Notice of Proposed Allocation

starnold444 wrote: »

Thanks.

Can you share a link to a draft letter to send alongside my DQ?

They have responded to my email to say

Good Afternoon

Please do not use this email address for court correspondence as it is not manned daily. Please forward your email to the correct email address: [EMAIL="ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk"]ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Regards

CCBC/MCOL/TEC/CAPS Helpdesk Manager
CCBC Northampton

starnold444 wrote: »

I have adapted mine slightly does this look good?

---

Dear Sir/Madam,


I am submitting a completed Directions Questionnaire N180 with regard to Claim Form XXXXXXXX. I am including this note to bring to the Court’s attention some facts about the way that this claim is being handled by the claimant (Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL)).

Late Service of Particulars of Claim!
The Claim form was issued on 11th October 2017. It gave virtually no indication of what the claim related to; instead stating that further Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form.


The Claim Form was therefore served on 16th October 2017 (5 days later, as set out in paragraph 5.7 of Practice Direction 7E which relates solely to MCOL claims). This means that the separate Particulars of Claim should have been served on or by 30th October 2017. This would require that they be posted by Friday 27th October 2017. The time limits for service are clearly set out in Rules 6.3(b) and 6.20(b), and the requirement to serve separate Particulars within 14 days is contained in Rule 7.4(1)(b).

The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were actually sent on 1st November 2017. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on the 3rd November 2017. However both PoC and the covering letter were backdated to the 11th October 2017. I enclose a copy of the envelope which shows that the PoC were posted on 1 November, and a copy of the backdated covering letter can provide evidence if necessary to corroborate these dates.

Given the fact that the separate PoC , covering letter , and Schedule of Information [Note: the schedule of information is the only bit which isn't a template - this is the point, they produce the same PoC in every case, but append a different schedule to it] appear to have been generated automatically from a standard template (presumably on 11th!October 2017) rather than being crafted by hand, I do not believe there can have been any valid reason for CEL’s delay in providing them to me.The only reason that I can think of for CEL having delayed providing its further Particulars of Claim is to try to gain a tactical advantage by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely, which I did.

I didn't realise at the time that I received the Claim Form, that under Rule 9 and 10.3(1)(a) I should not have returned my AoS until after the further PoC were served, nor should I have filed my Defence until I had sight of the CEL’s full Particulars of Claim. My Defence was served on 18th October, while the PoC was not served until 3rd November (4 days later than the latest that they should have been served according to rule 7.4(1)(b)).



The reason that I filed my AoS and Defence earlier than I needed to was because MCOL sent me the response/defence pack with the Claim Form, whereas I believe it shouldn't have been provided to me until the further PoC were served (rule 7.8(1)(a). The response/defence pack informed me that I had!14 days to respond which was rather misleading and led me to believe I had to acknowledge and defend with more urgency than was necessary. I understand that this is a failing of MCOL, but I believe that CEL were aware of this and have adopted their late service of PoC to gain an unfair advantage over me.

My understanding of the rules is that the Claimant may not file the Particulars late, and the sanctions under Rule 3.8 apply unless they apply for relief under Rule 3.9 (which, to my knowledge, CEL has not done). Consequently, the court should not allow the further Particulars of Claim unless and until CEL makes that application, or the court should give directions as to how CEL's breach of the rules should be remedied.
If the court decides to allow the late-submitted PoC, I would ask for the opportunity to take 14 more days to consider them and possibly revise my defence to address points not evident from the claim form.

Failure to comply with pre-court protocol
CEL has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevented a full defence being filed, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract or details of how it is claimed the driver breached its terms has never been provided to me.!

The limited information that CEL did provide to me eventually did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs, nor a copy of the “Letter before County Court Claim” that was supposed to have been sent to me (I have no record of having received this). I understand that these should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct.!This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim properly or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction.

In Summary
I have set out in this letter CEL’s failures to comply with the CPR. Its failure to comply with the rules put me, an ordinary Litigant in Person, at a significant disadvantage. Examples of the prejudice caused to me are that I have been given no opportunity to consider the basis, or the strength, of the claim, and my defence to it, and no opportunity to engage in discussions with the Claimant with a view to reaching agreement or at least narrowing the issues, and the late service of the Particulars of Claim caused me to file an early defence, before I had sight of the Particulars.!

Given CEL's multiple breaches of the CPR, I ask the court to give consideration, under its inherent case management powers, to strike out the claim. The court's powers to do so are contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.!

If the court is not minded to make an order of its own volition, then the court has the power to treat this letter as an application rather than asking me to issue a Notice of Application – the power to do this is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) which provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice.
The court’s powers to strike out a claim are contained in CPR Rule 3.4 and the “test” is if:
(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or
(b) the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process; or
(c) there has been a failure to comply with a Rule, Practice Direction or Order.

CEL is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules. These sorts of blatant, and from my researches, routine breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person, who are not well versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas a commercial Claimant such as CEL has no such excuse.

I did give consideration as to whether to bring these points to the courts attention at all, as I believe the original defence I have submitted (despite not having sight of the PoC) is a strong one and one that I am confident will succeed on its own merits.!The way that CEL has behaved from the very beginning of this matter though has convinced me that I should write this letter.!

XXXXXXXX (defendant)