2 CCJ on credit file (CEL) PEASE HELP!!

Demonk9000

Very similar situation to my own - once the judge had set aside the CCJ, the case will 'revert' back to before the CCJ was originally issued - which is when you will be required to file a defence to the original claim.

Anonymous123456

any idea if the set aside is granted and fine is reverted back to the first stage then would i be able to just pay the fine and end all this headache? or would i have to fight my case till the end?

Coupon-mad

LOL, when people get CEL cases set aside, CEL discontinue...!

You'd be MAD to pay it.

Anonymous123456

Hi All
following on from my set aside hearing a week ago i am pleased to say that i finally got the set asides for both claims thanks to all of your help.

When i went in for my hearing the claimant (CEL) didn't turn up and the judge didn't look too much into the case, he gave the set aside within a minute or 2 lol, he was just concerned weather or not i received the letters of claim in which i replied no. he was pleased with that and didn't even bother with looking at my DBS which confirmed address status.

Anyways - the judge did ask if i was able to submit a defense within 2 weeks to which i replied yes. and now i have been looking on various threads but cant find a defense case relating to my situation?

Umkomaas

Anyways - the judge did ask if i was able to submit a defense within 2 weeks to which i replied yes. and now i have been looking on various threads but cant find a defense case relating to my situation?

Do a forum search on keywords CEL Defence (note spelling - you're not defending this in the USA!) and use a successful one as a starting point.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

Anonymous123456

i have constructed a defense and would just like some reviews - please critique as much so possible, i rather fix mistakes now than look stupid in front of the judge thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. Preliminary

a) The defendant had not received any correspondence from the claimant as they made no reasonable steps to trace the defendants current address at that time

b) the defendant was not given an opportunity to dispute or claim against the two alleged parking offences

2. Background

a) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was only the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

b) It is not admitted that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle on XXXXX And XXXXX on the following locations respectively XXXXX - the claims company is put against strict proof.

c) Due to the significant amount of time since the parking charge notice being allegedly issued XXXXXX and XXXXXX from Civil Enforcement Limited, the defendant cannot recall who the driver could have been. Furthermore, multiple family members and friends had access to the vehicle.

3. The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

a) The Claimant has provided no evidence within the particulars of claims received on XX/XX/2019 that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

b) To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of Protection of freedom act (POFA), which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.



c) The two claim forms issued on the XXXX and XXXX by Civil Enforcement Limited were not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal representative but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimant’s Legal Representative)

d) The claimant under the protection of freedoms act was meant to send out correspondence to the registered keeper within 14 days of the incident taking place. the incident which occurred at XXX on XX/XX/17 according to the particulars of claim it shows that the claimant issued the notice 22 days after the incident date, this shows the claimant did not follow the POFA 2012 act.

e) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol, as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time - a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant

f) There was no Notice to keeper or ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, received by the Defendant under the Practice Direction.

g) No Parking Charge Notice was not received from the claimant; therefore there was no chance or offering for the Defendant to appeal the charge.

h) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing many identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information

i) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse, and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the alleged contract was on the dates of these alleged offences; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

j) The Particulars of claim alleges that the Defendant was ‘in breach of terms + conditions (T+Cs)’. which does not constitute sufficient detail about what the Defendant’s claim actually is, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and has failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the Particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

k) The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted


4. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

a) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge.

b) A copy of any alleged contract in place at the time (e.g. copies of signage)

c) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

d) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

e) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

f) if relying on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data, then Installation record of the ANPR system with location, showing the height and angle of the camera and a record of maintenance of the system along with details to show the recorded times provided are accurate and if the machine was correctly calibrated

g) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

5. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever

a. Why the original parking charges amount before incurring further charges was the sum of £60. Both the parking charges started off at £60 each, the incident at XXX on XX/XX/17 increased to £350.48p and the incident on XXXXX on XX/XX//17 increased to £347.19 . the claims totals to a figure touching almost an eye watering £700 (more than quadruple the amount from each of the parking charges.

b. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

c. Why all correspondence received from ZZPS Solicitors never stated the breach of the car parks terms, no entry/exit time specified, only a time regarding the issue date.

d. Once these have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence if CE$L decide to continue.

e. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver

f. It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended

g. No promise or contract was agreed by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted.

h. The signs on both sites were inspected once particulars of claims was received and both the sites of the PCNs signs are believed to be very unclear, poorly lit and inadequate for the area. The Defendant denies that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The signs in these car parks are not at all prominent, or in fact visible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, the wording on the sign is mostly illegible as the signs are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

i. the incident dated XXX at XXX which included ANPR recorded pictures show the registered keepers vehicle assumedly leaving the car park. it is very difficult to distinguish what is going on with the evidence provided for this claim as the pictures are very dark, blurry and poorly presented. this may turn on the facts that sufficiently clear and lit signs would certainly be necessary in this case.

j. No legitimate interest – no proof has been given that Civil Enforcement have a contract with this land.

k. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification.

6. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

a.Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Forms issued

b. Failed to follow guidelines of POFA act 2012

c. Failed to provide reliable evidence (pictures, adequate signage, breached terms)

d. Failed to provide proof of permissions to issue tickets on the specific lands in question

e. Failed to provide a breakdown of costs from the initial £120 for both claims to an unbelievable total figure of £700.

f. Misusing the power of the courts to fill their own pockets whilst damaging innocent peoples credit files.

g. Wasting precious court time for their fraudulent gains and misusing the justice system to force people to pay money


7. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is requested to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success

a) In the event the claim progresses, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, The defendant reserves the right to alter, vary and add to this defence or reply to any further particulars of claim/documents the Claimant may provide.

In light of the reasons above, the Defendant requests the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed: XXXX
Date X/07/2019

Is this defence ok? also im not sure as to when to mention the costs to be reserved?
thanks in advance!

Le_Kirk

Your point 2b: -

the claims company is put against strict proof.

should be: -

the [strike]claims[/strike] claimant [strike]company[/strike] is put [strike]against[/strike] to strict proof.

Umkomaas

The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and has failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the Particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

Have you checked out how current these are - the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PaP) has been in force now for approaching 2 years, so if you've not checked that against what you're quoting above, it would be sensible to do so.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

h) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing many identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information

How does this impact whether the claim is legitimate or not? That is all you are asking of the Judge.

a. Why the original parking charges amount before incurring further charges was the sum of £60. Both the parking charges started off at £60 each, the incident at XXX on XX/XX/17 increased to £350.48p and the incident on XXXXX on XX/XX//17 increased to £347.19 . the claims totals to a figure touching almost an eye watering £700 (more than quadruple the amount from each of the parking charges.

You might want to do the maths again on this calculation.

f. Misusing the power of the courts to fill their own pockets whilst damaging innocent peoples credit files.

g. Wasting precious court time for their fraudulent gains and misusing the justice system to force people to pay money

Strong statements. Presumably you have proof of fraud?

The defence looks very 'leggy'. Have you read legally qualified poster bargepole's concise defence examples in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2? We advise everyone to follow the pattern of those examples, adapting/adding to them the relative bits from their own case.

Coupon-mad

That one does look old. Surely you got newer results when you searched? I recall a couple of CEL defences posted this week that are better and deal with the added costs being fake.

Did yo ask the Judge to reserve costs (your £255 fee and the costs of attending) so you can have them ordered against CEL when you win?

Anonymous123456

Hi all, i had submitted the defence a few weeks ago, and i received a letter from the courts stating that my claim is now a defended claim and that the claimant has already sent a copy of the defense to me... i dont understand that part tbh.

anyway the court has allocated the claim to small claims and sent me out a N180 form to fill out. it also says if you believe this claim is not appropriate for small claims track then explain why. i dont know what i should write at all tbh, any suggestions?