Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • RustyRascal
    • By RustyRascal 10th Nov 17, 1:58 PM
    • 62Posts
    • 69Thanks
    RustyRascal
    Civil Enforcement Limited - Lying about dates
    • #1
    • 10th Nov 17, 1:58 PM
    Civil Enforcement Limited - Lying about dates 10th Nov 17 at 1:58 PM
    Good afternoon all,

    I have started fighting a case against CEL which feels to be in a good place, so I wanted to share something I found out this morning that could help put some nails in the coffins of the open cases of the unscrupulous bs-trds.

    Having read through a number of posts on this and other forums around, I have noticed there is a common theme whereby CEL are sending out bulk particulars of claim, poorly mail merged, and in a large number of cases, not bothering to file an N215 (certificate of claim) which advises the court that they have sent their PoC! (If you are unsure whether or not the court has received your N215, call them (03001231056) with your claim number and just ask the question!)

    To add insult to injury, they have the audacity to BACKDATE the Particulars of Claim documents (a lot of them were apparently sent on the 11th October!) so it implies to the court they stuck to the rules! (CPR 7.4)

    This has NOT gone unnoticed, and following my conversation with helpdesk manager Amanda, there are a few complaints that have already been raised with the Customer Insight Team who are going to start official talks with CEL which will no doubt help defendants with their open cases. What she has requested is that I send through my case for her attention and she will forward it on.

    If you have received a backdated PoC, still have your envelope, or can prove otherwise that the forms were received outside of the 14 days they are allowed then the court wants to hear from you so they can share this information with the Customer Insight Team who are building a file for CEL.

    Where we may require some assistance is in forming a statement to send to Amanda for her to forward on. I was hoping that someone here could give us all a bit of template text that could help deliver a nice, powerful punch?

    Thanks upfront,

    RR
    Last edited by RustyRascal; 10-11-2017 at 2:06 PM.
Page 6
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Dec 17, 2:37 PM
    • 2,058 Posts
    • 3,447 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Just be sanguine about it (as you are being). Your worst case is you lose and pay what they are seeking. You haven't lost anything. Nobody's died as a result. You won't get a CCJ registered against you if you pay up in time (I think it's 28 days).
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • RustyRascal
    • By RustyRascal 4th Dec 17, 2:42 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    RustyRascal
    Just be sanguine about it (as you are being). Your worst case is you lose and pay what they are seeking. You haven't lost anything. Nobody's died as a result. You won't get a CCJ registered against you if you pay up in time (I think it's 28 days).
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Sanguine is a great word

    I am definitely feeling positive, regardless of outcome...and in the process i will do anything i can to soil the CEL name with regards their shambolic practices!

    Onwards and upwards!
    • Confidentality
    • By Confidentality 8th Dec 17, 4:22 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Confidentality
    I've sent a complaint off to her.
    Particulars were dated 11/10/2017
    Sent to me 23/10 and received 25/10
    No defence forms enclosed as required by 7.8?

    Unfortunately for me I got a Judgement in Default against me as CEL had filed duplicate proceedings against me. I did the AoS on the wrong D number not realising there were duplicate Claims issued.

    I have asked in my Email to Amanda for a copy of the Certificate of Service provided by CEL in the proceedings against me which resulted in the Judgement in default. I'd like to know if the details provided were false.

    As for the other claim (issued first in time) as I had filed online AoS on that Claim reference those proceedings are live and another Judgement in Default can be made at any time (according to the unhelpful court staff).

    The implications for me are that I have to Appeal the Judgement in Default for the duplicate proceedings whilst also defend the other Claim (laid first in time). Despite making the court aware of the position they will not intervene and assist me resolved this - hence my post elsewhere on this forum.

    I urge everyone who receives a Claim Form from CEL to keep checking the Claim reference on all documents to ensure the same situation hasn't happened to them. It's a nightmare to try and sort out!
    • RustyRascal
    • By RustyRascal 29th Jan 18, 10:33 AM
    • 62 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    RustyRascal
    Morning all,

    This morning i received a notice of discontinuance from the court! It looks like they have decided their claim is baseless as well!!!

    I want to hit them for my costs. Is there a good template for this? I saw one knocking about a while back, but if someone could give me a signpost there i would really appreciate that!

    Thank you all for your help getting me to this point! Sounds like they are crumbling under the weight of the defence's being drawn up off the the likes of you lot!

    Onwards and upwards!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Jan 18, 10:56 AM
    • 17,579 Posts
    • 27,800 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I want to hit them for my costs. Is there a good template for this? I saw one knocking about a while back, but if someone could give me a signpost there i would really appreciate that!
    NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, one drafted by (and used by others successfully a number of times) Loadsofchildren123.

    Good result, thanks for update. Keep us informed too on how your costs claim goes please.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jan 18, 8:02 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,054 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Morning all,

    This morning i received a notice of discontinuance from the court! It looks like they have decided their claim is baseless as well!!!

