Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • cueball
    • By cueball 21st Sep 16, 10:31 AM
    • 33Posts
    • 8Thanks
    cueball
    County Court Business Centre
    • #1
    • 21st Sep 16, 10:31 AM
    County Court Business Centre 21st Sep 16 at 10:31 AM
    Hi advice needed


    having received a PCN and ignoring it, my debt was purchased by a collections company. I have now received a Claims Form from the County Courts Business Centre saying I have 14 days to respond what should I do?


    If a judgement is made will this affect my credit rating.


    Thanks in advance
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Oct 16, 7:59 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If it's MIL defence then copy, unless details (like contravention & facts) differ.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cueball
    • By cueball 8th Oct 16, 7:59 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball


    Pic's of the sign's are posted with the other photo's ! Here is a copy of my defence letter (work in progress)






    1. The Claimant has failed to adduce a cause of action and thus the Defendant requests that the Claimant explain on what legal basis they are empowered to bring the claim.

    2. The particulars of claim are too vague and the Defendant suggests that the Claimant has adopted a system to simply enable them to issue large numbers of claims which do not contain a sufficient amount of detail to enable the Defendant to respond properly to the claim. The Defendant suggests that this shows a lack of concern and respect for not only the Defendant but also the Court.

    3. If the claim is made under the law of trespass then the Defendant requires that the Claimant provides evidence that they are legally authorised to make such a claim. The Defendant suggests that the Claimant and, or their assignors, do not have the required interest or authority on behalf of the land owner to make such a claim and therefore “the Claimant is put to strict proof” on this point.

    4. The Claimant states that the debt has been assigned, and therefore the Defendant requires proof that the assignment is genuine in the form of an “original signed, witnessed and dated deed of assignment”.

    5. If the Court is satisfied that the Claimant does have the jurisdiction to make such a claim, then the Defendant requires “proof” that the sum claimed represents the damage suffered by the Claimant as a result of the driver’s actions, and “evidence of”, on what basis the sum has been calculated. The Defendant suggests that the sum is exorbitant




    6. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has attempted to claim an expense that was not incurred. Specifically, the £50 administrative and collection fee has been inflated.
    The agent advertises its charges as ‘no collection, no fee’.

    7. If the Court is satisfied that the Claimant may proceed with the claim then the Defendant disputes that the signs displayed in the carpark are insufficient to bind the Defendant to a contract. The signs do not constitute a contractual offer and therefore there has been no offer and acceptance, the basis of a contract.
    The signs are inadequate due to the size of the car park.

    8. If the Court is satisfied that a contract has been formed then the Defendant maintains that such a contract is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 as the Claimant has not acted in good faith.
















    • cueball
    • By cueball 9th Oct 16, 10:13 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Hi HO87


    I've found your letter Request for Further Info Part 18 Once I've inserted my details printed and signed, where do I post it. Am I to post it to MIL or the Courts.


    If sending to MIL what do about the Courts the date for defence is looming (Court Claim is dated 15/09/16 Acknowledged by 29/09/16 do I have 14 days from this date to submit my defence


    thanks in advance
    • HO87
    • By HO87 9th Oct 16, 10:41 AM
    • 4,123 Posts
    • 7,306 Thanks
    HO87
    As I have posted repeatedly - although others continue to push it - there is no immediate rush to submit a Part 18 request. It will not be replied to in any event and you should not rely on it to supply any information that will help you build your defence.

    Concentrate on your defence - the Part 18 can wait and doesn't need to be sent until you receive the N180 Allocation Questionnaire which you will receive about 5-7 days after you submit your defence.

    If your Claim Form is dated 15 September then a period of 5 days are allowed for the form to be served on you. To that you can add a further 28 days which gives a latest return date of 18 October. As you can submit your defence by email then you actually have another 9 days in which to work on it.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
    • cueball
    • By cueball 9th Oct 16, 11:10 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    HO87


    Thanks for the clarity, was thinking that! not being the sharpest tool in the box I just wanted to be certain.


