[Guest_freelander2_*]

Source: http://www.derbyshir...eites-1-8107190

Before the spokesman issued the statement to the Derbyshire Times, it might have been in their interests to research the process of issuing a County Court Judgment. Let's be clear how these things work:

1) The claimant will have usually pursued the debt over a number of weeks and months.

2) The claimant will have written to the defendant, giving them 7 days notice of legal proceedings.

3) The claimant then files their case, usually with moneyclaim.gov.uk. The court normally issues the claim within 2 days.

4) The court will then send out a claim form to the defendant and allow a further 5 days from the date of issue (date of service).

5) The defendant has 14 days from the date of service to file a response.

6) The defendant has many options including full defence, counterclaim, part admission, paid defence, full admission, no response or payment.

7) Once a judgment has been entered, the defendant is sent a copy of the order. The order will tell the defendant how much to pay, when to pay it and where to send the payments.

8) If the defendant makes full payment within 30 days of the judgment, the CCJ notice will be erased from the register. If the CCJ is not paid within 30 days, it will generally sit on the defendant’s credit file for a period of 6 years.

Clearly there was ample time before judgment was passed for the club to point out to the Court that the debt was not related to Chesterfield Football Club.

Just how long is this going to go on for? The decisions and actions of those whose job it is to safeguard the club’s reputation continues to have the opposite effect. In fact, the unwillingness to address the ongoing deficiencies in the club’s structure fuels speculation and suspicion. This is yet another perfect example of Chesterfield Football Club, its staff, sponsors and supporters being badly let down.

It is now starting to get embarrassing. For as long as I have been a supporter, with the exception of the 2000/01 season, CFC had an excellent reputation for being a well-run, professional club. Given our new stadium and the facilities at our disposal, you really do have to wonder what the heck is happening to the club that we support. More to the point, you have to question why action has not been taken.

If this was happening over at Mansfield, it would be highly amusing, sadly though it is happening right under our noses.

[hilly81]

What a shambles.

[Somerset Spireite]

freelander2, on 06 September 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Source: http://www.derbyshir...eites-1-8107190

Before the spokesman issued the statement to the Derbyshire Times, it might have been in their interests to research the process of issuing a County Court Judgment. Let's be clear how these things work:

1) The claimant will have usually pursued the debt over a number of weeks and months.

2) The claimant will have written to the defendant, giving them 7 days notice of legal proceedings.

3) The claimant then files their case, usually with moneyclaim.gov.uk. The court normally issues the claim within 2 days.

4) The court will then send out a claim form to the defendant and allow a further 5 days from the date of issue (date of service).

5) The defendant has 14 days from the date of service to file a response.

6) The defendant has many options including full defence, counterclaim, part admission, paid defence, full admission, no response or payment.

7) Once a judgment has been entered, the defendant is sent a copy of the order. The order will tell the defendant how much to pay, when to pay it and where to send the payments.

8) If the defendant makes full payment within 30 days of the judgment, the CCJ notice will be erased from the register. If the CCJ is not paid within 30 days, it will generally sit on the defendant’s credit file for a period of 6 years.

Clearly there was ample time before judgment was passed for the club to point out to the Court that the debt was not related to Chesterfield Football Club.

Just how long is this going to go on for? The decisions and actions of those whose job it is to safeguard the club’s reputation continues to have the opposite effect. In fact, the unwillingness to address the ongoing deficiencies in the club’s structure fuels speculation and suspicion. This is yet another perfect example of Chesterfield Football Club, its staff, sponsors and supporters being badly let down.

It is now starting to get embarrassing. For as long as I have been a supporter, with the exception of the 2000/01 season, CFC had an excellent reputation for being a well-run, professional club. Given our new stadium and the facilities at our disposal, you really do have to wonder what the heck is happening to the club that we support. More to the point, you have to question why action has not been taken.

If this was happening over at Mansfield, it would be highly amusing, sadly though it is happening right under our noses.

Thanks for the excellent summary.

Nice to see we're playing the tried and tested "it's not us and everyone's been paid anyway" card.

It's just embarrassing now really.

[Benno Spire]

After yet another embarrassing situation in the public eye its now time for the club to address this at the top. You have to ask the question just what is the CEO doing in running this business. Long after he has gone it will take time to heal the deep wounds he has caused. For the sake of the club and its fans its time for CT to go

[starsky72]

To claim "we were unaware" is laughable...

[Sammy Spireite]

I'm absolutely flabbergasted!

[BlueRover52]

Yet another reason for people to distance themselves from the Proact.

[Cartman]

simply saying 'we weren't aware' doesn't seem good enough

if the paperwork was addressed to CFC they should have seen it

If it was addressed to the PPPs business place but marked for CFC then there may be a case for CFC claiming not to know about it - big if though

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

freelander2, on 06 September 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

Source: http://www.derbyshir...eites-1-8107190

Before the spokesman issued the statement to the Derbyshire Times, it might have been in their interests to research the process of issuing a County Court Judgment. Let's be clear how these things work:

1) The claimant will have usually pursued the debt over a number of weeks and months.

2) The claimant will have written to the defendant, giving them 7 days notice of legal proceedings.

3) The claimant then files their case, usually with moneyclaim.gov.uk. The court normally issues the claim within 2 days.

4) The court will then send out a claim form to the defendant and allow a further 5 days from the date of issue (date of service).

5) The defendant has 14 days from the date of service to file a response.

6) The defendant has many options including full defence, counterclaim, part admission, paid defence, full admission, no response or payment.

7) Once a judgment has been entered, the defendant is sent a copy of the order. The order will tell the defendant how much to pay, when to pay it and where to send the payments.

