if you think that they only have one claim to deal with and have picked it apart with a fine toothcomb , you are mistaken

linsforbes

Ok, thanks all. I am now writing my fairly long defence, probably won't finish til tomorrow. My head is spinning with all the information. I need to make sure I undrrstand everything I am saying. Anyway onwards and upwards. Might also go and look at alledged car park could do with some retail therapy, but will go by train!

Coupon-mad

Stick with the regular posters here, we have 99% success rate & never see a CEL case go to a hearing.

linsforbes

Thanks for that will do. Just have to refine defence tomorrow, with a clearer head and some more vigour!!

linsforbes

Is it best to put defence in now or wait until as late as possible to give CEL less time to make a decision on whether to proceed to Court?

Loadsofchildren123

You can put it in early, but take your time and don't rush it, there's no need.

The thing I would rush to do is to write to the court to say that the Claimant has failed to comply with both the old Practice Direction and the new Protocol, and its PoC have not been validly served under Rule 7.4(1)(b) because they are x days out of time, and therefore the sanctions in Rule 3.8 apply unless the Claimant applies for relief under Rule 3.9.

In relation to the breaches of pre-action obligations:
- After they sent a very brief LBC they agreed to put everything "on hold" while they obtained the documentation you required to consider your position. However, they never did respond, but went straight to issuing a claim. Enclose a copy of your letter and their response saying they were putting matters on hold.
- Specify the exact breaches and how these have prevented any sensible discussion because you did not even know where it was alleged the car had been parked.
- The Claimant's conduct has robbed you of the chance to consider the claim properly and your response to it, and has robbed the Claimant of the chance to consider your defence and both parties the chance to narrow the issues or reach agreement - all of which is the clear purpose of the Practice Direction and new Protocol.
- Say that you want the court to either strike out the claim for the wanton breaches, or at the very least to stay it pursuant to para 15(b) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct while the Claimant complies with its obligations. Make the point that this is a commercial litigant who issues and pursues thousands of these types of claims which must make its breaches even more serious.
- I would mention the case law about the obligation to comply with pre-action obligations which I've mentioned in previous comments, I think it adds weight - I won't repeat it all here, I think it might be in the Newbies thread.

In relation to the PoC issue:
- the Claim form was served on x date
- the further PoC should therefore have been served by x date
- they were actually served on x date, some x days late
- a poor attempt was made to conceal this breach by the PoC and the covering letter being backdated 11 October, whereas they were only posted on x October and received on y October. The post mark on the envelope clearly shows the date of posting (and enclose a copy of it).
- the CPR are quite clear - under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9.
- this is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the CPR and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules.

The court may do nothing, so at the same time I'd get your defence ready. CEL are known for discontinuing claims that are well defended.

linsforbes

Thanks, more to digest, I know I have included a lot of your points in my defence, but I will go through it all with a fine tooth comb and put salient points in a letter. On the dates between Claim Form and POC are these from when received and it should be 14days plus a bit for post?