    I have posted a draft copy of my defence and am waiting for some feedback on the wording of the signs, I'll then amend this to tailor it more.


    I take it that I will be waiting till the last minute to submit my defence?
    • HO87
    • By HO87 9th Oct 16, 11:17 AM
    • 4,123 Posts
    • 7,306 Thanks
    HO87
    I take it that I will be waiting till the last minute to submit my defence?
    Originally posted by cueball
    If the system allows you 28 days why not use it?

    I entirely understand why people feel that they must rush to respond but if the court wasn't prepared to accept responses on Day 28 why give that long in the first place?

    There is no prize for submitting your defence early and I would suggest that those submitted early are more likely to be deficient. Chill. Take you time and invest time in reading all those threads - don't rush.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
    • cueball
    • By cueball 9th Oct 16, 11:38 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Thanks again


    I have been reading through the posts and feel like I'm chasing my tail lol.


    The mist is clearing and I can see the defence strategy though I'm not clear on the content of my defence yet. Some of the posts seem generic and I am hoping that I will be able to copy the majority of it if not all. As I said not the sharpest
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Oct 16, 2:31 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Copy everything you find that you feel is relevant into your draft. Please look mostly at MIL cases because much of the brief defence you've shown so far looks like a Gladstones defence to me. Needs more to show a Judge why this should be struck out (or why you win).

    Try searching the forum for words like 'champerty' and 'intermeddling' to get a view of what's been said before about MIL.

    HO87, do you have the claim numbers of the cases won by unrepresented defendants recently, where the Judge decided that all MIL had done was to purchase a few photographs then run to court with them as their 'evidence'? It would be good to quote the court/Judge in that case?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HO87
    • By HO87 9th Oct 16, 6:58 PM
    • 4,123 Posts
    • 7,306 Thanks
    HO87
    HO87, do you have the claim numbers of the cases won by unrepresented defendants recently, where the Judge decided that all MIL had done was to purchase a few photographs then run to court with them as their 'evidence'? It would be good to quote the court/Judge in that case?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    As it happens, I do:

    1. 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Paul Cook

    It was in this case particularly in which the judge (DJ Spencer) suggested that the 6 page witness statement supplied by MIL that in effect provided no evidence 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 Cook owes you hundreds of pounds"

    2. 30 Sept 2016 Colchester CC Case No C2QZ582J MIL -v- Mrs McK

    Case dismissed for lack of any evidence, lack of signage.

    Umkomaas has also saved the details of several of my posts in which I have given specific guidance as to subjects to cover in MIL defences and could probably supply the links. I have done the same in numerous threads on Pepipoo - you just have to read through them. This may take quite a few hours but its important to understand the context of the advice. A Gladstones defence is unlikely to succeed against MIL
    Last edited by HO87; 09-10-2016 at 7:07 PM.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Oct 16, 9:24 PM
    • 10,967 Posts
    • 16,358 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Umkomaas has also saved the details of several of my posts in which I have given specific guidance as to subjects to cover in MIL defences and could probably supply the links.
    This is what I've bookmarked.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71222355#post71222355
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • cueball
    • By cueball 13th Oct 16, 3:05 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Statement of Defence
    Hi beamerguy
    here is the link to the pic's hope this works right this time, also the offence is "Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit"
    hxxp://s1174.photobucket.com/user/cueball5/slideshow/
    Originally posted by cueball


    All photo's via link above including Letter of Assignment, Letter before Action pic's of wording on signage. Below is my Statement of Defence any feedback greatly appreciated, does this fully relate to my case, the offence stated is "Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit"
    is there anything I need to add or remove thanks in advance




    Statement of Defence



    1.
    The claim is defended for the following reasons:

    a. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
    b. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant
    c. The signage does not offer a contract with the Defendant
    d. The Claimant provided no service to the Defendant
    e. The Claimant’s practices do not comply with current PD
    f. Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations

    2.
    The Claimant does not own the car park and nor does he have any other interest in it and therefore lacks capacity to offer parking. Nor did the Claimant provide any service to the Defendant. The Defendant requests the Claimant to produce evidence of standing by way of a deed, lease or contract.