    I want to hit them for my costs. Is there a good template for this? I saw one knocking about a while back, but if someone could give me a signpost there i would really appreciate that!

    Thank you all for your help getting me to this point! Sounds like they are crumbling under the weight of the defence's being drawn up off the the likes of you lot!

    Onwards and upwards!
    Originally posted by RustyRascal
    Well done!

    Same advice as all the other threads the same this week - search the forum for 'discontinuance'.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RustyRascal
    • By RustyRascal 30th Jan 18, 9:11 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    RustyRascal
    I have drafted the following....there will 100% need to be a lot of tweaking here, but it is based on LOC's template...Please advise!!

    Dear Sir or Madam:

    I am writing to you as the defendant in the above case. I have received an email of discontinuance from yourselves as requested by Civil Enforcement Limited.

    I have been acting as litigant in person fighting a speculative claim from a serial commercial pursuant. I understand that the general costs rule in Small Claims: no costs order. However:
    a) CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g): costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably
    b) Paragraph 16 of Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct: a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.
    Defendant (“D”) says both apply and seeks a costs order against Claimant (“C”).

    I would request you consider a request for me to claim unreasonable costs from Civil Enforcement for their unreasonable behaviour throughout this process as per points mentioned above.

    Breaches of Pre-action Practice Directions (“the PD”):

    1. Paras 3, 8 and 12 of the PD set out its purpose, which is to primarily to avoid litigation (para 8) by laying down a procedure which allows the parties to:
    1.1. understand each other’s positions (para 3)
    1.2. make decisions about how to proceed (para 3)
    1.3. explore settlement/consider ADR (para 3)
    1.4. support the “efficient management” of any proceedings and reduce costs (para 3)
    1.5. “stocktake” and review their respective positions after following the PD by exchanging information, to see if proceedings can be avoided and to “at least” narrow the issues (para 12).

    2. Paras 6(a) & (c) oblige a C to enter into a meaningful dialogue with a D at an early stage by imposing specific obligations to:
    2.1. explain the claim in a LBC,
    2.2. provide relevant core documents, and
    2.3. answer any questions asked by D in sufficient detail for D to understand and respond

    3. Letter Before Claim was a blatant breach of para 6: no explanation of what the claim was for (eg breach of contract, trespass and so on) and referred to/included no documents. Examples of core documents/information which the Claimant should and could have provided are:
    3.1. claim was for a breach of contract,
    3.2. claim was pursued against D as driver
    3.3. a copy of the landowner contract demonstrating the C has the right to issue PCNs on the land,
    3.4. a copy of the signage and an explanation that this set out the terms of the contract, details of where the signage was displayed, how big the signs were and so on,
    3.5. how the contract had been entered into and how it had been breached,
    3.6. photographs showing the car parked
    3.7. plan/photograph showing where the car was parked and where the signs were situated.
    This information has never been provided, even when requested directly.

    4. D invited C to rectify its breaches in a letter dated November 8th 2017, asked various questions about the claim and requested documents. Those invitations/requests were ignored completely [or C refused to answer them]. Even now, at the final hearing, the Claimant has still not produced any of the relevant, core documentation and information which it must have in its possession.

    5. C deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the claim form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4 (1)(b).

    5.1. The Claim form was issued on 2nd October, stating that the detailed Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form. The Claim Form was therefore served on 7 October (5 days later, as set out in paragraph 5.7 of Practice Direction 7E which relates solely to MCOL claims). This means that the Particulars of Claim should have been served on or by 23 October (since 21/22 were a Saturday/Sunday). This would mean that they should have been posted by Friday 20 October. 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).
    5.2. The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were delivered by Royal Mail on Tuesday 24 October, however they were dated, and accompanied by a letter dated, 11 October 2017. The only plausible reason for C having backdated Particulars of Claim, is to try to gain an advantage by making D have to rush to file a defence prematurely.

    6. C’s conduct has denied D the opportunities under CPR 2.1-5: no pre-action dialogue at all and no response to the D’s attempt to narrow the issues. In fact, until C served its WS on [x date], D had no idea of the cause of action being pursued or the evidence being relied upon, which resulted in him/her having to defend the Claim on all fronts.

    7. Para 13-16 sanctions: compliance with the PD is not voluntary, nor is it a “guide” to best practice. It is part of the CPR and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it. The court may punish those who do not. Inter alia, the court’s powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)) and the power to remit (or increase) interest 16(c)/(d). Such sanctions can apply even against a successful party (paragraph 16).

    8. The PD’s aim is to create an opportunity to resolve matters (or at least narrow issues) in the “lower cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure”, rather than the “higher cost atmosphere of court proceedings” (as it was referred to in Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855).

    9. D relies on the following case law:

    9.1. Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch);
    Successful C failed to recover costs and ordered to pay D’s. Judgment reiterated that the aim of the pre-action requirements was to enable an early exchange of information so that a potential claim could be fully investigated and, if possible, resolved without the need for costly litigation. It clearly demonstrates that litigation should be a last resort, not pursued as a matter of course as C has done in this case.

