Civil Enforcement - "On Claim for Debt"

KeithP

Justme2020 said:

AND...I requested as part of the SAR that they send me all letters from "affiliated and associated companies". I have a ZZPS, but they've conveniently missed the other ones threatening Bailiffs and CCJs. Is it worth challenging this (either with the PPC or via my Defence)? Thanks.

Why would CE have copies of letters sent to you by "affiliated and associated companies"?
The simple answer is - they won't have copies so are doing nothing wrong by not sending them to you.

Justme2020

KeithP said:

Justme2020 said:

AND...I requested as part of the SAR that they send me all letters from "affiliated and associated companies". I have a ZZPS, but they've conveniently missed the other ones threatening Bailiffs and CCJs. Is it worth challenging this (either with the PPC or via my Defence)? Thanks.

Why would CE have copies of letters sent to you by "affiliated and associated companies"?
The simple answer is - they won't have copies so are doing nothing wrong by not sending them to you.

Evening Keith. They have sent me letters from ZZPS though.

I thought it was known (or at least assumed) that most of these Debt Collectors were actually owned or run by the same people?

Justme2020

(as part of the SAR, there is a copy of the letter from ZZPS)

KeithP

OK, so perhaps ZZPS do send copies to CEL and maybe the other "affiliated and associated companies" don't.

Either way, whatever the answer is, debt collectors letters are of no interest.

Justme2020

KeithP said:

OK, so perhaps ZZPS do send copies to CEL and maybe the other "affiliated and associated companies" don't.

Either way, whatever the answer is, debt collectors letters are of no interest.

Thanks @k@KeithP

As part of my Defence, I have included something along the lines of (and this is a draft);

9. The Claimant and their affiliated & appointed agencies sent several letters pertaining to be from regulated Debt Collection Agencies, choosing to use untruths and scare tactics alleging that if ‘debts’ were not paid forthwith, they were legally allowed to appoint bailiffs to collect these sums and that should these sums not be paid, they would be allowed to enforce a County Court Judgment against the Defendant. This is factually incorrect, and the language contained in said letters is simply used to threaten and bully vulnerable citizens into paying exorbitant penalties. It should be noted that as part of the Subject Access Request sent to the Claimant, several documents are missing, namely those sent from their appointed Debt Collection Agencies referencing the above.

10. The Landowner of the premises where the alleged offence occurred was unhappy with the behaviour of the Claimant and their litigious endeavours, which they claimed was damaging the reputation of their business due to paying residents being subjected to threatening letters claiming for large amounts of unjust sums. 

KeithP

I think it is unlikely that a court will be interested in any of that.
That is not going to help win your case.

Even so, usually those debt collectors letters are cleverly written, using terms like if you do X we may do Y.

Justme2020

KeithP said:

I think it is unlikely that a court will be interested in any of that.
That is not going to help win your case.

Even so, usually those debt collectors letters are cleverly written, using terms like if you do X we may do Y.

Thanks Keith, shall I just remove both points?

I’m sure I’ve seen somewhere (either here, Legal Beagle or another site) a point about the claimant being a serial litigator wasting the court’s time. Does this ring a bell or am I imagining it?

Umkomaas

I’m sure I’ve seen somewhere (either here, Legal Beagle or another site) a point about the claimant being a serial litigator wasting the court’s time. Does this ring a bell or am I imagining it?

Even if they are, your case will turn on its own facts. 

nosferatu1001

Is it a defence to thge underlying CLAIM? if "No", then dont include it. 

If you have proof the signs only say charges go up to 7pmn, that is great
For POPLA, please show us  your actual appeal. I am betting if I read the whole appeal I can work out who drove

Justme2020

nosferatu1001 said:

Is it a defence to thge underlying CLAIM? if "No", then dont include it. 

If you have proof the signs only say charges go up to 7pmn, that is great
For POPLA, please show us  your actual appeal. I am betting if I read the whole appeal I can work out who drove

You probably could to be fair. Does that change anything from an appeal point of view though?