CST Law case - Judgement made

lurpdog101

Le_Kirk said:

It really is bad for CNBC not to accept incoming mail to their old e-mail address for DQs; after all they changed it not defendants!  They must realise that there would be some DQs in the wind that they sent out which would have a deadline AFTER they changed their e-mail address and should have allowed receipt for a couple of months or an auto forwarding system to their address of choice.

It is - worst is, that I have acknowledgement receipt from them the day before they changed, which is when I submitted my DQ initially. I have forwarded this to them as well. But they obviously must have been in switch process and slipped through, which is still extremelyt poor and I will be raising it - as today I had the order come through - a day AFTER they resent the DQ with no explanation! The anguish this is causing, I have a good mind to get a solicitor to sue the CNBC too but I know that would get me nowhere but more stress haha

lurpdog101

Phoned them up, got through after 30 min wait, so not too bad. Explained and explained had re-sent on Monday....advised to forward again and put FAO Manager in subject title, as manager will then pick that up. She has updated my notes to say I had responded in time but not processed. Now got to wait 3-4 weeks again to make sure it has been processed as they are only now looking at DQs returned 3 weeks ago

lurpdog101

Finally had a response but not what I expected. They said P2 and P3 missing and need to resend or get CCJ. I checked - and the 2 new questions were not on the original DQ they sent me but are on the new one!!! Having to send in again along with photo of the original one...everything had been sent bar the sheet they actually never sent to me in first place lol

lurpdog101

still waiting for them to upload my resent DQ!!

Coupon-mad

Forward it AGAIN to the DQ CNBC address.

lurpdog101

Thanks - I actually did that yesterday and added FAO Manager in subject like she told me to do last time. We shall see

lurpdog101

Absolutely FUMING!!! I have heard NOTHING from the courts. Despite sending in the DQ twice, and having receipts from them, I have been waiting for them to upload it - keeps saying last thing received was the AOS which is bull! I have their confirmations. Now I just checked and went into it to find the following:

General sanctions order was made on 14/03/2024

Defence was struck out on 30/04/2024

Your defence was rejected on 30/04/2024

Can I sue them for the stress and incompetance as they have done this based on them saying they have not received the DQ I think (I am calling them to find out) and issued CCJ against me for THEIR incompetance.

For info - I first emailed the DQ and received receipt on 27th Feb. The 2nd time, to the new email address which changed the day after I submitted, was sent, with proof of receipt received, on the 18th March and I resent again saying FAO manager on 21st March (after talking to them on phone). On 28th March they wrote to me saying P2 and P3 were missing. I never received P2 (which was the added bits as original they sent to complete did not have them). But I then filled it all in again and resent on 28th March, receiving the proof of receipt. After not hearing anything, I then resent on the 24th April, using the FAO manager and received their receipt of delivery.....and now I just went in and checked and saw the above!!!! 

Coupon-mad

Send a complaint marked URGENT - FTAO THE MANAGER (re Claim number xxxxxxx) to the claim responses email address attaching your email trail proof that you got auto-acknowledgements for the DQ.  Attach the DQ as well.

Tell them you are fuming and the CCJ must be set aside by court staff next week and you are so upset and angry to get this CCJ it has ruined your faith in the court system.

Say you want to escalate the complaint and expect to be compensated for your distress and weeks of time wasted, and you are fuming about the lackadaisical way their staff are blithely damaging consumers' credit ratings. The CNBC appear to exist purely to prop up claimants, including obviously abusive parking roboclaims that no-one at CNBC appears to have sussed ARE the primary cause of their admin falling off a cliff.  The answer was not to get extra staff in, change their name to the CNBC and change their auto-reply to apologise to rogue claimants for the delay in cases that any competent service would have isolated as failing to meet CPR 16 and strike out or ban from MCOL.

lurpdog101

@Coupon-mad - the same email I sent the DQ to? DQ.CNBC.... ? I am on hold to them now to find out what is happening too. I have not been told that there is a CCJ, but am presuming so as my defence was rejected and has not shown my DQ return on the MCOL site

Coupon-mad

No not that email.  The claim responses one. The full list is in the Template Defence first post.

There are dozens of threads like yours and the CNBC have been paying compo.