    3.
    If the Court determines that the Claimant does have the standing to bring a case, the Defendant disputes that the signs displayed at the carpark make a genuine contractual offer. In any event as a unilateral offer these signs cannot be seen to constitute a representation of a meeting of minds. There was no genuine offer and the Claimant provided no consideration. The elements of a contract are absent and the Claimant has no case.

    4.
    Even if a contract had been formed it would be void. The Claimant was not acting in good faith and was in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. The Defendant refers the court to the concept of good faith as elucidated by the European Court of Justice in Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 (Para 69) regarding the Unfair Terms Directive :
    With regard to the question of the circumstances in which such an imbalance arises “contrary to the requirement of good faith”, having regard to the sixteenth recital in the preamble to the directive and as stated in essence by the A.G. in point AG74 of her Opinion, the national court must assess for those purposes whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations.

    5.
    In purchasing the alleged debt, the Claimant has done nothing but “wantonly and officiously” intermeddled in the dispute of another, having had no prior interest in the debt. This “savours of maintenance” and the court is asked to refer to the reaffirmation given to the matter of maintenance by Moore-Bick LJ in the case of Simpson –v- Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust (2011) AC 1149 and as found by the Deputy District Judge in the case of MIL Collections Ltd -v- Bowker heard at Oldham County Court on 15 January 2016 (Case number B1QZ7N32).

    6.
    The Claimant has not explained what authority it has to bring the claim. The reference below is a relatively important point because if JAS lack standing to issue parking charges or to issue proceedings in their own name, then the Claimant also lacks standing. The Claimant cannot create standing out of assigned debt if their assignor did not have any in the first place.
    The Defendant therefore will not accept the Claimant’s assertion and requests “strict proof” by producing evidence of standing by way of a deed, lease or contract.

    ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standing to bring court proceedings in its own name.
    Reference to the contradiction between Clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and Clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land.

    ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings.

    The Claimant does not have the right to bring the case in their own name.1SE09849, VCS v Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe County Court, 16/5/2012. District Judge McIlwaine (page 10, line 16, to page 14, line 31) strikes out the case as the claimant does not have the right to bring the case in their own name, and also considers whether the offices of the company are in contempt of court for bringing the case


    7.
    The charge must be shown not to be “excessive or unconscionable.” A comparison with the penalty charges imposed by Manchester City Council shows that their charge for a comparable situation is £50 reduced to £25 if paid within 14 days. One might therefore argue that the charge of £100 is “excessive and unconscionable”.

    8.
    The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has attempted to claim an expense that was not incurred. Specifically, the £50 administrative and collection fee has been inflated.
    The agent advertises its charges as “no collection, no fee”. The Claimant did not therefore incur the additional charge.

    9.
    The Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the Court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim, the same to include evidence that the Claimant has the legal standing to bring the Claim.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.




    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Oct 16, 12:30 AM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    My vehicle was parked on land at the side of a train station, which I thought was part of the station parking. Having used this parking for over ten years whilst dropping and picking the kids up from school this was a free parking area, which has obviously changed. On the day in question we were rushing to catch a train so just parked up and ran for the train not noticing the place had become a pay and display.

    Upon return the notice was on the screen doing a quick internet search the consensus was to ignore the notice.

    Llawnroc sent a few letters threatening court proceedings but nothing came of it. Then approx. 12mths later MIL sent a letter saying they had purchased the debt threatening with court again, I again ignored them and have now received the claim form from the courts
    Originally posted by cueball
    Just quoting this here so we can see the LLawnroc ticket circumstances near the MIL defence being drafted.


    - Is the claim form signed by a person or “MIL Collections Ltd” ?

    - In letters or the Particulars of Claim, have they said they are claiming 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012? Or are they pursuing you as a known/admitted driver?

    - Do any letters call MIL the “…creditor for the moment entitled to collect the debt” (SPECIFICALLY)?

