CEL & QDR Parking Fine

starnold444

We received a letter through the post from QDR solicitors about a parking fine from CEL and replied to them with a letter from the newbies thread.

We got a letter back from QDR (which we have kept) to say that our account had been closed as per our clients request on xxxx.

Today we received a Claim form from the County Court (Northampton) for the same parking ticket. In the PoC section they have detailed why they're making the claim instead of saying PoC will follow which we have had before!

Question: If QDR said the account was closed does that mean that it is just the solicitors that have closed it and not CEL? If so how do we respond to the Claim Form?

KeithP

Is this related to your other thread?

If not, follow the process as you did for the other one.

Same claimant - should be easy.

Coupon-mad

The meaning is open to interpretation because it is ambiguous, and there is a doctrine called contra proferentem, also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", which says that any ambiguity must be interpreted in the way which most favours the consumer.

There is also a doctrine call res judicata, meaning: ''a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties'' and you already have a CEL claim don't you?

Are the facts essentially the same? If so then your defence this time can include the point about res judicata and ask the court to amalgamate both claims, to avoid wasting the court's/your/everyone's time and costing more.

CEL are no long doing the ''POC to follow'' trick, that was so last year!

starnold444

Sort of as both tickets are my wifes but they're different parking tickets so I thought I should start a different thread as the information provided is different

beamerguy

starnold444 wrote: »

We received a letter through the post from QDR solicitors about a parking fine from CEL and replied to them with a letter from the newbies thread.

We got a letter back from QDR (which we have kept) to say that our 777ff55 on xxxx.

Today we received a Claim form from the County Court (Northampton) for the same parking ticket. In the PoC section they have detailed why they're making the claim instead of saying PoC will follow which we have had before!

Question: If QDR said the account was closed does that mean that it is just the solicitors that have closed it and not CEL? If so how do we respond to the Claim Form?

1: You do NOT have an account with QDR ?
To have an account, both parties must have an agreement

2: QDR is a company set up by the now infamous
Wright Hassall solicitors commonly called Right Hassall

Wright Hassall can easily be viewed on google and allows
readers to see if this is the right legal to use.
Silly legal to get involved in the parking scam ???

3: Before the court claim, did QDR comply with the new
procedure of Oct 2017 which means they must provide
evidence of their claim and give you 30 days to respond ?

The principal of the so called fake debt is CEL.
CEL then pass it to a legal hence QDR pops up.

Whilst you must reply to the court papers, contact
QDR with a copy of that letter and remind them that
the account has been closed ??
This you will show to a judge.

QDR has never appeared to be the brightest page
in the book but, they are a Wright Hassall invention ??

Coupon-mad

starnold444 wrote: »

Sort of as both tickets are my wifes but they're different parking tickets so I thought I should start a different thread as the information provided is different

If the charges are about the same car/car park then the facts are the same.

CEL are wasting your wife's time and causing distress and your MP should be told about what is happening to his/her constituents and encouraged to support the Parking Bill.

starnold444

I will respond to the County Claim Form with the guidance from the Newbies thread and take it from there

Coupon-mad

Show us the draft defence at this stage (must be in the defendant's name of course) and be ready for this usual letters and the DQ and later stages till they discontinue. Latest tactic here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5811819

Your wife's defence can include the fact as an extra point, that the Claimant is playing fast and loose with the court and consumers, and should have filed one claim only for both alleged 'charges' rather than make a LIP go through this twice, with double costs at stake and the associated waste of the court's time (mention the other claim number if that's at claim stage too, I can't recall) and ask that the claims are merged or joined to be given Directions or struck out/heard together.

starnold444

Thanks I will include that. There was 5 months in between the 2 parking charges does that make any difference or should they have just processed them together?

Coupon-mad

The few months gap makes no difference if both charges are essentially about the same facts, same car, location, contravention. Putting to court to the cost of handling two cases about the same matter is an abuse of process and a complete waste of your time, very distressing, etc.

starnold444

Trying to complete the 1st step of responding via the website but it won't let me progress unless i put something in the defence box?