Excel PCN help

bs1998

ab2000 said:

I find it interesting that you are getting letters from ELMS, yet all my communication has come directly from Excel.

I am wondering if they farm out cases they think they have a slim chance of winning, and ones they feel are stronger cases they keep in house.

Who did your LBC come from?

Excel sent it, this is the first I have heard from ELMS

ab2000

Cheers, thank you

Coupon-mad

 reading on the site there seems to be a lot of people saying pay the £170 at this point?

Errr...where? No-one on this site tells anyone to EVER pay £170 to any PPC or their agents.

Did you miss out the word 'not'?

Snakes_Belly

This is very similar to Stefano123's claim from Excel. He could not access the app to pay and moved to another car park and went over the 10 mins by a similar amount to yourself. He won at court.

bs1998

Coupon-mad said:

 reading on the site there seems to be a lot of people saying pay the £170 at this point?

Errr...where? No-one on this site tells anyone to EVER pay £170 to any PPC or their agents.

Did you miss out the word 'not'?

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6107063/elms-legal-ccj-fees

Coupon-mad

That's a thread about someone who was stuffed because they got a court claim and failed to defend it.  Completely the opposite of what we do here every day.  A casualty of their own doing.

Under those circumstances (no grounds to set the CCJ aside) they had to pay.

Nothing to do with your case at all.  Not one that you even need to read and if I were you, when searching & finding among better results that old and irrelevant thread, I'd never have read further, as soon as you saw it was about a CCJ.

You are not going to fail to defend a claim.

You are not getting a CCJ.  A court claim is not a CCJ; it is the point when you win.

bs1998

Coupon-mad said:

That's a thread about someone who was stuffed because they got a court claim and failed to defend it.  Completely the opposite of what we do here every day.  A casualty of their own doing.

Under those circumstances (no grounds to set the CCJ aside) they had to pay.

Nothing to do with your case at all.  Not one that you even need to read and if I were you, when searching & finding among better results that old and irrelevant thread, I'd never have read further, as soon as you saw it was about a CCJ.

You are not going to fail to defend a claim.

You are not getting a CCJ.  A court claim is not a CCJ; it is the point when you win.

Thank you for the clarification.

Do you think I should send the above letter/email to Excel, or would this be an own goal?

Coupon-mad

I think it's mostly pointless I'm afraid, as you are not entitled to be told who their client the landowner is (at this stage) and there's no point telling Excel to uninstruct Elms.

They won't. And it really doesn't matter.

You won't stop the claim anyway.

Also, you are writing to the wrong party. Now they have (temporarily) instructed Elms to try to frighten you that a 'solicitor' is involved, you have to now respond only to Elms.

Only for now, until they drop Elms once you defend the court claim, which is the only job Elms are there for.  We've seen it all before!  Elms only do one job.

However if you cut it down mainly to the lack of signs and send it to ELMS not Excel, you do look better than ignoring it.  Trying to narrow the issues is a good thing.

You might not believe this - but getting a court claim is a good thing too! That is the stage where you can take meaningful steps to defend and where we win - scam over!  Bring it on.

bs1998

Coupon-mad said:

I think it's mostly pointless I'm afraid, as you are not entitled to be told who their client the landowner is (at this stage) and there's no point telling Excel to uninstruct Elms.

They won't. And it really doesn't matter.

You won't stop the claim anyway.

Also, you are writing to the wrong party. Now they have (temporarily) instructed Elms to try to frighten you that a 'solicitor' is involved, you have to now respond only to Elms.

Only for now, until they drop Elms once you defend the court claim, which is the only job Elms are there for.  We've seen it all before!  Elms only do one job.

However if you cut it down mainly to the lack of signs and send it to ELMS not Excel, you do look better than ignoring it.  Trying to narrow the issues is a good thing.

You might not believe this - but getting a court claim is a good thing too! That is the stage where you can take meaningful steps to defend and where we win - scam over!  Bring it on.

Thank you, I will look through the other threads on dealing with ELMS, as I take it that I need to respond to them. Do I ask for a 28 day extension? I am not sure what that would accomplish.

Coupon-mad

Depends if you want the Claim delayed closer to Christmas. Personally, I'd say respond robustly but not necessarily asking for a 30 day hold for 'debt advice' unless you will be in a better place to handle a claim in the Winter, than in October.

Your choice; but do respond as it looks better.