8) If the defendant makes full payment within 30 days of the judgment, the CCJ notice will be erased from the register. If the CCJ is not paid within 30 days, it will generally sit on the defendant’s credit file for a period of 6 years.

Clearly there was ample time before judgment was passed for the club to point out to the Court that the debt was not related to Chesterfield Football Club.

Just how long is this going to go on for? The decisions and actions of those whose job it is to safeguard the club’s reputation continues to have the opposite effect. In fact, the unwillingness to address the ongoing deficiencies in the club’s structure fuels speculation and suspicion. This is yet another perfect example of Chesterfield Football Club, its staff, sponsors and supporters being badly let down.

It is now starting to get embarrassing. For as long as I have been a supporter, with the exception of the 2000/01 season, CFC had an excellent reputation for being a well-run, professional club. Given our new stadium and the facilities at our disposal, you really do have to wonder what the heck is happening to the club that we support. More to the point, you have to question why action has not been taken.

If this was happening over at Mansfield, it would be highly amusing, sadly though it is happening right under our noses.

It's like an episode of "if you don't pay we'll take it away". We don't know anything about it gov honest, we haven't had any letters lol

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Cartman, on 06 September 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

simply saying 'we weren't aware' doesn't seem good enough

if the paperwork was addressed to CFC they should have seen it

If it was addressed to the PPPs business place but marked for CFC then there may be a case for CFC claiming not to know about it - big if though

If the paperwork was addressed to the club then Turner should have dealt with it
If the paperwork was address to the PPP then Turner should have dealt with it

Spending half my time dealing with court paperwork and serving it, I can assure you that nobody goes to court without numerous warnings and opportunities to pay

The problem here appears to be the inextricable link between the club, the ppp and the CEO.

[Sammy Spireite]

I'm told this is a genuine mix up and the debt was allocated to the club in error, partly caused by the company in question closing their Chesterfield branch and wrongly associating the club with the PPP (who'd have thought that possible, eh??).

I am also told the CCJ will be removed from the club very shortly.

Still doesn't explain why it wasn't headed off way before now, though.

We'll see!

This post has been edited by Sammy Spireite: 06 September 2016 - 12:03 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

Does Allen tolerate this level of incompetence at his other businesses?

[Mrhappy]

This serves the club right for its continuous flirting with the PPP. I've kept quiet recently for a few reasons:

1) my son's birthday party at the Proact gave me reason to believe things could change for the better, after amazing customer service.

2) After messaging John Croot regarding my concerns about the club I was invited in for a chat.

3) Being contacted by a well respected employee of the club to listen to my concerns, and to offer further amazing customer service to my son's.

Well sadly, for whatever reason John Croot didn't finalise our meet-up details, as a consequence it never took place. And whilst the party in the legends lounge was excellent, and the efforts of the well respected employee are admirable, the scandals continue to emanate from the club.

It seems whatever the efforts of the good people at the club, they are consistently undermined by the farce that is the PPP and Mr Turner and Sutcliffe. I stated that Sutcliffe would be bad for the club and it would end in tears. That was after a couple of meetings with him in the early days and numerous chats with others who had dealt with him.

In my opinion whilstever Turner and Sutcliffe remain, the club will be unable to repair its connection with the fans and wider community.

[Westbars Spireite]

Your last sentence sums it up. Partly why I'm not interested in meeting with or listening to anything Turner has to say. He is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Mr Mercury]

But why would it be billed to the club in the first place? If indeed it was. We are forever being told that the club doesn't financially support the PPP so why the mistake?
Maybe the supplier was unaware of the different entities so mistakenly billed the club rather than the organisation who placed the order? In which case the error should have been pointed out right away.
Or maybe even though the order was for the PPP it was placed by the club so the supplier expected the club to pay?
Or maybe the PPP placed the order but told the supplier the club would pay?
Or maybe the supplier had done business with the PPP before and the club had paid?
Or maybe something else entirely? I've absolutely no idea but connection between the club and the PPP seems more entangled than ever.
Like most im no longer surprised at what revelations keep coming out.
It's a total shambles.

[Andy Spireite]

Mr Mercury, on 06 September 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

But why would it be billed to the club in the first place? If indeed it was. We are forever being told that the club doesn't financially support the PPP so why the mistake?
Maybe the supplier was unaware of the different entities so mistakenly billed the club rather than the organisation who placed the order? In which case the error should have been pointed out right away.
Or maybe even though the order was for the PPP it was placed by the club so the supplier expected the club to pay?
Or maybe the PPP placed the order but told the supplier the club would pay?
Or maybe the supplier had done business with the PPP before and the club had paid?
Or maybe something else entirely? I've absolutely no idea but connection between the club and the PPP seems more entangled than ever.
Like most im no longer surprised at what revelations keep coming out.
It's a total shambles.

This pretty much sums up the Club at the minute.

[Sammy Spireite]

Mr Mercury, on 06 September 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

Maybe the supplier was unaware of the different entities so mistakenly billed the club rather than the organisation who placed the order? In which case the error should have been pointed out right away.

I'd be very confident that this was the case.

I'd also suggest that even though we knew of the error, we didn't pursue it until it was too late!

[azul]

Is this the new issue that has been holding up this much talked about meeting?

[Zorro]

azul, on 06 September 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

Is this the new issue that has been holding up this much talked about meeting?

No azul, this has no bearing on the hold up.

What does my head in over this was why it wasn't picked up by the club, why didn't somebody at the PPP point this out to the club and why didn't somebody on here at least point it out to the club or at least a director for investigation rather than it going the full distance.

Z

[Heart of a Niven]

I think it's safe to say we're being lied to by the Gang of Three.