Help please - CCJ & Debt Recovery – from unknown Parking fine

Jack5656

@Coupon-mad - So far I have had no comunications from CEL on either pulling out or attending the upcoming hearing.

Do you think I need to email all 5 case law transcripts (sent to court) to CEL  - or is just sharing my skeleton arguement and costs sufficient for them to see?

I think I draw the line at sending them a copy of BPA CoP as they should know/have that!

Coupon-mad

You should provide them with the same as you sent to the court.

Johnersh

When is the hearing?

I cannot see how C has anything but an uphill battle. In essence they are asking the court (without having made any application to dispense with service or extend time) for them to give a gift that is not within the court's power to give -  to resurrect the claim. 

The district judge could have dispensed with service,  but s/he did not.  The best and cheapest course would've been to issue afresh.  That would also afford the defendant to respond properly to the claim pre-action, as the cpr envisages. 

Jack5656

Johnersh - that was exactly my assessment - I cannot understand why the previous judge did not strike out straight away. The hearing is in a couple of days.

@Coupon-mad I've still not heard a thing from CEL despiate sharing my skeleton arguement with them. At least last time they emailed to say they were not going to be in attendance.

Umkomaas

I've still not heard a thing from CEL despiate sharing my skeleton arguement with them

They aren't obliged to respond to a SA, in fact I wouldn't think they would anyway. 

Coupon-mad

It's probably bamboozled them.

After all, their so-called legal department is run by Scott Wilson, whose previous job was purported 'Head of Legal' for disgraced Wonga, whose dealings with consumers were (reportedly) being investigated by the MET Police before they conveniently went under.

Jack5656

I have a question on the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and actions 'C' must take prior to sending a claim form. When I say:

The Claimant should not be given extra opportunities to waste the Court’s time after failing to follow pre action protocols for debt claims and their own BPA code of practice.

What part of the Pre-Action Protocol supports this?

I can't find anything specific in there relating to checking an address? The only bit I can find that might relate is 3.1 which states a letter of Claim should be sent:

3.1 The creditor should send a Letter of Claim to the debtor before proceedings are started.

Also Part 17 of the Practice Direction seems helpful:

17. This Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols do not alter the statutory time limits for starting court proceedings. If a claim is issued after the relevant limitation period has expired, the defendant will be entitled to use that as a defence to the claim. If proceedings are started to comply with the statutory time limit before the parties have followed the procedures in this Practice Direction or the relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should apply to the court for a stay of the proceedings while they so comply.

Please let me know which part of the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims is most relevant for my 4 month dead argument.

Many Thanks

Grizebeck

Jack5656 said:

I have a question on the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and actions 'C' must take prior to sending a claim form. When I say:

The Claimant should not be given extra opportunities to waste the Court’s time after failing to follow pre action protocols for debt claims and their own BPA code of practice.

What part of the Pre-Action Protocol supports this?

I can't find anything specific in there relating to checking an address? The only bit I can find that might relate is 3.1 which states a letter of Claim should be sent:

3.1 The creditor should send a Letter of Claim to the debtor before proceedings are started.

Also Part 17 of the Practice Direction seems helpful:

17. This Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols do not alter the statutory time limits for starting court proceedings. If a claim is issued after the relevant limitation period has expired, the defendant will be entitled to use that as a defence to the claim. If proceedings are started to comply with the statutory time limit before the parties have followed the procedures in this Practice Direction or the relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should apply to the court for a stay of the proceedings while they so comply.

Please let me know which part of the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims is most relevant for my 4 month dead argument.

Many Thanks

the two are not connected

Jack5656

Grizebeck said:

the two are not connected

That's good to know thanks, but I'm still unclear on what part (if any?) of the Pre-Action Protocol supports the statement about the Claimant failing to follow pre action protocols for debt claims and their own BPA code of practice?

If I am stating this in court I need to know where / how to back that up because on the subject of checking an address for service I can't see anything obvious in the protocols that says that.

Coupon-mad

I am not sure it helps the 4 months dead argument. It's more about a course of conduct whereby they failed to serve a LBC because they failed to check the details, as the BPA CoP mandates.