Came here to look for info for a friend and just read the other recent posts on DRP.

The parking charge date was 29th Jan 2014. Contested straight away at the time. DRP demanding pymnt and IMO to ignore, as if it got to court so many reasons they would lose.

So getting on for two years. I would ignore as well and any letters put in the postbox marked NKTA

DR+ are rentathreats and have no interest or say in anything. PE do issue claims but they are unlikely to if they have handed the matter over to DR+. It is likely that they have had their bums bitten at appeal or court for claims to do with that particular site so know their claim is defective..

Received a County Court Claim form, to expect particulars of claim in next 14 days.

The form seems like a photo copy as the Court stamp is not original ink.

Whatever this is for, it's been passed onto Civil Enforcement Ltd.

It doesn't say who the originator of the debt is or when the the problem occurred.

I'm only presuming it's for this but who knows as there is no specific date or place.

There is a claim num at County Court Bus Centre N'hampton so I will ring Mon and see what's going on

Whatever this is, it's at least 2.5 years ago as another date is stated so confusing at the mo.

Maybe when this whatever was passed to them?

Anyone heard of this lot Civil Enforcement Ltd?

Received a County Court Claim form, to expect particulars of claim in next 14 days. The form seems like a photo copy as the Court stamp is not original ink. Whatever this is for, it's been passed onto Civil Enforcement Ltd. It doesn't say who the originator of the debt is or when the the problem occurred. I'm only presuming it's for this but who knows as there is no specific date or place. There is a claim num at County Court Bus Centre N'hampton so I will ring Mon and see what's going on

 

 

 

Whatever this is, it's at least 2.5 years ago as another date is stated so confusing at the mo. Maybe when this whatever was passed to them?

 

 

Anyone heard of this lot Civil Enforcement Ltd?

This is not the same case as Parking Eye. Your title is wrong or this is a different ticket.

Search the Pranksters blog for information on the dodgy CEL;

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/civil-enforcement-limited-fail-to-show.html

This is not the same case as Parking Eye. Your title is wrong or this is a different ticket.

 

Search the Pranksters blog for information on the dodgy CEL;

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/civil-enforcement-limited-fail-to-show.html

Interesting, will have a look.

CEL are back in business having walked free from court on crimianl charges on a technicality.

Check with any court using the claim number.

If there isnt one then it is just a bluff

so you should complain to the MoJ about this fraudulent attempt to obtain monies by deception

and using a false instrument for pecuniary gain.

As for its contents, if it was real they would have the claim struck out if you make a correctly worded request to court.

I suspect that nothing else will happen as they send out about 10000 of these a year

and if 2500 people are mug enough to pay up that pays for all of the costs for those that dont and earns them a tidy sum to boot.

I contacted the Court and they are familiar with this company CEL. The Court does not have the details of the origin and I will keep an eye on the proceedings.

Is the claim number on th3e form a genuine one that is attributed to CEL suing you? If not complain to the MoJ and actionfraud

The claim number is genuine, main reason the Court was contacted.

then you need to tell us everything about how this came about,

where, when.

is the location near to you so you can photograph signs etc.

CEL will show the court false pictures of signage, copies of altered documents etc so we need to nail everything down.

For the moment all you need to do is acknowledge the claim saying that you intend to defend in full.

Your friend will then have a further fortnight to submit an outline defence

which will include a lack of authority

(CEL will often claim that the authority has been assigned to them but usually this cannot be true)

so no standing in law to make claims against anyone.

Right then, The claim needs to be acknowledged. Will be done. It's poss this was given at the time a temp parking area was set up, if so about 2 weeks after it was given, the site parking was closed and developers moved in. It's now been built on. The claim goes back to around mid Oct 2013.

Thanks again

Read the parking pranksters blog about CEL sudden flourish of activity

and get your AOS in with a bare bones defence

and a complaint about abuse of process with ther lack of a cause of action for their claim,

not following the CPR when a solicitor should know how to etc.

Also fire off a CPR 31.15 demand for sight of the contract between landowner

and CEL that assigns the right to enter into contracts with motorists

and to make claims in their own name.

