CEL claims general advice

Loadsofchildren123

This is the problem with automated online services. There is no justice for civilian dummies (whereas the dummiest dummies of all, the professionals, ie the PPCs, get to profit from it).


The Aos/Defence forms are NOT supposed to be sent out with a Claim Form that says "Particulars to follow". But MCOL has no system for this, it just sends out the Claim Form with the other forms regardless, because it's an automated system that doesn't distinguish between the two different types of Claim Form (those that include full PoC and those that don't).


In turn, this then fools Defendants (civilian dummies) into thinking they have to complete these forms. Many Ds are unwittingly filing a defence prior to the PoCs, which then leaves them with a significant problem because their Defence then needs amending (seen 2 new threads today so far where this has happened). Who profits from this? The professional dummies.


The rules are clear - the forms should ONLY be sent out with the Particulars. So why should MCOL get away with it, and confuse LiPs massively?


I honestly don't see the point in MCOL. Cases should be issued in Ds' home courts as they used to be, then this nonsense might be reduced. Then again....


The Mitchell case determined that the Jackson reforms which saw in the latest CPR were aimed at doing away with "rules can be bent to suit" mentality, and that the CPR (including the PDs) must be strictly complied with. Yet this doesn't apply to MCOL itself?


You've got me going now TD!

The_Deep

I like to "get people going" LOC, then they say what they really think.

Far too many of the old lags on here trot out the "party line" and fail to see the bigger picture.

Take for instance residential parking cases, it is often a positive advantage to admit to being the driver, especially if your space is registered on your title deeds. Similarly when your car could not possibly have been where the PPC says it was, double dipping, (naming two drivers is even better), and leaving site.

I realise that some, (many), here will disagree, but I think that many judges will look more favourably on an RK who admits to being the driver in these circumstances.

Loadsofchildren123

I always recommend admitting to driving where there is a good driver’s defence
At POPLA though I understand it’s better to deny it not admit. But I don’t focus on POPLA.

Umkomaas

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I always recommend admitting to driving where there is a good driver’s defence
At POPLA though I understand it’s better to deny it not admit. But I don’t focus on POPLA.

If you can beat the PPC easily using PoFA, then not identifying the driver makes everything so much more easy. But punters need to be able to identify any chinks in the PPCs’ NtKs - they’ve been woeful for the past 5 years (shows the calibre of the motley crew) but some are starting to patch up their paperwork.

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

I like to "get people going" LOC, then they say what they really think.

Far too many of the old lags on here trot out the "party line" and fail to see the bigger picture.

Take for instance residential parking cases, it is often a positive advantage to admit to being the driver, especially if your space is registered on your title deeds. Similarly when your car could not possibly have been where the PPC says it was, double dipping, (naming two drivers is even better), and leaving site.

I realise that some, (many), here will disagree, but I think that many judges will look more favourably on an RK who admits to being the driver in these circumstances.

I agree, re defending claims. Where a driver's defence is very good, that's what to run with.

Just not at POPLA - that's different except if it's a PPC with a compliant NTK. Posters need to go with whatever can win, which 'no keeper liability' often will. Scam over v the likes of Smart Parking, easily.

@LOC123, do you want me to copy your first post into the NEWBIES thread, or are you re-writing something, if so you can email it to me if easier then I'll pop it into the sticky, and this thread can die, or stay bobbing around just for discussion.

Loadsofchildren123

I was intending to do something and email it to you C-M

System

I'll remove this if it diverts the issue.

CEL are claiming legal fees and by implication there is a regulated person ( controlling mind if you want) sending our late POC which are misleading to the court. Perhaps another line requesting that the court seek out this person by name so the appropriate regulatory action can be taken.

Then you segue into Mr Schwatz.

Edit: Hope the "controlling mind" is not Mr S. Wonder what would happen if it is.

HeatonGuy

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Then you segue into Mr Schwatz.

Edit: Hope the "controlling mind" is not Mr S. Wonder what would happen if it is.

Although it would be of benefit if it is Mr Schwartz/Swarts/Schwarts/whatever his name is, I'd almost feel sorry for Schwartz and Cohen if it IS him, imagine him being dragged into court AGAIN.

Loadsofchildren123

Good point. The lack of any solicitor on record needs to go into defences against the £50 charge. Either that or they ARE paying someone and who is it? However, I suspect the question will go unanswered and the £50 will just be disallowed.


Perhaps letters need to be written specifically in every CEL case asking what the £50 represents and evidence it's been incurred and to whom.

Loadsofchildren123

I've seen for the first time today the CEL LBC which encloses draft PoC. They are woeful.
I've done this precedent letter today in response:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73346484#Comment_73346484

Post #11