6 PCN's and a historic CCJ

63realfan

LBC 2 PAPERWORK

Coupon-mad

So did they purport to have sent two separate LBCs to the right address and expect the court to believe that both were sent, even though the D will swear on oath they did not arrive?  And even though they haven't put in evidence that trace? And why would they have done a trace within a week of posting the end of August letter, before it had even been delivered?

Has he done that SAR I suggested? Urgent.

Has he done his two WS?

Castle

63realfan said:

First one for the LBC

On 31st August 2022 they apparently sent a LBC to an alternative address but instead of waiting 30 days for a reply, they decide to wait only at most 6 days to carry out a trace and write to a new address. So what made them change their minds so quickly; perhaps the 31st August letter was returned "not at this address" or more likely the 7th September is "fake".

63realfan

Castle said:

63realfan said:

First one for the LBC

On 31st August 2022 they apparently sent a LBC to an alternative address but instead of waiting 30 days for a reply, they decide to wait only at most 6 days to carry out a trace and write to a new address. So what made them change their minds so quickly; perhaps the 31st August letter was returned "not at this address" or more likely the 7th September is "fake".

Just noticed that. What a p*** take. Can he use that as a defence? @Coupon-mad surely there is a certain time limit they have to wait till they get a response? Can I ask for the 31st August letter? That is so naughty of them!

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

So did they purport to have sent two separate LBCs to the right address and expect the court to believe that both were sent, even though the D will swear on oath they did not arrive?  And even though they haven't put in evidence that trace? And why would they have done a trace within a week of posting the end of August letter, before it had even been delivered?

Has he done that SAR I suggested? Urgent.

Has he done his two WS?

So did they purport to have sent two separate LBCs to the right address and expect the court to believe that both were sent, even though the D will swear on oath they did not arrive?  And even though they haven't put in evidence that trace? And why would they have done a trace within a week of posting the end of August letter, before it had even been delivered? - Would it be two separate LBC's though? I know that there is two separate claims but would they of sent two letters? They don't mention this. I'll double check the evidence of the trace. It doesn't make sense. 

In regards to the WS - is this for the claim or for the WS they have now sent out? I've got the original WS that was submitted with the N244. SAR request I'm sorting out now and will be sent by today asap.

63realfan

Coupon-mad said:

Get your friend to email a SAR to the CCBC asking for an urgent copy of any letter sent by the CCBC to Gladstones telling them that the claim form(s) for either or both of claim number xxxxxxxx and/or xxxxxxxx were returned as undelivered, 'gone away' or similar.  Plus images of the envelopes and contents, if either claim form was returned from OLD ADDRESS.  Or an immediate reply confirming 'no such data is held' if it is the case that the claim(s) were not returned from that address.

And get him to send a SAR to Gladstones for the same as the above - if such a letter or email from the CCBC exists about unserved claim(s) - and a copy of the supposed soft trace that they say was returned in 2022 as well as a screenshot of the 'case history' dates and actions held about him/his case on their 'case management system' for both claims (personal data of employees redacted).

When you say about emailing a SAR is it literally just the subject line as ''SAR request'' with the request below or is there a specific template?

63realfan

@Coupon-mad - just to add I’ve got all paperwork, 61 pages to be exact. There is all previous letters sent and some evidence from the PCN which was taken by a traffic warden with no ticket on windscreen.  

There is NO evidence of any trace. There’s only one LBC attached. The LBC states “please quote our reference on all correspondence with” with ONE reference number. No mention of any other PCN or LBC or reference. 

I’ve worked out the dates between 31st August 2022. 31st was a Wednesday & the 7th September was a Wednesday too. Based on average mail arriving what, 2-3 days? The letter would arrived approx Monday 5th/Tuesday 6th September which is not a sufficient amount of time to reply to an LBC before looking for alternative address’? It says on the LBC that he should do one of the following WITHIN 30 days” - so as @C@Castle said it looks like a complete make up. 

It looked like UKPM referred the case to Gladstone’s on the 30th August 2022 as stated by the Legal advisor who wrote the WS for them. Seems all a bit rush if I’m honest then 7 months later decided to take it to court after “not hearing back from my friend at his new address”. They’ve admitted on their WS that the claim form was sent to his old address but that they’ve made it evident he has ignored the LBC also saying it took him 7 months after the claim form was issued to defendant to make the application to have the CCJ set aside and has not acted promptly. HE DIDN’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT AND ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT DUE TO A RANDOM EXPERIAN CHECK!! 

What’s also weird is above this line they put “the claimant puts the defendant to full proof that they have acted promptly and without delay in making this application and that they have a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim if the matter is returned to the claim stage” ?? But then put that the defendant has no chance to defend against the claim - “it is submitted that the evidence filed in support of the claimants case is extremely compelling and that there is little or no prospect of the defendant being able to successfully defend the claim” 

63realfan

Courts have hardly “acted both reasonably & proportionately to date”!!!

63realfan

Courts have hardly “acted both reasonably & proportionately to date”!!!

Le_Kirk

63realfan said:

Courts have hardly “acted both reasonably & proportionately to date”!!!

Claimant has acted ................. not courts!