CEL MCOL Defense

Seawalker

And another CEL MCOL.
I've been through the numerous threads over the last 2 weeks and just about to file my defence and Wham! today 2 days after the 14 day period for CEL to give me the Particulars, they arrive.
Now realise I shouldn't/needn't have done the AOS. I've posted the letter to CEL to say they are in breach of the claim that I saw on a recent post. On the MCOL website there is nothing to show that the Particulars have been received from CEL (or certified). I'll give it a few days and if there is nothing on MCOL to indicate that the Particulars have been registered I'll ask the court where I stand (?).
My question which I can't find the answer to is, since I have done the AOS am I obliged to provide a defence even if the court does not acknowledge or receive the particulars.?

My defence seems pretty strong - I wasn't the driver; The driver dropped off a passenger (13 mins on the ANPR) and remained with the car in an apparently permit only (or £100 parking charge) car park so shall I just put the defence in anyway? Do I base defence on the Claim or the (un certified) particulars or both? (I've prepared both now!)

Coupon-mad

My question which I can't find the answer to is, since I have done the AOS am I obliged to provide a defence even if the court does not acknowledge or receive the particulars.?

This is already covered by Johnersh this week. Read his posts on CEL claim threads this week.

Seawalker

I am a "just joined Newbie" but not here to wreck the forum although I think the Newbies thread does need updating with a warning not to AOS until the particulars have arrived. It looks like the defence procedure is developing where CEL is concerned and the template letter has changed over the week that I have been preparing it due to the way CEL are issuing the particulars of claim.

I've read Johnersh but putting my question another way it if the MCOL website doesn't list the particulars of claim in the Claim History section then presumably the court hasn't accepted them anyway and I shouldn't need to apply to the court for striking. The court should automatically either acknowledge the particulars in the MCOL claim history or strike out the claim? I'll leave it a few days to see if this happens rather than spending £100.

logician

Seawalker wrote: »

It looks like the defence procedure is developing where CEL is concerned and the template letter has changed over the week that I have been preparing it due to the way CEL are issuing the particulars of claim.

.

This is NOT a new tactic by CEL, they issue loads of claims every couple of months and about 6 months ago they were also issuing late particulars of claim.


This is a money saving site.

Why would posters advocate paying £100 or more for a strike out of a claim when in fact courts are day in day out striking out CEL claims under CPR 3.4. (2) with defended claims and no chance of a comeback - even pointing out late particulars of claim.


The CCBC are typically late in processing post and have been known to be at least 7-10 days behind processing.


Read Snaggers thread as well before you make up your mind on how you wish to proceed.

If you apply for a strike out you will need to complete N244 and make the appropriate fee and set out your reason why you want the court to strike out the claim...

HeatonGuy

Adding to this, there is a significant risk in applying for a strike out at this stage. Until the claim is allocated to tack, you are liable for costs if your application fails.

By comparison, if you bring it to the courts attention and ask THEM to strike the claim, it costs you nothing.

Coupon-mad

This forum is NOT telling people to spend £100 on a N244 strike out application, nor to ignore:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73316057#Comment_73316057

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73316652#Comment_73316652

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73315710#Comment_73315710

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73312299#Comment_73312299


LOC123 does not mean file a N244 when she advises:

''my preference is to be proactive and ask the court to strike out the claim.''

[Deleted User]

By comparison, if you bring it to the courts attention and ask THEM to strike the claim, it costs you nothing

.

That is commonly the advice, but it assumes the court will exercise it's discretionary power to make the order you want. That ain't guaranteed. It's what discretion means (funnily enough). The court could disregard any letter, make an order giving additional time or ask you to apply instead.

Until the claim is allocated to tack, you are liable for costs if your application fails.

There is no difference in risk pre- allocation and post- allocation where the application is made on the papers with no hearing. The application fee is always risked in the event of an unsuccessful application. But you may fancy your chances. Some also fancy the possibility of making the Claimant pay for the application.

Further, even if the application is made with a hearing, i'd encourage the first part of the draft order to be submitted to address allocation (costs are dealt with last). In fact allocation to the defendants local court is likely required to hear the application. These cases will always be small claims unless you've collected tickets or dishonesty is formally pleaded.

So in summary, when it comes to that last post HeatonGuy, I refer you to the fine words of Sir James Munby in the final sentence of this judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/785.html

Coupon-mad

Well chosen words, Johnersh.

HeatonGuy

Of course, CEL never proceed when faced with a good defence. It's one of the few times when 99% is true.

Coupon-mad

The regulars on this forum claim (and we know we have) a 99% win rate for cases where a defence and WS advice is given, helping Defendants right to the court hearing. We see wins reported pretty much every week, sometimes several at once.

So good, tailored and dedicated is the advice and win rate here, fuelled by altruistic people who spend hours assisting for free, that some might have noticed that the BMPA do not recommend anywhere else, on their website, except forum advice if people need to look outside the BMPA itself. The BMPA support speaks for itself.

I object to a signature dig calling me dishonest, but won't be drawn by the above forum-derailing poster.

Seawalker

I checked MCOL website to see if they had acknowledged my DQ N180 (posted 7 days ago) and notice they haven't so will email it to them.

I also notice that there is no record on the claim status that the PoC has been filed or an N215. Does that mean they haven't been filed to the court or weren't accepted as they were filed late? The claim status does show CEL filed their DQ, and they have my AoS and Defence