    9.2. Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872;
    Punitive costs order against C for failing to comply with the PD.
    Paragraph 11: “It is abundantly clear to me that….. this is not a series of allegations that had been properly or thoroughly investigated until…. “ after proceedings had been issued.
    Paragraph 14: “The pre-action protocol provides that there should be a claim letter with a clear summary of the facts on which each claim is based”, and “the object of the protocol is… to get people to put their cards on the table and to honestly and rationally discuss matters. To that end meetings are provided for, and there is a requirement… which prescribes that there should be a rational and sensible response… the protocol provides the framework for a sensible discussion, or the chance for a sensible discussion so that the option is available to a party to avoid the need for litigation.”

    9.3. Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855;
    D awarded costs because of C’s failure to comply with the PD. Judgment reiterates the purpose of the pre-action obligations is for parties to make a real attempt to resolve matters at an early stage.
    Paragraph 46: punitive costs order was justified by the “exchange of information taking place, not in the lower-cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure, but in the higher-cost atmosphere of court proceedings “

    Post-action conduct:

    10. C’s unreasonable conduct extends beyond the pre-action phase and has continued during these proceedings - no attempt to answer the Defendant’s reasonable requests for information and documents; its Particulars of Claim were incoherent and incomprehensible.

    11. C’s continual use of incorrect address for D

    11.1.1. On October 6th, D wrote to Civil Enforcement Limited to raise concerns that they were corresponding to an old address. This request was ignored showing a blatant disregard for the IPC code of practice for carrying out strict due diligence. [IPC code of practice (Page 33, final paragraph)]; Before issuing court proceedings on any unpaid parking charge which is over 12 months old, the operator must first perform a suitable check of the defendant’s last known address.

    Summary:

    12. C appears to believe it is immune from steps which each party to litigation is expected and required to take both prior to proceedings being issued, and afterwards. Its attitude to its obligations under the PD, and under the CPR, to the court process and the rules of natural justice, is contemptuous and cannot go unnoticed and unpunished.

    13. C’s conduct, both pre- and post-action, has denied D the opportunity to understand and deal with the claim: he has been unable properly to assess the strength of the claim at an early stage (and likewise C has denied itself the opportunity to assess the strength of the defence), to put his/her own case to the Claimant and for each party to have entered into dialogue and/or attempted to narrow the issues between them (let alone agree a compromise).

    14. C dogged determination to proceed to court regardless of whatever D has to say has resulted in a significant waste of time, costs and court resources. D has had to produce a lengthy witness statement, a lengthy Defence and a lengthy Skeleton Argument/Case Summary accompanied by a large amount of legislation and case law.

    15. C has no excuse: it has been represented by solicitors who are known to deal [almost] exclusively with these types of claims and who are professionally bound to know the law and comply with relevant obligations/procedures.

    16. In considering the reasonableness of C’s conduct the court should take into account its position as a professional parking company whose day to day business is issuing PCNs and pursuing motorists for payment. It is therefore a seasoned litigant which should be fully conversant with the court rules and its obligations. Additionally, C is specifically bound by its CoP (compliance with which is mandatory) to know the relevant legislation which binds it as a parking company [insert relevant para of CoP – in BPA code it’s para A2.4]. In comparison, D is a litigant in person, an ordinary person with no experience of the court (yet has managed to comply with all of his/her obligations and the court rules).

    17. D submits that paras 22-3 result in C having a higher duty to behave reasonably.

    18. This case falls comfortably within the category of those in which the court should exercise its powers under R27.14(2)(g) and/or para 16 of the PD. A summary costs order should be made against the Claimant on the indemnity basis and a costs schedule is attached.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Jan 18, 11:23 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,054 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks OK, as long as you change the acronyms (D, C and PD, for example) to the full words.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RustyRascal
    • By RustyRascal 31st Jan 18, 9:22 AM
    • 62 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    RustyRascal
    Ok that was something I was unsure about but will change now
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 31st Jan 18, 10:24 AM
    • 2,058 Posts
    • 3,447 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    look at peperlini's thread.
    She wrote a covering letter and did the legal arguments in a separate document. I think this is a neater way of doing it, rather than writing a long letter.
    then you write the letter in the first person, and the arguments in the third person, referring to the parties as Defendant, Claimant etc.
    OK to abbreviate Practice Direction to PD, but you need to refer to the abbreviation (so the first time it's mentioned, you put after it in brackets (referred to below as the "PD").
    Remember to check for factual differences. You might also put in a sentence to make it clear as the claim was issued on 2 October, technically the new Protocol for Debt Claims applied (it came into force on 1 October), but you acknowledge that the majority of the pre-action phase was governed by the PD and not the new Protocol.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 31st Jan 18, 3:35 PM
    • 2,058 Posts
    • 3,447 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5670502
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • RustyRascal
    • By RustyRascal 31st Jan 18, 4:40 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    RustyRascal
    Amazing, thank you!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

316Posts Today

3,841Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin