Please help! scammer Civil Enforcement County count claim form

KeithP

bboylost wrote: »

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

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 27th December 2018 to file your Defence. A few extra days due to Christmas court closing dates.

That's nearly four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

bboylost

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 27th December 2018 to file your Defence. A few extra days due to Christmas court closing dates.

That's nearly four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.



Thanks Keith, on the defence box, can I just write 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

To my understanding the CEL will not really proceed it to a court hearing anyway, they will pull out the case last minute, so I am just wondering if I will really need a very long winded professional template. But if so, is there any templates similar to my case that I can find on the forum?
Thanks

Le_Kirk

You don't write anything in the Defence Box now that you have acknowledged the claim. You do what KeithP told you to do. When you have pulled together your defence, put it up here for critique and assistance THEN, you print it, sign it and scan it ready to e-mail to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL] as a .pdf attachment.

KeithP

bboylost wrote: »

Thanks Keith, on the defence box...

Defence box?? What Defence box??
Have you not yet read the rest of my post - the bit you didn't quote?

bboylost wrote: »

To my understanding the CEL will not really proceed it to a court hearing anyway, they will pull out the case last minute, so I am just wondering if I will really need a very long winded professional template. But if so, is there any templates similar to my case that I can find on the forum?
Thanks

CEL have been taking some cases the whole way recently.
If I were CEL I would be continuing cases that had particularly poor Defences.
For that reason, I think you need a good Defence to see them off one way or another.

You need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will find several example Defences.

bboylost

Thanks for the comments and help guys, I have spent a whole day to read the NEWBIES thread, but I really cannot find a similar template which can help me to write my defence and print it out.. I do not see any similar cases which are the PCN for "authorised vehicles only"

I only can think of the defence is that, the car keeper wasnt the driver at the time, and there was no damages from what they are trying to claim on the claim form,

however, I read this on the post on newbie thread : "Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them"


The No loss to PPC: There doesn't have to be any more, since the Supreme Court ruling in Parking Eye v Beavis. All they have to show is that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the car park. So don't use phrases like 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' (GPEOL), that's a guaranteed loser. Also, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) is a dead duck following that Beavis ruling.

Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's indentity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver.

So does it mean these two defence points cannot be used anymore ? I am quite lost right now don't know what else I can write to defence the case.

bboylost

One more thing.... The invoice (threatening letters) from CEL that the car keeper have been receiving are NOT the notice to keeper, am I right ? The car keeper doesnt recall receiving any letters from CEL requesting the car owner to give away the drivers details , so that is not a NTK ?

bboylost

forgotmyname wrote: »

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

So I did spent whole day reading everything on the newbie thread....I am still quite confused


For the case I mentioned above , should the defendant tell the judges that he knows who was using the car on the day, and provide the evidence that the driver was actually "authorised" by one of the tenants who lives in the apartment ? the driver was told to park there when he was delivering an item to the tenant.

or just dont mention it at all and use the "no liability of the keeper as the defence point?

Thanks..

KeithP

bboylost, if you want to bring your post back into focus, the way to do is is simply to post again on it - like I have just done for you.

The way not to do it is to post on someone else's unrelated thread.

Can you please now delete your post from [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5871397other thread[/URL]. Thanks.

Redx

that is the conundrum, if the keeper and driver are the same person

a defence is EITHER from a KEEPER, or from a DRIVER

whatever path you choose, do not lie to a judge, especially if you are asked in court

a driver appeal cannot use POFA2012 as a barrier , but can tell it like it was on the day, as a first person witness

decide which way you are playing it and go from there


if they failed POFA2012 and you are not the driver, that is the basis of your defence

bboylost

Redx wrote: »

that is the conundrum, if the keeper and driver are the same person

a defence is EITHER from a KEEPER, or from a DRIVER

whatever path you choose, do not lie to a judge, especially if you are asked in court

a driver appeal cannot use POFA2012 as a barrier , but can tell it like it was on the day, as a first person witness

decide which way you are playing it and go from there


if they failed POFA2012 and you are not the driver, that is the basis of your defence

Thank you , I think I will just stick with the POFA2012 then, sounds easier, as CEL failed to get who was the driver , and on the claim form they are chasing the car keeper, not the driver on the day. This was very helpful cheers