6 PCN's and a historic CCJ

63realfan

Le_Kirk said:

63realfan said:

@Coupon-mad update - they’ve sent out 2 letters to his address. Both letters are the apparent “2 LBC’s” but again the dates and times don’t add up but I’ll see what you think. They must of have sent this anyway as he only requested the SAR 2 days ago, no way they would of have posted it out that quick.

Not so important on a forum (although it annoys me) but get your grammar right for any legal documents or submissions to court!

As soon as I saw you comment I knew it was going to be about grammar 🤣 think I’m on my third strike now. Apologies, I did write it quick due to being at work, outside in the cold! I did get an A* in English. Clearly lost my sense of grammar!

63realfan

@Coupon-mad - The court responded saying that the SAR request is nothing to do with them at the CNBC but I asked my friend to reply saying it’s a SAR request for information the CCBC have. 

Gladstones have come back today with an overhaul of information. 2 packs of attachments which both have 150 pages which look exactly the same as each other showing all paperwork etc. they’ve also sent the email showing when they updated their systems of the current address on a separate attachment. 

I’ve checked through a data list they sent in another attachment of the events leading up - should I cross out any personal info and send this or? What sort of information should I show? I cannot see any evidence of the “trace they completed” anywhere. Should I ask him to send another email back and ask for the trace on a separate email? 

63realfan

Just to add - this letter was also on there. I can now see the two big attachments are for each claim with all letters etc. still cannot see evidence of any trace. I’ll attach this letter sent with what looks to be the second WS for the other claim but my friend has not received this letter yet in the post. I haven’t had time to look through and see if the solicitor has copied the same WS from the other claim. 

Castle

63realfan said:

I’ve checked through a data list they sent in another attachment of the events leading up - should I cross out any personal info and send this or? What sort of information should I show? I cannot see any evidence of the “trace they completed” anywhere. Should I ask him to send another email back and ask for the trace on a separate email? 

Well there are apparently two "traces" now; one between 8th and 16th July 2022 and the second one, between 31st August and 7th September 2022.

63realfan

Castle said:

63realfan said:

I’ve checked through a data list they sent in another attachment of the events leading up - should I cross out any personal info and send this or? What sort of information should I show? I cannot see any evidence of the “trace they completed” anywhere. Should I ask him to send another email back and ask for the trace on a separate email? 

Well there are apparently two "traces" now; one between 8th and 16th July 2022 and the second one, between 31st August and 7th September 2022.

But no evidence attached of the “trace” they carried out 

Coupon-mad

Indeed.  Don't ask for more info from Gladstones.

Point out the holes in their evidence at the hearing when it will be too late for them to cover themselves as they aren't attending.

No evidence of any letter from the CNBC to Gladstones, if either claim was returned in the post, which we don't know but suspect maybe happened?

Worth pushing that with the CNBC.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Indeed.  Don't ask for more info from Gladstones.

Point out the holes in their evidence at the hearing when it will be too late for them to cover themselves as they aren't attending.

No evidence of any letter from the CNBC to Gladstones, if either claim was returned in the post, which we don't know but suspect maybe happened?

Worth pushing that with the CNBC.

Still no response from CNBC - what shall we do? 

Le_Kirk

What did CNBC say when you phoned them - if you got through to a person? 

63realfan

Le_Kirk said:

What did CNBC say when you phoned them - if you got through to a person? 

It was an email response. No phone call made. Multiple emails sent after response but haven’t heard anything back

63realfan

Hi @Coupon-mad

Court is tomorrow morning and am just prepping all files to be printed for tomorrow. 

We did message CCBC again and call them. They said all information was passed to the local courts and any information they had for the SAR was with the local county court. We did email them but did not hear back. 

I've checked both LBC's and both WS sent from the solicitor. The solicitor claims that on both of the WS and LBC's that Gladstones picked up the cases on dates that would of course make sense in the same order. Originally the courts only submitted one WS for the one case which we questioned however obviously they didn't realise both cases were put together and have now submitted their other WS for the other claim to the courts so I can't go on it being dodgy dates when Gladstones accepted the job as obviously two of the jobs have been split. It is still odd that on both LBC's they've ''previously sent out letters to old address but received no response but have done a trace and found a new address''..for both letters a week apart after sending the first letter. Are we still going on the theory that the reason for their weird timings and not evidencing the trace is that they may have done one trace but we think that the letters were returned by the new owner and that's the reason why they've sent the LBC, done a trace and sent a new letter out within a week instead of waiting a month. I'm ready to speak to judge tomorrow as his Lay rep which brings me onto the new question - 

Also will mention this what you said - 

- even though there were two claims the Claimants have only mentioned sending one LBC - for only one of the case files - to the traced address (they say) on 7th Sept.  Not two. What they don't say is speaking volumes because the suspiciously odd (very fast) timing of the purported 'soft trace' can only mean that the August letter for that batch of PCNs was returned from the wrong address marked 'gone away' or 'not at this address/return to sender'. Almost certainly, because we know the later court claim was and there is no other explanation for the timing of that soft trace. Clearly the resident living there since 2022 helpfully returns letters and doesn't just ignore them;

- if the Claimant had bothered to consolidate the cases and cross-reference the new address found in the soft trace, there would either have been two LBCs or (better practice, save for the ludicrously disproportionate fee add-ons) one single amalgamated LBC, demanding over £1500;

- clearly they didn't bother, and the claim without the 7th Sept new LBC carried on with no soft trace check of the address, and the claim went to that old address.  Because they had two files and didn't bother to check before litigation that there were no other PCNs to bring forward in that same cause of action.

- the claim with the soft trace also unjustifiably 'reverted' to the known old address which is not just sharp practice - a breach of the CPRs - and improper, but clearly vexatious and a (negligent or deliberate) abuse, if they knew - as seems almost certain - that the August letter had bounced back in the post;

- the Defendant's position is that the Cs knew the address was old and not good for service; there was more than one 'reason to believe' that a court claim sent there would NOT be served properly because the Defendant had moved. Which they knew.

In regards to assisting him as English isn't his first language. I need to take a copy of the Lay Reps (Rights of Audience) Order and to say that I'm his lay rep NOT a Mckenzie friend. If declined, show the copy of the order to the Judge and say ''I have Rights of Audience to speak''. 

Also another point to add, make sure the judge knows no proof of trace was sent? Just wanted to check this. I'll get everything else printed off. I'm sure that it'll get put aside but I want what the solicitors are trying to avoid - his costs refunded. I'm certain it's going to be put aside just want. the costs back of which he is owed and I hope the judge seeing that seeing that Gladstones aren't bothering to turn up. 

Apologies if there's any grammar issues, had to type quickly