ok will post in tomorrow thanks .

ahh oppps these are not mcol are they..forget that

no password on the claimform.

dx

On the [paper form there is a box for your defence. That would be it as a skeleton, you can add all of the detail when you have to exchange documents. CEL and DEAL dont exchange documents. they will fail to produce any evidence that can be challenged because they dont want to do court and then get done for purjury

Sorry I thought you meant on the other form ericsbrother, yes I will add that as well I will remove the bit about the solicitor, its the real one.

AOS posted once again thank you all for your help.

Shwartz isnt a real solicitor so leave that in, it is a fraudulent attempt to claim £50 that they arent allowed to claim and they know it, hence fraud rather than error.

But mine is spell correct M Schwartz and he is a real solicitor, but it my not have singed the Claim form , but how do we prove this.

M Schwartz and he is a real solicitor,

How do you know he's a real solicitor?

I can't find any record of him on the SRA register?

ITs on Parking Prankster http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/solicitors-regulatory-authority.html take a look.

How do you know he's a real solicitor?

 

I can't find any record of him on the SRA register?

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/54210/michael-david-schwartz

Although, one would question why a family, probate & criminal lawyer is bothering with PPC work.

Take notice of what I said, he is not a PRACTISING solicitor and therefore cannot sign off claim forms as such.

DEAL and CEL know this, that is why I say it is fraud.

I have sat in front of two judges on this matter and they are quite aware of what's going on so stop navel gazing and just put it on your defence.

You will get more threatening paperwork claiming hundreds more in costs but ignore,

they wont go into their evidence bundle because they know it is crooked.

.About 2 days before your hearing (if it gets that far) you will undoubtedly get a phone call from "Sarah"

who will offer to settle for a reduced sum of around £130

but the real reason for this is they dont want to go in front of a judge and possibly have to stay behind for a couple of weeks

. If they dont discontinue they just wont turn up.

ok EB, now I can see what you're saying.

But I'm still confused. This was a reply from the SRA in January of this year. (my bold)

Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a substantive update to your previous emails.

 

I can confirm that enquiries were ongoing to establish whether the “M. SHWARTS” noted on the court application documents is a solicitor or not as there are several qualified solicitors of the name ‘M Schwartz’ (and other slight variations of spelling) that could be employed or instructed by Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd. In the first instance the enquiries were to establish if the spelling on the claim forms is the correct spelling of the solicitor’s name or whether it is a misspelling that has been repeated by the use of a template document.

 

These enquiries were crucial as I need to establish whether this matter should be dealt with under the Solicitors Code of Conduct (if the individual is a solicitor) or whether the matter should be treated as a criminal investigation under Solicitors Act 1974 ss. 20-21 and s.24 or s.14 Legal Services Act 2007.

 

I can now confirm that I received a response from Civil Enforcement Ltd, the parent company of Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd, a short time ago today which confirmed that the solicitor in question is Michael SCHWARTZ, SRA id 118966. I can confirm that this person is a solicitor currently on the Roll of Solicitors of England & Wales and does hold a current Practising Certificate. Furthermore Civil Enforcement Ltd has informed me that they have written to the Court informing them that there was a spelling error on the claims documents issued by referring to the solicitor as “SHWARTS”.

 

As such I will be today referring the reports that the SRA has received regarding these issued claim forms to the Supervision team of the SRA to consider any breaches of the SRA Code of Conduct.

 

I hope that you find this update informative.

 

Your sincerely

 

 

Heather Gelder

Head of Intelligence

Fraud and Confidential Intelligence Bureau

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ok thanks ericsbrother will add it.

My defence so far, If anyone wants to add or you think I should change anything please post.

He is NOT a PRACTISING solicitor and therefore CEL cant claim money for his work. there are a number of dead people on the SRA roll because they paid up for the year so they are entitled to still be there but they cant actually do much business.

As for the defence,

point 1 rephrase as the company did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so there is no keeper liability.

scrub 4 5 and 6 as they are things that you have to demand from DEAL or CEL, according to which one is suing you.

Scrub point 7 and replace it with " the claim does not represent a schedule of loss nor genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered by any brach of conditions in place at the time"

Point 8 reword as there is no proof I was the driver -referring to point 1

lastly, anyone can issue proceddings so lose that statement and just leave it as mike Swartz is not a practising solicitor so the claim for his expenses are attempted fraud.

This is borne out in the judgement of the claim A84YP582 heard at Eastbourne County Court on the 2nd March 2015

Lastly lose your comments about Northampton County court as all online, bulk and business summonses come from there.

In essesnce a 3 line defence saying no contract between CEL and Co-op.,

no locus standi and

no assignment of any debt to DEAL from CoOP and

claim is attempted coercion rather than a genuine claim as it has no merit

and is purely designed to intimidate the defendant into paying up when there is no cause of action.

Thank you for the defence.

Ok I have changed my defence, does this look ok to use ericsbrother, thank for you help I am much better at claiming back bank charges and ppi then defending a parking charge.

That will do, it give them notice that they arent going to profit from this one and I would place bets on a discontinuance with a couple of days to go before the hearing. Keep an eye on the dates as you can get the clim struck off should they fail to pay the allocation fee in time. Beware that they get people to write to you or phone you and try and get you to give in or pay them a lesser amount. I would recommend tellng them to go screw themselves rather than saying anything else at all. The person who rings works for Creative rather than CEL or DEAL so again it shows that they are a bunch of crooks and dont care we know.

OK thanks for that,

I received a letter to day have a read,

I have just had an interesting conversation with the Co - Op regarding this letter.

Have to say they were very helpful.

They confirmed the letter was not from them and not signed by their solicitor.

So one can only presume this is fraud.

Not only that they have had a number of complaints and their legal team is now looking into these letters.

oops pressed too soon

Ha ha brilliant!

Can't wait to see them on Watchdog tomorrow night, this will be very interesting indeed!

OK thanks for that, I received a letter to day have a read, I have just had an interesting conversation with the Co - Op regarding this letter. Have to say they were very helpful. They confirmed the letter was not from them and not signed by their solicitor. So one can only presume this is fraud. Not only that they have had a number of complaints and their legal team is now looking into these letters.

If these letters really aren't from the Co-Op, then someone from CEL has been 'Creative' and is going to end up with egg on their face and their knackers nailed to the wall. I can't imagine that the Co-Op are going to sit on their hands over this, especially when one takes into account the stayed cases in Bristol against Co-Op staff.

Someone really might need to pack a toothbrush after all

that's about the third one of those letters exactly the same posted in threads here

oh this is looking good.

dx

So who does this "Chris Jones" actually work for , the CO-OP or CEL?