Please help! scammer Civil Enforcement County count claim form

bboylost

First of all, I am new to the forum, thank you in advance for anyone here are willing to help me. Here is the story:

In February the driver parked the owner's car to a private apartment to delivery an item which someone has purchased from the driver on gumtree, there was a sign in front of the apartment car park: "authorised vehicles only". The driver ignored it since it was 8 pm at night, the car park was dark and empty, and the driver believed that he was 'authorised" by the guy who bought the item from gumtree anyway cause he asked the driver to park there. (The thing is that he cannot proof this now since he doesnt keep the message history with the buyer)

Anyway, to keep the story short, the owner of the vehicle has been receiving threatening letters from Civil Enforcement limited that he has to pay a fine /invoice, Now it is 1 st December 2018, he received a county court claim form asking for about 290 gbp fine, I have done quite a bit of research, First, the owner should acknowledge the claim which gives him an extension from 14 days to 28 days, leave the defence empty, am I correct?

Also the owner does not have to tell them that who was driving, no need to tell them about the Gumtree incident etc, since they are claiming from the owner, and these kinds of CEL companies they have no lawful rights to ask the owner who was the driver, am I correct ?

And then, they do not have proof like a clear pic, videos etc to show that who was the driver ?

So now the owner is trying to figure out what to write on the Defence page on the claim form.

And what should he be doing next after? should he be expecting that the CEL will just pull out from the claim right before a court hearing ?

Many thanks !

bboylost

forgotmyname

Did you read the NEWBIES READ THIS FIRST!!! threads???

The_Deep

It is not a fine, it is an invoice from a private company for the alleged damages they allege you have caused them for allegedly breaching an alleged contract. They can only get their money if a County Court judge agrees that you have so damaged them. This is becoming more and more unlikely as many/most judges recognise this as a scam.

Is a solicitor involved? If so £290 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and win, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200, less if they are not using a solicitore.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Fruitcake

If you don't want the scammers to know who was driving, you shouldn't tell the whole world in your original post.
Remove information about who did what and only refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

Then, get stuck into the NEWBIES thread. Post 2 has a step by step guide to court from LBA to the court appearance itself.

This must all be done by the defendant who would normally be The Keeper.

bboylost

forgotmyname wrote: »

Did you read the NEWBIES READ THIS FIRST!!! threads???

thanks,i will give it a read, sorry I just wanted quick answers of what should I be writing on the defence page on the claim form, completely forgot to read the newbie threads beforeI post

bboylost

Fruitcake wrote: »

If you don't want the scammers to know who was driving, you shouldn't tell the whole world in your original post.
Remove information about who did what and only refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

Then, get stuck into the NEWBIES thread. Post 2 has a step by step guide to court from LBA to the court appearance itself.

This must all be done by the defendant who would normally be The Keeper.

Thank you, I will do that


Thank you I will do that

bboylost

The_Deep wrote: »

It is not a fine, it is an invoice from a private company for the alleged damages they allege you have caused them for allegedly breaching an alleged contract. They can only get their money if a County Court judge agrees that you have so damaged them. This is becoming more and more unlikely as many/most judges recognise this as a scam.

Is a solicitor involved? If so £290 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and win, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200, less if they are not using a solicitore.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.



as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Thank you, solicitor on my side isnt involved because I dont have the money to get a a solicitor and is it necessary for me to get one ? since everyone know that the CEL is a scam anyway ? On those threatening invoices that the owner has received though , it states that they were the "lawful department from CEL".

So on the defence page of the county claim form, Can I just write something like these:

1, no liability of the keeper
2. no proof of who the driver was, and even so, the driver was not the keeper.
3. No damages as what they are claiming
4. CEL is well known scamming companies with inflated claims

or I really need a long winded professional template ?

Thank you for the help

Fruitcake

You need to follow the step by step guide to court from post 2 of the NEWBIES.

To start with, you acknowledge service and state you will defend.

Nothing, absolutely nothing goes in the defence box at this stage. This is explained in the NEWBIES.

You do not need a solicitor, who in all likelihood will know less about this than the regulars here. Don't try CAB either, they are clueless about PCNs.

KeithP

Bboylost, what is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

bboylost

KeithP wrote: »

Bboylost, what is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

The issue date of the claim form is 20 th Nov 2018

bboylost

Fruitcake wrote: »

You need to follow the step by step guide to court from post 2 of the NEWBIES.

To start with, you acknowledge service and state you will defend.

Nothing, absolutely nothing goes in the defence box at this stage. This is explained in the NEWBIES.

You do not need a solicitor, who in all likelihood will know less about this than the regulars here. Don't try CAB either, they are clueless about PCNs.

Thank you, I have logged in online and acknowledged the claim and left the defence box empty,

however, I still have to fill the defence box after the extended 28 days? is it true?

And I am going to the NEWBIE posts and read now, thank you for the help once again