Claim form received

Coupon-mad · 18 January 2017 at 12:37AM

Have you served your Witness Statement and evidence in time (the date was on the Notice of Allocation (NoA) letter you got that gave you the court hearing date).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5546325

What documents are you relying upon? e.g. :-

photos of the original signs, especially the unreadable 'Napier-special' 3000 word entrance sign, a copy of the Beavis case sign by way of comparison, copies of Orders where MIL cases were discontinued, copy of the DVLA KADOE contract your defence referred to because DVLA data cannot be sold on, a copy of the FOI that confirms that fact (linked & explained here):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5583743

... copies of the case law you have referred to, a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA if the driver was never identified to Napier in an earlier 'appeal', a copy of Henry Greenslade's words about keeper liability from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 ...

So, what's the date by which the NoA stated you had to exchange WS and evidence and are you within it/have you done it? What did you file and did you serve it to MIL and your court in time?

terry9999 · 29 January 2017 at 10:33PM

the evidence should have be delivered to MIL by the 17th Jan but unfortunately has not been sent. Is there a way around this? I will phone the DVLA tomorrow to obtain a copy of the DVLA KADOE contract. We do have pictures of the area parked in showing no lines or marked bays and also a birds eye view which shows the grassed area the car was parked on not looking like it was part of the car park.

Coupon-mad · 31 January 2017 at 12:20AM

terry9999 wrote: »

the evidence should have be delivered to MIL by the 17th Jan but unfortunately has not been sent. Is there a way around this? I will phone the DVLA tomorrow to obtain a copy of the DVLA KADOE contract. We do have pictures of the area parked in showing no lines or marked bays and also a birds eye view which shows the grassed area the car was parked on not looking like it was part of the car park.

For goodness' sake just draw up a witness statement and evidence and file it with the court and MIL late. There is an example of a MIL WS in Stuart Hamilton's thread, however his included DIFFERENT evidence about a residential car park which you can't use. You need to go with the fact that MIL have not properly assigned the 'debt' and couldn't lawfully have had the data from the DVLA transferred to them (those bits are in his WS).

Plus your evidence about the area parked in showing no lines or marked bays and also a birds eye view which shows the grassed area the car was parked on not looking like it was part of the car park. You need to understand this MIL one needs to say that MIL were not entitled to meddle in the case, they are a third party with no proper assignment, so read Stuart Hamilton's thread for the bits you can copy that make sense.

DO NOT DELAY IT ANY MORE. MIL HAVE MET THE DEADLINE AND YOU HAVEN'T, SO GET ON WITH IT.

SHOW US URGENTLY WHAT YOU ARE SENDING TO THE COURT AND MIL AS EVIDENCE, ALBEIT LATE, JUST GET ON WITH IT.

I will phone the DVLA tomorrow to obtain a copy of the DVLA KADOE contract.

You could Google that...this is urgent. The section in question (because MIL are not a sub-contractor or debt collector on behalf of the parking firm) is D5.1 as explained here in an interesting FOI that you should add to your evidence bundle, because the DVLA has confirmed that NO PPC has asked for permission to sell data to MIL:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/permission_to_disclose_data_to_m

Also include this one which confirms the DVLA decided to remind PPCs of this issue:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/permission_to_disclose_data_to_m#comment-73800

''DVLA will take the opportunity to remind the accredited trade associations for the private parking sector of the need for operators to seek permission from DVLA before transferring DVLA data to third parties in the absence of a sub contract.”

If your defence included this case law (I have not looked back at your defence, no time tonight) then shout and I will try to link you to it (not generally available):

Simpson -v- Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] AC 1149;
Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd -v- Credit Suisse SA (1982) AC 679 and
Giles -v- Thompson (1993) 1 AC 142

terry9999 · 2 February 2017 at 10:59PM

Hi Here is what I have prepared so far, thank you for your help.

I am ‘Name’ and I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

I will say as follows:
1. This Claim arises from an alleged breach of contract relating to a parking incident at Willon Lake where my vehicle was parked on an unmarked grassed area without any parking bays.

Exhibit A – This is a picture of the grassed area the car was parked on which shows the area does not have any marked bays showing this was part of the car park

Exhibit B - This is a birds eye view picture of the grassed area the car was parked on which looks outside of the normal car park area.

3. There is no comparable ‘legitimate interest’ as found at the Supreme Court in the complex and completely different (retail park) case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In the UKPC v Masterson case, DDJ Ellington also distinguished the case from Beavis: ‘‘I am unable to accept that the particular circumstances of this case reveal a contractual license to park with a contract between the parking manager, in this case UKPC, in the Supreme Court authority ParkingEye, and the vehicle owner or driver, in this case the defendant, and in the Supreme Court authority, Mr Beavis.''

4. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued by ‘Napier’ (NWF) a third party not in possession. The Claimant purports that Napier were the assignor or ‘seller’ of the alleged debt. It is denied that the alleged Assignor issued a Notice of Assignment and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. The barcode on the purported Assignment Notice matches that used by the Claimant themselves and the ‘assignment agreement’ mentioned is not filed in evidence at all. Nor does the evidence show any details or sum relating to this charge against this vehicle.

5. It is denied that an unconnected third party such as this Claimant can be lawfully authorised to purchase, store, process or otherwise use the data supplied by the DVLA under the KADOE contract to the PCN originator. Such data cannot be sold and a copy of the KADOE contract confirming this, will be brought to the hearing.

Exhibit C & D – These are letters from the DVLA stating they have not received any requests from Private Parking companies for permission to pass DVLA data to MIL collections and that the DVLA has reminded the accredited trade members to seek their approval before doing so.

6. The Claimant has a track record in County Court hearings on the relatively rare occasions where they make an appearance, of finding their claims dismissed by District Judges for reasons similar to those I have set out. It is an established fact in the public domain, that the Claimant issues hundreds of similar claims annually, and frequently discontinues cases when it becomes clear that the Defendant intends to contest the claim at a hearing. The Notices of Discontinuance are frequently filed at the last minute, and not served on Defendants in many cases. A representative selection of case number where this has happened are shown below:

7. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim as being without merit, and further, in the event that the Claimant should discontinue this Claim, to maintain the listed hearing date of 2nd 2017 as a costs hearing, in order that I can apply for a Costs Order against the Claimant.

terry9999 · 2 February 2017 at 11:00PM

Along with the pictures I will send the DVLA letter shown here: hxxps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/361030/response/883562/attach/html/2/FOIR5604%20R%20Bostock.pdf.html

and the following communication between the DVLA and Mr Bostock shown here: hxxps://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t109400.html

Coupon-mad · 3 February 2017 at 1:08AM

You can't 'show below' (in #6) MIL discontinuances unless you have them all lined up and printed off - e.g. you'd have to quickly gather some examples from the Parking Prankster's Blogs about MIL cases discontinued.

I would delete #6 as you need to get this & all evidence filed URGENTLY.

You could replace #6 with reference to the fact the DVLA has just this week been widely reported as admitting that parking firms have been 'selling' parking charges to MIL when they are not permitted to share data in this way (in evidence, append this Blog in full):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dvla-confirm-massive-data-protection.html

This could be better but for speed, but also have this (separate from your Witness Statement, head this below as 'SKELETON ARGUMENT' (both need heading up properly, ending with a statement of truth and signing - also set them out in Times New Roman font size 12, with 1.5 line spacing):

In the County Court at (name of your court)
Case No. CXXXXXXXX

In the Matter of:

MIL Collections Ltd Claimant

-v-

your name Defendant

_________________________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT

_________________________________

1. Based upon the scant details contained in the Particulars of Claim and the re-pleadings in their recent witness statement, it appears to be the Claimant’s case that:

a. A debt existed under contract and has been assigned to them.
b. Adequate notice of the assignment has been provided.
c. The Claimant informed me of their “intention to issue a summons”.

2. The driver has not been identified by this Claimant and they did not issue the PCN.

3. It seems that the sole grounds upon which they have issued proceedings against me is that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle and they allege they have ‘purchased a debt’.

4. Absent any true assignment, the Claimant has no cause of action and these proceedings have no basis whatsoever and are wholly unreasonable and vexatious; the purported assignment being a false instrument.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the notices issued and procedures followed fully complied with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) and that they are entitled to rely upon the keeper liability provisions. I submit that the Claimant has no case.

6. It is denied that:

a. Any ‘debt’ exists or existed
b. This purported debt was assigned at all
c. Any notice was provided of the purported assignment save for a deceptive letter produced by the Claimant themselves, intending that it be accepted as having originated from their alleged assignor
d. The alleged assignor had locus standi at the location on the date in question
e. Any signage relied upon comprised a contractual offer for an unmarked area
f. There was any contravention by the driver, in the absence of evidence
g. I am liable for the purported debt, as registered keeper of the vehicle
h. The Claimant has any evidence of the identity of the driver.
i. Any ‘administrative & collection fee’ of £50 was incurred or is due.
j. This Claimant has any rights as 'creditor' under the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4
k. This Claimant has any legal right to have 'purchased' my data and/or to process it under the strict rules of the KADOE (DVLA rules) or the Data Protection Act 1998.

7. Additionally it is submitted that the alleged debt purportedly assigned represents nothing more than a bare right to litigate and is therefore incapable of being assigned. Neither are MIL a 'sub-contractor' of the parking company.

8. It is my case that the Claimant had no prior interest in the underlying transaction whether by way of privity, civil wrong or tort and as it represents a bare chose in action, the Claimant’s case savours of maintenance.

9. Judges across the country have agreed with this view. Recent cases struck out by the courts include 22 Sept 2016 at Ipswich County Court, Case No: C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Mr X. In this case, DJ Spencer suggested that the witness statement supplied by this Claimant provided no evidence and could actually have been boiled down to a single sentence - "We bought some photographs". The judge also said "This is the problem with MIL, you buy all these supposed debts and rush them to court and can't even be bothered to provide remotely sufficient evidence as to why, in this instance, Mr X owes you hundreds of pounds."

The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed______________________

Dated __________________

Sign & date the WS and the skeleton argument, making sure MIL and the court get your signed version (not a blank unsigned version just bunged on an email).

As you have left this so very late and have missed your deadline you MUST get these printed out, signed, dated and emailed to MIL tomorrow with all evidence, and then a printed full set in a neat ring-binder/file, delivered by hand to the court before they close tomorrow (don't miss another week over-thinking it).

terry9999 · 3 February 2017 at 7:58AM

ok thanks for your help and patience, if Im unable to ring bind it will this be a problem?

Coupon-mad · 3 February 2017 at 9:58AM

I would put it in a file of some description; you need it as readable as possible for the Judge, with the exhibits numbered at the back even if just treasury-tagged (not paper clipped, that's messy IMHO...!

terry9999 · 3 February 2017 at 10:47PM

ive got all the documents ready, one final question what date should I put on the witness statement and skeleton argument?

Loadsofchildren123 · 3 February 2017 at 11:43PM

i thought my court documents didnt look genuine as well but they were

Claim form received

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free