    How long do you now have, what date was on the court papers? I hope you have a week or so because this needs work and is citing old Parking Eye cases that I wouldn't suggest should be in there. A MIL defence can be stronger than this and we can help but need to know how long you have now...
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-10-2016 at 12:35 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cueball
    • By cueball 14th Oct 16, 2:41 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Hi


    the claim form isn't signed by a person it's typed in Alan Davies-Managing Director


    it says "The defendant was the registered keeper and/or Driver of the vehicle (Reg) at the time. No mention of POFA 2012


    There is only one letter as attached in the link and then the claim form no mention of MIL being called the creditor


    court papers issued 15/09/16 so only have until the 18/10/16 to send my defence


    thanks


    PS do the dates have any bearing in this matter as their (MIL) letter before action is dated 19/07/16, says they are preparing to recover via a small claims action within 14 days of this letter and the claim form is dated 61 days later?


    Would it be easier if I took a photo of it and posted it with the other pic's?
    Last edited by cueball; 14-10-2016 at 5:01 PM. Reason: Add a further question
    • cueball
    • By cueball 14th Oct 16, 6:54 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    I have uploaded a pic of the claim form to the link in #31 above thanks
    • cueball
    • By cueball 15th Oct 16, 1:02 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Hi beamerguy
    here is the link to the pic's hope this works right this time, also the offence is "Not Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit"
    hxxp://s1174.photobucket.com/user/cueball5/slideshow/
    Originally posted by cueball


    here is a revised draft of my Statement of Defence, all photos of documents, signs and carpark are in the link above is this good to go or does it need amending thanks in advance only have 3days left to submit




    Claim Number: *******

    Statement of Defence

    1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
    I. The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim
    II. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) to be assigned
    III. The Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) had no capacity to offer a contract with the motorist
    IV. The signage did not offer a contract with the motorist
    V. No consideration passed from either the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) or the motorist
    VI. The Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) did not identify the driver
    VII. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt
    VIII. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of a loss, and therefore an unenforceable penalty
    IX. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner not the operator, nor the Claimant.



    1. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

    2. Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privy to any purported original contract and it is submitted that such an assignment would be Champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016

    4. The Operator has failed to inform the Defendant of the assignment of the alleged debt to the Claimant. The Operator did not therefore assign THE debt to the Claimant as stated in the Particulars of Claim. Furthermore, the partial assignment fails to meet the conditions required of a valid Legal Assignment in accordance with The Law of Property Act 1925 Section 136(1). As an Equitable Assignment the Claimant may not bring an action unless the Operator is included as a party.

    5. The Claimant has not explained what authority the Operator had to acquire a chose in action to assign to the Claimant.
    ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is down the claimant prove its authority.


    6. The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 18/07/16, Assignment notice sent 19/07/16. The Claimant is put to proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned.

    7. The Claimant is also put to proof that the Operator had sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf as required in the British Parking Association’s Legislation Guidance to Operators.

    8. The Operator had no standing to offer a contract; there was no meeting of minds nor any consideration passed. None of the elements that are fundamental to a contract were present and therefore no contract could possibly have existed. The Defendant was, at the most, granted a licence to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a licence would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.

    9. Whether there was a contract or a licence, only the Land-owner has standing to bring a claim, not the Claimant nor the operator.

    10. The Defendant has no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs but disputes the Claimant’s statement that such an amount would have constituted an offer and submits that it in fact threatened punitive sanctions to discourage the undisclosed conduct. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Operator’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park at that price and the main purpose was to deter the undisclosed conduct by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188 : Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal) that was decided by Mr. Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words (21 February 2014).

    11. The defendant neither confirms nor denies being the registered driver of the alleged offence. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper/driver liability has been proven in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012.

    12. The Defendant disputes the claimant incurred £50 costs writing letters. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the claimant, not merely “Not Clearly Displayed a Valid Permit”. The court stated that the claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing just what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments
    The cost of administration staff involved with the processing of parking notices cannot be presented as a loss because their employment is essential to the Claimant’s revenue.
    If the Operator suggests that these costs are in fact the charges of an external Debt Collection Agent, the Defendant submits that such a contract would be most unusual and understands that such companies are normally paid only if successful.


