Civil Enforcement Ltd CCJ's

stevecot1983 · 16 May 2017 at 7:16AM

Hi fruitcake coupon-mad

Thanks for taking the time to look through. I will remove the point 2.6.2

I have read through saggi thread, I could not find if they ever put the case number and court info up as I was going to have this info up my sleeve when i get a hearing. I've also read about a few cases on parking pranksters blog but have yet to read one about the costs being awarded and the dissmissal of the case.

I have emailed the courts for copies of the n1 forms to see if they give anymore details.

Fruitcake · 16 May 2017 at 9:10AM

stevecot1983 wrote: »

Hi fruitcake coupon-mad

Thanks for taking the time to look through. I will remove the point 2.6.2

I have read through saggi thread, I could find if they ever put the case number and court info up as I was going to have this info up my sleeve when i get a hearing. I've also read about a few cases on parking pranksters blog but have yet to read one about the costs being awarded and the dissmissal of the case.

I have emailed the courts for copies of the n1 forms to see if they give anymore details.

I would put the info in your N244 if you have it so when it is assessed you will have prove that the scammers have form for this.

stevecot1983 · 16 May 2017 at 9:18AM

Hi Fruitcake

Apologies my post earlier this morning was done from a mobile and it auto corrected couldnt to could, so I have updated my previous post. I could not find the actual case number or court info from Saggi's thread they had x'd it all out.

I am hoping to get the N244 form sent out today, as now I have less than three months to get these set aside and then dismissed (for my prospective employer to continue with my recruitment). I am going to phone the courts today to find out if I can put both of the CCJ's on one N244 form.

stevecot1983 · 16 May 2017 at 10:53AM

So I called CCBCC about one of the claims and the very helpful lady emailed me the following details:

OUTSTANDING DEBT AND DAMAGES DATE--DESCRIPTION--AMOUNT--DUE DATE xx/05/12 REFxxxxxxxxxx 130.00 xx/05/12 xx/07/15 SOLICITORFEE 50.00 xx/07/15 TOTAL DUE- 180.00
THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF 212.37 FOR OUTSTANDING DEBT AND DAMAGES INCLUDING 32.37 INTEREST PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 RATE 8.00% PA FROM DATES ABOVE TO- xx/07/15 SAME RATE TO JUDGMENT OR (SOONER) PAYMENT DAILY RATE TO JUDGMENT- 0.04 TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST DUE- 212.37 I WILL PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH SEPARATE DETAILED PARTICULARS WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM.

So it looks like the incident took place in May 2012, I would have been at my previous address at this time but I did not receive any correspondence from the claimant, this could be because we had a shared mail box with the flat above us and they were forever taking all the post and then not giving it to us or if we were waiting for a parcel it would take weeks for us to get it from them. The court also advised that the N244 applications have to be separate especially as the CEL have used two different courts to raise their claims.

It took CEL over 3 years to raise a claim against me and when they did they did not check any public records to ensure I still lived at the property.

pappa_golf · 16 May 2017 at 12:12PM

wheel clamping has long gone , the new method is "credit clamping" where they take you to court (within 6 yrs e/w) knowing there is a good chance that you have moved

if you have not moved house , and fight them they often back down (especially in cases pre POFa) , but if you have moved house they go for a default CCJ , knowing that (tha a vast amount) people will here of the default later , and pay the inflated costs in order to have this marked as satisfied

Mrs May said she was going to "sort this" , way back - (last september) , pigs will fly

instead of sorting this , they increased the cost of a set aside to £255.

look at the daily court sheets , there are almost as many set asides taking place as PPC claims

as of this moment in time a Parking Co can only contact the DVLA ONCE for info ,

stevecot1983 · 16 May 2017 at 2:05PM

Thanks pappa golf. I do believe there is/has been a consultation announced in December 2016 by the MOJ regarding this unfair practice. I have tried to find out if there has been any outcome but have to date not found anything.

Although they can only contact the DVLA once for the info I fail to see how that is a defence for not confirming the Defendant is still residing at the address on file three years after the incident, especially when there are public records they can search.

pappa_golf · 16 May 2017 at 2:25PM

stevecot1983 wrote: »

Thanks pappa golf. I do believe there is/has been a consultation announced in December 2016 by the MOJ regarding this unfair practice. I have tried to find out if there has been any outcome but have to date not found anything.

Although they can only contact the DVLA once for the info I fail to see how that is a defence for not confirming the Defendant is still residing at the address on file three years after the incident, especially when there are public records they can search.

but why bother?

if the c"accused" still lives there , they will fight and the PPC will back down , if they have moved , then an easy default and in most cases money will follow from the "accused" in order to have it marked as satisfied.

there is currantly no UK legislation that states that the PPC must do checks , in fact legislation is in there favour 1: DVLA details within 14 days or between 28 (+1) and 56 2: court paper should be served to the last KNOWN address ,

why should they waste money searching?

UK legislation needs changing fast , but nothing will come of this , especially as now multiple £255 cheques are being posted to the courts

Fruitcake · 16 May 2017 at 2:48PM

stevecot1983 wrote: »

So I called CCBCC about one of the claims and the very helpful lady emailed me the following details:

So it looks like the incident took place in May 2012, I would have been at my previous address at this time but I did not receive any correspondence from the claimant, this could be because we had a shared mail box with the flat above us and they were forever taking all the post and then not giving it to us or if we were waiting for a parcel it would take weeks for us to get it from them. The court also advised that the N244 applications have to be separate especially as the CEL have used two different courts to raise their claims.

It took CEL over 3 years to raise a claim against me and when they did they did not check any public records to ensure I still lived at the property.

Assume that CEL never sent anything. Don't assume your neighbours took it.
In court CEL would have to prove the former. Don't suggest they might have sent it but it may have been taken once delivered. It won't hurt the keeper's case, but why let the scammers off the hook?

In May 2012, only the driver could be held liable, not the keeper. Focus on this and the fact that in 2015 the scammers have tried to retrospectively apply an act of parliament that did not actually exist at the time. So even if the scammers did send anything to the keeper, the driver and only the driver was liable.
There was no requirement in law for the keeper to respond to this.

steve1500 · 16 May 2017 at 3:33PM

pappa_golf wrote: »

but why bother?

there is currantly no UK legislation that states that the PPC must do checks , in fact legislation is in there favour 1: DVLA details within 14 days or between 28 (+1) and 56 2: court paper should be served to the last KNOWN address ,

why should they waste money searching?

UK legislation needs changing fast , but nothing will come of this , especially as now multiple £255 cheques are being posted to the courts

I would slightly disagree. The Data Protection Act requires that information must be both accurate & up to date. Be an interesting one to pass to the Information Commissioner - that could force them to double check

I am also very bemused by what is happening to all the Court Papers & the letters from the scammers, when someone has moved.

Surely they can't all be going in the bin, you would have thought / hoped a pretty high proportion are returned NK this address, especially if they are from the Court - I assume the letters from MCOL make it pretty clear what it is?

pappa_golf · 16 May 2017 at 3:56PM

an average day in CC land , look at all the set asides http://www.bmpa.eu/court.html

returned or binned , if no responce is receved within 14 days (I think) then a computer says DEFAULT <FULL STOP>

I would slightly disagree. The Data Protection Act requires that information must be both accurate & up to date. Be an interesting one to pass to the Information Commissioner - that could force them to double check

no UK law states that papers must be sent to the last KNOWN address

Civil Enforcement Ltd CCJ's

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free