CEL Particulars received

Coupon-mad

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!

ruffneck247

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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!

I have forwarded as requested.

Loadsofchildren123

Posters who are doing this are receiving automated messages back saying it won’t be read. See RustyRascal’s thread. However, Amanda Beck is still receiving and reading them. If you want to err on the side of caution you could post it marked for her attention. However as far as I know she is receiving the emails.

ruffneck247

Received this today, looks like the court won't accept the complaint:
Upon the court considering the Defendant stating that the service of the Particulars of Claim have been backdated.
It is ordered that:
The matters raised by the Defendants in these cases are not matters which the CCBC can deal with by way of
correspondence rather if the Defendants require adjudication on the points raised then they should file an N244
with evidence in support.
As defences have now been filed in all of these cases they should follow the usual procedure for allocation and
case management whereafter these issues can be aired before the appropriate court at a hearing if needed.
Note: This order has been made without a hearing under the Court’s case management powers contained in the
Civil Procedure rules Part 3. You may within 7 days of the service of this order, apply to the Court to set aside or
to vary the order under Part 23 Rule 10. You must file with the Court, and serve on the other parties, an application
that sets out your reasons for objection. A fee is payable upon the filing of the application. When your objection
is received the matter will be listed for hearing unless you ask the Court to vary the order without a hearing.

nosferatu1001

Theyre not "not" accepting the complaint
Theyre just deciding they want to be paid

It could well be worth paying the £100 to do so.

ruffneck247

So, you're saying that I have to pay for this service. I thought that Amanda Beck was looking into the fraudulent acts of CEL on our behalves. Not sure that I want to part with £100, would I get it back if the case was set aside?

[Deleted User]

All applications cost £100 without a hearing. If the particulars were struck, the claim would fail and yes, you could get the costs back.

It's litigation though, so that's by no means a certain outcome.

ruffneck247

Johnersh wrote: »

All applications cost £100 without a hearing. If the particulars were struck, the claim would fail and yes, you could get the costs back.

It's litigation though, so that's by no means a certain outcome.

Thanks, I think with that in mind, I wouldn't be happy to spend that money, if I lose the defence to the PCN, I could end up being nearly £500 out of pocket!

nosferatu1001

Only if CEL actually turn up, which would be a rarity for a forum defence.

Loadsofchildren123

They've just passed the buck, what a surprise.


Capable of issuing orders under their "case management powers" but not considering a formal complaint about a serial litigant habitually ignoring the rules.