CEL claim letter Feb 2018

Lamilad

Remove as it!!!8217;s redundant?

Yes but add in the Johnersh paras as advised in my other comment

Coupon-mad

10. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid.

Is this relevant to me?

Depends if that's what they did?

TBH it doesn't matter too much as long as you do not miss your deadline for emailing the signed/dated copy of the defence to the CCBCAQ email address this week.

CEL ones are easy to defend with any version of a decent CEL appeal, wordy or not.

magikarpaccio

Thanks, I've made the edits but one last follow up regarding the Johnersh paragraph..

Are you referring to 8.1 through to 8.1.2? If so I can't see CEL as being a member of the IPC Accredited Operators Scheme. (I'm assuming you mean code of practice by COP). If they're not is this a valid thing to include? Am I missing something? Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

magikarpaccio

magikarpaccio wrote: »

I can't see CEL as being a member of the IPC Accredited Operators Scheme.

For information I went on the IPC website and looked at the list of AOS companies

Umkomaas

CEL is a BPA operator.

magikarpaccio

Umkomaas wrote: »

CEL is a BPA operator.

So just change IPC to BPA? Nice and simple like that?

nosferatu1001

Yes, nice and simple
No overthinking. Its CEL. They roboclaim, so we robodefend. They cave every time as losing a defended hering costs them a few hundred quid.

Loadsofchildren123

The reference to the "Schedule of Information"


CEL used to do things this way: standard generic PoC, with the actualy details in an attached schedule. This allowed them to streamline their roboclaims - just fill in the spaces in the standard PoC and then in the standard schedule.
Even the Schedule of Information didn't really contain much detail.


If CEL are no longer doing it this way, the reference to the Schedule in your defence is obsolete. You just want to complain that the information in the PoC is scant and in breach of the relevant rule (16.4 I think).


Your question about whether you should complain that photos etc are not provided: these would not be attached to a Claim Form/PoC. They will be provided with the C's evidence at the WS stage. HOWEVER, things like this SHOULD have been provided with the Letter Before Claim (and although you say you can't remember what that said, you would surely remember if documents like those had been produced?)

magikarpaccio

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

If CEL are no longer doing it this way, the reference to the Schedule in your defence is obsolete. You just want to complain that the information in the PoC is scant and in breach of the relevant rule (16.4 I think).


Your question about whether you should complain that photos etc are not provided: these would not be attached to a Claim Form/PoC. They will be provided with the C's evidence at the WS stage. HOWEVER, things like this SHOULD have been provided with the Letter Before Claim (and although you say you can't remember what that said, you would surely remember if documents like those had been produced?)

Regarding the schedule, I've seen not seen those words in the claim form so I'll remove this paragraph.

Regarding the photos, the initial PCN they sent me had images of my car entering and exiting the car park. Do I need to remove references to photos? Maybe even remove reference to the letter before claim as I don't remember what was in it?

Loadsofchildren123

If you've already had the photos you can't complain you haven't had them, and documents like this are not required to be attached to PoC.


This has probably already been raised, but can you confirm that at the end of your Claim Form it doesn't say "further Particulars to follow in 14 days"?