Chances are they the contract is with Creative parking and they will claim that this has been assigned

or that they are a subsidiary. neither are true.

To preempt this ask for sight of the notice of assignment between the companies.

They will claim one isnt needed as CEL is part of the creative group,

another lie as CH records will show.

Print out the Companies House records of directors and links for both companies

and this will be clear for the judge to see when the time comes.

When it comes to signage CEL will produce a computer printout of what they say the signs said,

this will bear no relationship to the actual sign.

I read more of the blog and they sound like a nasty bunch of fleecers. The acknowledgement is now completed as you instruct and in the post tmrw.

Thanks again

Read the parking pranksters blog about CEL sudden flourish of activity and get your AOS in with a bare bones defence and a complaint about abuse of process with ther lack of a cause of action for their claim, not following the CPR when a solicitor should know how to etc. Also fire off a CPR 31.15 demand for sight of the contract between landowner and CEL that assigns the right to enter into contracts with motorists and to make claims in their own name. Chances are they the contract is with Creative parking and they will claim that this has been assigned or that they are a subsidiary. neither are true. To preempt this ask for sight of the notice of assignment between the companies. They will claim one isnt needed as CEL is part of the creative group, another lie as CH records will show. Print out the Companies House records of directors and links for both companies and this will be clear for the judge to see when the time comes.

When it comes to signage CEL will produce a computer printout of what they say the signs said, this will bear no relationship to the actual sign.

When the POC arrives from CEL, is the court process already going ahead or does the defendant get a time frame to reply to their POC and do they have to reply to that before they can continue with the court process?

Just advised Court has ackd defence. It states, if the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

The original court claim said POC would be received within 14 days. It's now day 20 and just arrived! Firing off a reply to CEL, may be a good idea to copy in the court so they are aware of the position.

No, CEL are dropping a massive bundle of these claims.

Just let it go quiet and then complain to the court about the lack of a cause for action

and ask for the matter to be struck out.

Dont contact CEL at all.

Also you can keep an eye on the clock as CEL will get timed out for continuing soon.

Again, a complaint to court saying they havent paid the allocation fee

and ask for a striking out of the claim at the appropriate time.

The courts are being abused by Ashley Cohen as he has no intention of sitting opposite you

and is using the judicial system as an alternative method of debt collection activity when there is no debt.

The more complaints received the sooner someone at the Moj will look into this abuse of process.

I'm confused now as I was following your post 13.

Can you explain a lack of a cause for action please as the POC explains the cause for action.

How do we know when the case is timed out?

How do we know they haven't paid the allocation fee, do we ask the court?

Did I read post 13 wrong where you say 'send a CPR 31.5 demand for sight of the contract between landowner and CEL....' Is that request to be sent to the court? I presumed it meant send to CEL.

Anyhow, I have a reply letter to CEL ready to send, copy to court which includes CPR 31.5 request.

Shall I still hold onto those letters or send?

you are behind the times so not worth sending the CPR to CEL if you havent alrerady. Read the parking Prankster'sblog on the latest CEL moves and you will find you are probably in the bundle that he is on about. Gte the complaints sent to court at the correct time.

As for the rest you have logged intot eh moneyclaimonline site and registered havent you? That will tell you the critical times.

No i'm not registered with moneyclaimonline. Anyway, update in post this morn. Notice of Proposed Allocation to Small Claims Track recvd. Small Claims Directions Questionnaire form N180 attached, to be completed by 29th Feb and file with court office and serve copies on all other parties.

There is the option to agree to the case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service. You ring them to register your interest. Probably an idea to call them and get their thoughts on this and whether it's appropriate going to mediation. Money negotiating with them is not negotiable!

I will read the blog again and get an update on the debacle.

Good news. Mediation not appropriate for me and my option was to go to small claims. Court changed to my nearest. Claimant didn't submit a response and was struck out. All happened in March.

standard course of action for CEL, they file these claims and 75% of the people pay up, including all of the ridiculous add ons they use that have no basis in law even if the claim was genuine. When someone defends they then fail to pay the allocation fee and walk away to save money as they know they will lose