Need help! Small claims court letter - Parking charge

hdotgwan

Hi again,

Apologies as my earlier comment was incorrect (I hadn't looked at the letter for a while and had exaggerated the amount they have tried to claim), the actual sum they seek to claim looks like £271.00 - I just found an older Claim Form from the court which is from CEL (Civil Enforcement). On this form it states the amount claimed is £196, the court fee is £25 (I guess as it's under £300), and the legal representation costs are £50, making it £271. Is this still justifiable?

I have also managed to dig out one of their direct letters (from CEL) stating that my payment of £182.00 (different to what they have stated in the claims form) is 'long overdue'. In this previous letter they also make threat of a CCJ. there is also a solicitors badge/logo in the top-right stating 'QDR Solicitors', if anyone knows of these?

Regards,
Hdotgwan

Coupon-mad

Yes and you can search the forum for QDR (but you don't need to. They're irrelevant).

Please answer my last question above.

hdotgwan

The claim was originally sought out by 'ZZPS', if anyone has heard of them too - I have just dug out (and opened) around 8 letters from both them and CEL with the earliest letter originally stating a payment of £170 be paid. I'm still not sure how they got to this figure as the sign at the car park states a £100 fine.

I will also admit I'm not sure where I would start with preparing a defence against these leeches.. as I said before i've never had to engage in legal representation in any form! So apologies there, as always any advice is appreciated.

Regards,
Hdotgwan

hdotgwan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes and you can search the forum for QDR (but you don't need to. They're irrelevant).

Please answer my last question above.

Thanks for the quick response - I just did a quick search and looks like I am eligible to pay court fees, I earn £1700 (after tax) a month, which I believe is enough? Apologies for not answering the question initially, I had not seen that part of the response.

Regards,
Hdotgwan

beamerguy

hdotgwan wrote: »

The claim was originally sought out by 'ZZPS', if anyone has heard of them too - I have just dug out (and opened) around 8 letters from both them and CEL with the earliest letter originally stating a payment of £170 be paid. I'm still not sure how they got to this figure as the sign at the car park states a £100 fine.

I will also admit I'm not sure where I would start with preparing a defence against these leeches.. as I said before i've never had to engage in legal representation in any form! So apologies there, as always any advice is appreciated.

Regards,
Hdotgwan

ZZPS is just a "donkey derby outfit" with ZERO CLOUT, just money scamming sewer life.

Stop calling it a fine, it's not, it's a simple invoice any old clown and his dog can do.

They got to the figure of £170 because they added their own scam charge.

At this stage, don't concern yourself about legal stuff, the members here will guide you through.

CEL are a very dodgy outfit but they know their place and probably discontinue their scam claims more than any other scammer

The first mistake they made is adding a fake amount which the courts will not allow .... known as ABUSE OF PROCESS

The second mistake CEL will make is signing a claim form confirming the claim is true ????? It's not, the fake add-on is a scam.

Right now, I am puzzled why you are telling us what you earn

hdotgwan

beamerguy wrote: »

ZZPS is just a "donkey derby outfit" with ZERO CLOUT, just money scamming sewer life.

Stop calling it a fine, it's not, it's a simple invoice any old clown and his dog can do.

They got to the figure of £170 because they added their own scam charge.

At this stage, don't concern yourself about legal stuff, the members here will guide you through.

CEL are a very dodgy outfit but they know their place and probably discontinue their scam claims more than any other scammer

The first mistake they made is adding a fake amount which the courts will not allow .... known as ABUSE OF PROCESS

The second mistake CEL will make is signing a claim form confirming the claim is true ????? It's not, the fake add-on is a scam.

Right now, I am puzzled why you are telling us what you earn

Hi Beamer,

Thank you for the response - I do have a claim form here with proof the claimant is confirming they think the claim is true yes, do I use this to my advantage? It says here "The Claimant believes the facts stated in this claim form are true and I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement, Signed 'Civil Enforcement Limited'".

And apologies for posting that, I was replying to another response which asked if I am eligible to pay court fees - I was just looking for confirmation there. Could you advise on which steps to take next?

I do notice that there are no indications on any of these letters as to why I have received the invoice, only a contravention detail stating 'Authorised vehicles only', but it doesn't go into any more details, or any particulars around the signing set out? Thanks again

Regards,
Hdotgwan

nosferatu1001

If there was no name on te doc, then the doc has not been correctly signed. A real person HAS to sign, not a company. Thats right up there in your defence.

You follow, precisely, post 2 of the newbies thread

CEL hate it when you point out al ltheir fake add ons. Theyve only, t o my knowledge, actually attended ONE hearing, and they lost.

beamerguy

nosferatu1001 is correct

CEL abuse the court system with their claims and then discontinue at the last moment

Now they are using fake amounts = ABUSE OF PROCESS
They are signing a statement of truth stating that their claim is true

Not much going for them really

hdotgwan

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

If there was no name on te doc, then the doc has not been correctly signed. A real person HAS to sign, not a company. Thats right up there in your defence.

You follow, precisely, post 2 of the newbies thread

CEL hate it when you point out al ltheir fake add ons. Theyve only, t o my knowledge, actually attended ONE hearing, and they lost.

Hi nosferatu,

Thank you for the reply, I feel that I am starting to get a feel for what my defence would be - There is no actual signage from what I can see, it just says 'Signed 'Civil Enforcement Limited' and just below it has in brackets (Claimant's Legal Representative).

Apologies, by fake add ons are you referring to things like the 'Signed' by etc. on the claim form?

beamerguy wrote: »

nosferatu1001 is correct

CEL abuse the court system with their claims and then discontinue at the last moment

Now they are using fake amounts = ABUSE OF PROCESS
They are signing a statement of truth stating that their claim is true

Not much going for them really

Thanks Beamer, it really does look like they are scamming. I will look at the Noobies thread a bit more and see what I can make of it.

Thanks again to everyone that is helping me with this,

hdotgwan

hdotgwan

So at the point of replying to the Small claims letter, I don't need to have a defence put together just yet?

Would I not be able to go through mediation to try and ask how they're justifying their claim/costs?