Mil Collections - Letter Before action

spook104 · 17 October 2016 at 9:42PM

Hello - I'm after a little help with the following. I've done plenty of reading and searching but I just want to get all my ducks in a row and wanted to clarify just a couple of points.

I received a letter on the 15th October with the header Debt Sold under Agreement of Assignment the letter implied it was from the PPC but that company is based in Sussex. The return address stamped to the back of the envelope was Truro. Basically Mil have sent me a letter claiming to be from the PPC

Q1: Legally doesn't the notification have to be sent by the PPC, and signed by the assignor? As it wasn't can Mil even proceed at this point?

I then received a letter on the 17th October with the header Debt Purchased: Letter before Action

Its my understanding that this letter is the start of PD ("Practice Direction") and as such should contain a raft of information. Had it of done so, I would then respond detailing why I don't believe I owe the debt and why I don't believe they are in a position to pursue me for the debt. Along with the other parts set out in Para 3 of PD.

Q2: As they have not included any such information, my response should be that, as they have not done so and before I can respond and fulfill my obligations under Para 3 of PD I need them to firstly do theirs. Is that correct?

Marktheshark · 17 October 2016 at 9:50PM

Who signed the letter, in what capacity are they claiming to act.
It should be a registered solicitor.
If not contact the SRA and report them for operating outside the Legal services act.

If they are claiming to have purchased a debt, then a standard CCA request should be made by registered post.

spook104 · 17 October 2016 at 10:37PM

Thanks for the reply

Neither letter is actually signed, first letter from a person in the Accounts department. The second letter is a person in the litigation department.

Sorry not following the abbreviation. CCA?

Marktheshark · 17 October 2016 at 10:47PM

Forward the second letter to the complaints department at the solicitors regulation Authority asking why this company are acting in litigation on behalf of a client in contravention of the legal services act.

Coupon-mad · 18 October 2016 at 12:10AM

Search the forum for MIL and read other threads to see what will likely pan out. There is one on page one now (cueball is the poster) but a search will find you dozens more. Read posts by HO87, the resident expert poster on MIL here.

You need to know that you must respond quickly to this letter but it will be merely a matter of stating your non-liability and the fact MIL have no interest in this charge nor are they believed to have done anything more than purchase some photos from a parking firm for £1, in order to indulge in wanton trafficking in litigation. Write as if you are summarising the issues for a Judge, just in case yours is one of the rare ones that ends at a hearing.

You are likely to get court papers.

You are highly unlikely to lose as long as you defend with our help and don't drop the ball.

You are most likely to see this discontinued in the end.

Do NOT pay 'for an easy life' as this is a national scandal and scam. You'd be supporting & funding it against the next victim.

Oh, and on this forum and/or on pepipoo do not reply to any private message from a poster with less than 1000 posts to their name here. We deal with these issues openly on the forum and any pm could be from anyone at all (even the parking firm) and any private message about this is not recommended to be replied to/read. If HO87 sends you a pm then that's fine as long as it is him.

spook104 · 20 October 2016 at 10:33AM

As well as the above I've sent my initial acknowledgement (below)

Basically as far as I can see at the moment, it doesn't matter what my first response is they are more then likely going to continue with court proceedings. I don't have enough information to start a defence at this point as it was so long ago and I don't have the original pcn. Although I don't believe I was ever windscreen ticketed.

MIL Collections Ltd
Palace Building
Quay Street
Truro
TR1 2HE

Dear Sirs

Re: MIL Collections Ltd -v- Myself - Letter Before Action
Reference: PZXZXZX

I refer to the above letter dated 17th October 2016.

Based upon the scant detail I understand that you allege that I am responsible for an unpaid parking charge incurred by the driver of a vehicle <insert registration number>.

I deny I owe any debt to you or any other party.

In the absence of any detail (and documents upon which you intend to rely) required to be disclosed to me at this point by virtue of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Protocols & Conduct I can make no assessment of the case you assert you have and am therefore prevented from engaging in any meaningful dialogue.

Upon receipt of such detail I will consider the matter further.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad · 20 October 2016 at 11:50AM

You are on the case, exactly right.

Court papers are likely, no matter what. And you are very likely to see this off; we do this a lot and MIL cases are among the easier to defend as they are so shocking in their lack of any cause of action, evidence, et al.

Anyone who pays MIL Collections needs their head examining!

fil_cad · 20 October 2016 at 8:27PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You are on the case, exactly right. Court papers are likely, no matter what. And you are very likely to see this off; we do this a lot and MIL cases are among the easier to defend as they are so shocking in their lack of any cause of action, evidence, et al.

Anyone who pays MIL Collections needs their head examining!

Spot on!

:rotfl:

System · 21 October 2016 at 6:54AM

In the absence of any detail (and documents upon which you intend to rely) required to be disclosed to me at this point by virtue of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Protocols & Conduct I can make no assessment of the case you assert you have and am therefore prevented from engaging in any meaningful dialogue.

Why not take out this paragraph and be more specific about the information you are looking for. The paragraph is meaningless whilst a specific request to narrow the issues / resolve the case looks better at court. That just winds judges up.

spook104 · 31 October 2016 at 12:18PM

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Why not take out this paragraph and be more specific about the information you are looking for. The paragraph is meaningless whilst a specific request to narrow the issues / resolve the case looks better at court. That just winds judges up.

For some reason I'm not getting notifications for this thread so have only just seen this post.

I see your point and in hindsight I would have made that change.

I've now received my court summons and will make the request for the exact information under Part 18 of the practice directions, which is how I was expecting this to play out.

Ralph-y · 31 October 2016 at 2:17PM

will this not have some bearing on this case ?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parking-companies-breaking-data.html

Ralph:cool:

Mil Collections - Letter Before action

Comments

Categories

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