Ccbc cel help me

Loadsofchildren123

POC should be served 14 days from service of the Claim Form - date of service is date on the claim form + 5 days, so count 14 days on from that. That's when you should receive them, not when they should post them (service rules say that things posted first class are deemed received/served the next working day - so something posted on a Friday isn't deemed served until the Monday, even if it's received on Saturday).


You then have 14 days from service of the PoC to file your defence. Something is deemed filed the next working day after it's posted, or on the same day if it's emailed or hand delivered (within business hours), so you have to factor that in too.

linsforbes

How to I upload my letter to Court, I've had to write it on my iPad, never used it before for Word.

Any help gratefully received.

Redx

linsforbes wrote: »

How to I upload my letter to Court, I've had to write it on my iPad, never used it before for Word.

Any help gratefully received.

if you mean your DEFENCE , I posted about it here recently in post #24

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5729270

linsforbes

I was advised to write letter to Court first by Loadsofchi.... which I have done now. Wanted to post it on here for critique, particularly as I've had to type it three times, word on computer not saving so resorted to iPad,!,!

I have my defence ready to go, but thought I'd send letter in the first instance

linsforbes

HOWS THIS ???

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim No XXXXXXXXXX

Between

Civil Enforcement v xxxxxxxxxx

I am the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx.

After receiving a brief Letter before Claim from Wright Hassall Solicitors, although not referred to as such, on the 13th June 2016, I responded by e-mail on the 20th June requesting full details of Claim. I have no idea where this car park is, as never referred to by name, no copy of PCN, photograph or any evidence of this alleged offence had taken place.

Tim Hawker, Head of Debt Recovery Operations, Wright Hassall, stated that they would place the matter ‘on hold’ whilst referring matter to their client for further documentary evidence.( Copies of correspondence attached.)

However, they never did respond, but went straight to issuing a claim In October 2017.

The Claimant failed to comply with both the old Practice Directive and the new Protocol and its Particulars of Claim have not been validly served under Rule 7.4(1)(b) because they were over the 14 days and therefore sanctions in Rule 3.8 apply unless the Claimant applies for relief under Rule 3.9

The Claim Form was dated 9th October but not received until 17th October, Particulars of Claim covering letter dated 11th October not received by me until 27th October, some 16 days later, verified by postmark on the envelope, copy attached, this was a poor attempt to conceal this breach by the Particulars of Claim and the covering later being backed dated. An obvious breach of 3.2.

3 initial Information to be Provided

3.2 The letter of Claim should be clearly dated towards the top of the page. It should be posted either on the day it is dated or, if that is not reasonably possible, the following day

These breaches (see extracts below) have prevented any sensible discussion, as I did not even know where the vehicle had allegedly been parked.

This conduct has robbed me the chance to consider the claim properly and my response to it and has robbed the Claimant of the chance to consider my defence and both parties to narrow the issues or reach agreement – all of which is the clear purpose of the Practise Direction and new Protocol.

2 Aims of the Protocol

2.1(a) early engagement and communication between parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute.

2.1(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable payment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure.

2.(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another, (for example, avoid running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

2.1(d) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided

I therefore ask the Court to strike out the Claim for the wanton breaches, or at the very least stay it. Pursuant to Para 15(b) of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct.

This is a commercial serial litigant pursing many claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of and understand the CPR and these blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice the Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules.

I invite the Court to use its discretion to strike out this claim.

Coupon-mad

I think I would steer it somewhat away from an immediate mention of old comms from WH, because they don't have conduct of the case, so their 'LBC' (in fact a misleading debt demand from ZZPS, probably) from over a year ago, isn't relevant to CEL's lack of pre-action information and their conduct in this claim.

Maybe start like this and don't complicate the letter with the comms with Tim Hawker from way back in 2016 which, IMHO, has little/no bearing on the conduct in 2017 by CEL, which is what you are really wanting the Court to read about.

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim No XXXXXXXXXX

Between

Civil Enforcement v xxxxxxxxxx

I am the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and wish to object to the late service of the Particulars of Claim, conduct which appears to be widespread and deliberate by this Claimant.

No Letter before Claim was served relating to this matter, and the claim form arrived out of the blue, as the only communication in 2017.

Over a year ago in July 2016, a Debt Recovery employee involved in an harassing course of conduct involving putting his name to unwarranted debt demands for this Claimant, stated that they would place the matter ‘on hold’ whilst referring matter to their client for the documentary evidence that I had requested. I have no idea where this car park is, as it has never been referred to by name, I have seen no copy of any purported Parking Charge Notice, no photographs nor any evidence of this alleged offence had taken place.

The Claimant has provided nothing whatsoever and has failed to comply with either the old Practice Direction and/or the new Protocol for debt claims, applicable from 1st October 2017. Its Particulars of Claim have not been validly served under Rule 7.4(1)(b) because they arrived late, therefore under the Court's Case Management Powers, the sanctions in Rule 3.8 apply:

3.8
''(1) Where a party has failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order, any sanction for failure to comply imposed by the rule, practice direction or court order has effect unless the party in default applies for and obtains relief from the sanction.''

The Claim Form was dated 9th October [STRIKE]but not received until 17th October,[/STRIKE] and whilst the Particulars of Claim covering letter was ostensibly dated 11th October, this was not received by me until almost three weeks after the claim was dated and was not posted until 26th October (verified by postmark on the envelope, copy attached).

This was a poor attempt to conceal the late issue of Particulars of Claim in the hope of causing me detriment in significantly reducing my time to respond, whilst also avoiding their duty to apply for relief, should I have been unaware of the deadlines set by the courts.

It is clear that the covering letter and Particulars of Claim were either back-dated, or held in bulk (with others) by the Claimant without posting, for more than a fortnight. This is a carbon copy of the situation reported by Defendants online on dozens of occasions in October regarding Claims from this same Claimant, with similar or exactly the same dates for late and back-dated Particulars.

I ask that the CCBC not only applies the Practice Direction rigidly in this instance on my behalf as a litigant-in-person, but I respectfully suggest that a formal review by the CCBC is called for, looking at the dates of all Claims and Particulars served to consumers by this Claimant during October 2017.

This Claimant appears to be involved in a deliberate and repeated blatant breach of the Practice Direction, which requires:

'3.1 If practicable, the particulars of claim should be set out in the claim form.
3.2 Where the claimant does not include the particulars of claim in the claim form, particulars of claim may be served separately:
(1) either at the same time as the claim form, or
(2) within 14 days after service of the claim form...'

Practise Direction

should be

Practice Direction

linsforbes

ok, thank you, can I still ask to strike this claim?

Coupon-mad

Yes, no reason why you can't end it as you did.

Coupon-mad

Did you get your defence filed within 14 days of the POC?

If the POC were backdated and you kept the envelope that proved they were not posted when dated, PLEASE NOW forward the complaint you made to the CCBC, to another email address.

We need LOTS of these to fly into a specific inbox now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73400735#Comment_73400735

Once that has been done, please confirm. We need to bombard the CCBC (specifically to Amanda Beck who is aware of this scam) with evidence about CEL.

Do this - even if you've already emailed a complaint - PLEASE forward it now!

linsforbes

What a Merry Christmas, received confirmation of cancellation in post on Christmas eve��������
Thanks to all of you that responded and helped me. I wrote defence exactly as on website, laid out as instructed, followed all your suggestions, although it took a lot of reading and understanding. But worth it.

Now how can I get this struck out so it doesn’t rear its ugly head again??