CEL ? -- ARE YOU UNDER ATTACK ?? Read this thread

nosferatu1001

Yes, of course you can
State you erred and didn’t realise the full PoC had not been. Sent
You’ve noticed the claimant has backdated their PoC to make them appear in time. You ask the court to strike the claim, as the PoC were received late

Send to cel a letter demanding they explain why they should get relief from sanction, why the PoC were back dated, and for a cop6 of the certificate of service of the PoC.

Loadsofchildren123

This is the letter I've suggested is sent AFTER a premature defence has been mistakenly filed prior to the PoC being received -

Dear Sirs

Regarding Claim Form XXXXXXXX, I am writing to complain that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the claim form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4 (1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 11th October, stating that the detailed 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 1st November 2017. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on the 2nd November 2017. However they were dated the 11th October 2017. These dates mean that my defence is therefore not due ue until 16th November 2017 (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 21 days, together with the covering letter. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 1st Nov, a copy of which I have provided as evidence.

The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear – under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

I believe that the court should either disallow the further Particulars of Claim as no R3.9 application has been made by Civil Enforcement Limited or I should be given the opportunity to amend my defence as they were late serving the Particulars of Claim and I mistakenly thought I was running out of time to file it. The court is asked to consider these matters under its inherent Rule 3 case management powers and to give directions.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules 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. 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 the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

I confirm that I have sent a copy of the letter to the Claimant.

Yours faithfully

Loadsofchildren123

As advised on various CEL threads, the MCOL service is not set up for claims which involve separate PoC.

Particularly given that CEL are deliberately backdating the PoC I would suggest writing to MCOL/CEL after receipt of the Claim Form (if it says separate PoCs are to follow) to record that separate poc are being served pursuant to rule 7.4(1)(b) and that these are due on X date [date of claim form +5 days +14 days - if this is a weekend day or bank holiday count on to the next working day). This means your AOS is due to be filed on X date [14 days later] pursuant to rule 10.3(1)(a) and rule 9 your defence 14 days thereafter (rule 15.4(1)(b).

This is important to avoid CEL trying to fool the court into thinking you are late and giving default judgment.

You have also reminded CEL of the date for their PoC so if they are then late you have even more reason to expect the court to rely on rule 3.8/3.9 and not allow the late PoC.

Loadsofchildren123

Berribear wrote: »

Dear XXXXX

Claim number [xxxxxxx]

Regarding Claim Form XXXX I am writing to draw to your attention that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 10th October, stating that the 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 posted on 27th October. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on 30th October (as 28/29 October were Saturday/Sunday). However, they were dated the 11th October.


Service on 30 October means that my defense is therefore not due until the 13th November (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 16 days, together with the covering letter. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 27th October, a copy of which I have enclosed as evidence


The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear - under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9. [NB leave this out if the PoC weren't actually late

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules 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. 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 the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

Yours Faithfully

This is the letter to send if the PoC are backdated/late. Adapted from Berribear's post above to remove notes/amendments which made it a bit confusing.

Loadsofchildren123

Something else I've picked up on from a post by Johnersh.

Johnersh wrote: »

Arguably, the Claimant is also in breach of the CPR for not providing the contract with the Particulars (read the practice directions). Once served separately I don't believe the MCOL exemption from this rule applies.

Bang on. I read the rules this morning. PD 7E (which relates solely to MCOL claims) and PD 16 para 7.3 relating to contract claims.

PD 16 para 7.3 says that a Claimant suing under a contract must provide a copy of the contract with the Claim.
However, this does not apply to MCOL claims and the exemption is contained in PD 7E para 5.2A.
However, PD 7E para 5.2A goes on to say that the exemption does NOT apply if separate PoCs are served

This should be immediately drawn to CEL's attention as soon as the PoC are received and the full contract must be requested pursuant to PD 16 para 7.3 and PD 7E para 5.2A.

The point is that the CEL PoC I've seen have a "schedule of information" attached to them which it is claimed sets out the relevant t&cs in the signage. They are nothing of the sort. You are entitled to a copy of the "contract" which the rules say must be attached to the PoC (if served spararately). Quote these rules.

Umkomaas

PD 16 para 7.3 says that a Claimant suing under a contract must provide a copy of the contract with the Claim.
However, this does not apply to MCOL claims and the exemption is contained in PD 7E para 5.2A.
However, PD 7E para 5.2A goes on to say that the exemption does NOT apply if separate PoCs are served

Could they not argue that their ‘contract’ with the motorist is the critical one, not that which they have with landowner, in other words, the signage?

Do they have room to hide behind this?

Coral87

Surely not if the case is that no driver has been identified, they are pursuing the keeper and they have not complied with POFA, if the keeper is not the driver then no contract could exist between the two parties.

Umkomaas

Coral87 wrote: »

Surely not if the case is that no driver has been identified, they are pursuing the keeper and they have not complied with POFA, if the keeper is not the driver then no contract could exist between the two parties.

No PoFA, no Keeper liability.

Even if they are pursuing the keeper, there’s nothing likely in the landowner contract that differentiates the keeper (or the driver), it’s just the agreement between the PPC and landowner to operate, issue charges and (possibly) pursue through the courts.

The contract with the driver, and (via PoFA if applying) the keeper, is the signage.

hoohoo

pappa_golf wrote: »

you fail to mention what happened with the Coop cases , even tho a judge ORDERED the case to be heard , it never was , all traces of those two test cases dissapeared , "!!!!!!" no longer on record , this had got passed the stage of them pulling out , the judge ORDERED it!

explain that?

Presumably they settled out of court, so it never returned.

henrik777

Berribear wrote: »

Here's one Loads of Children kindly did for me, obviously you'll need to change to your details with regard to dates etc....

“




Thanks for the info LoC.


Okay, here is my complaint letter that will be sent to CBBC and CEL:-


31st October 2017

Dear XXXXX

Claim number [xxxxxxx]

Regarding Claim Form XXXX I am writing to draw to your attention that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 10th October, stating that the 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 under cover of 27th October. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on 30th October (as 28/29 October were Saturday/Sunday). However, they were dated the 11th October. , but not actually posted until the 27th October and received on the 28th October, a Saturday, meaning service was on the 30th October and


Service on 30 October means that my defense is therefore not due until the 13th November (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 16 days, together with the covering letter. breach by the Particulars of Claim and the covering letter being backdated 11 October, whereas they were only posted on the 27th October and received on 28th October. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 27th October, a copy of which I have provided as evidence
The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear - under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9. OP I don't think your PoC were actually out of time so don't bother with this. The intention of this letter is to make sure the court doesn't think the PoC were served on 11 October, but much later, so that you don't get accused of late filing of your defence.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules 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. 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 the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

Yours Faithfully
Originally posted by Berribear
”
Amendments in red, one comment in green. I don't think you should bother with rule 3.8/9 because I don't think they were out of time. The real issue is preventing anyone from thinking they were sent on 11 October which would mean your defence is due much earlier than it actually is.

They are served when you get them if it's earlier than an effective service date. (which is why you'd keep that information to yourself and not reply before the date of service)