    13. The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring a claim; the Operator that it states to be the assignor of the debt has never had any legal capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. Even if a debt had ever existed, it would be due to the land-owner, not the Claimant. The Claimant has also failed to disclose the conduct that is complained of and has therefore brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimants, Statement of Truth has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.
    If the court chooses not to strike out the claim, the Defendant invites the court to order the Operator to be added as a party to the claim

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true

    (Name) (Signature) (Date)

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Oct 16, 12:19 AM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looking better.

    Check your numbering! You have two paragraph #1 and no paragraph #3.

    Here's a pepipoo case with a winning defence:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105272&st=0

    Here is one showing that even a weak defence can get MIL to discontinue in some cases:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108883

    I would add a point asserting that the signs, in terms of sparse placement and lack of clarity of terms were not bound to have been seen by drivers (as opposed to the signs in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis). Nor was the alleged 'charge' in sufficiently large lettering to meet the requirements of the CRA 2015. Nor do the signs comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 as regards providing 'adequate notice' of any parking charge nor setting any clear 'relevant obligation' nor 'relevant contract'.

    If I were you I would also add the claim numbers/court details mentioned by HO87 in post #29, adding an extra point averring that MIL's only 'interest' in this alleged debt is that they have bought some photographs. State the two claim numbers/details/court/dates.

    Oh, and this point #11 need a bit of a tweak - no such thing as a 'registered' driver!:
    11. The defendant neither confirms nor denies being the registered driver of the alleged offence. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper /driver liability has been proven established by the issue of compliant documents, in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012.
    Finally did the Notice of Assignment arrive in the same envelope as a letter from MIL? With the same barcode on the two letters? I think the issue is mentioned in those two pepipoo threads I linked; if so, it's clear that there was no real assignment and this document was generated by MIL themselves.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-10-2016 at 12:37 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cueball
    • By cueball 16th Oct 16, 1:56 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Hi thanks for taking the time to read through my defence


    I will sort the numbering out, I was aware that #3 was missing as I had deleted it but hadn't realised there were two #1's.


    I will add the points you mentioned and the case numbers too


    The Notice of Assignment and the MIL letter arrived separately though the barcodes look the same I'm not sure if they are
    • cueball
    • By cueball 17th Oct 16, 6:49 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Statement of Defence, MIL Collections
    Hi Coupon-mad


    here is the amended draft with the points you advised added tomorrow is D-Day so it will have to go as is


    HO87 do you have the email address of where I need to send that you mentioned have please



    Also will I have to sign my defence if sending via email?

    thanks




    Claim Number: *******

    Statement of Defence

    1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
    I. The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim
    II. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) to be assigned
    III. The Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) had no capacity to offer a contract with the motorist
    IV. The signage did not offer a contract with the motorist
    V. No consideration passed from either the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) or the motorist
    VI. The Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services) did not identify the driver
    VII. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt
    VIII. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner not the operator, nor the Claimant.



    2. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

    3. Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privy to any purported original contract and it is submitted that such an assignment would be Champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016

    4. The Operator has failed to inform the Defendant of the assignment of the alleged debt to the Claimant. The Operator did not therefore assign THE debt to the Claimant as stated in the Particulars of Claim. Furthermore, the partial assignment fails to meet the conditions required of a valid Legal Assignment in accordance with The Law of Property Act 1925 Section 136(1). As an Equitable Assignment the Claimant may not bring an action unless the Operator is included as a party.

    5. The Claimant has not explained what authority the Operator had to acquire a chose in action to assign to the Claimant.
    ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is down the claimant prove its authority.

    6. The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 18/07/16, Assignment notice sent 19/07/16. The Claimant is put to proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned.

    7. The Claimant is also put to proof that the Operator had sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf as required in the British Parking Association’s Legislation Guidance to Operators.

    8. The Operator had no standing to offer a contract; there was no meeting of minds nor any consideration passed. None of the elements that are fundamental to a contract were present and therefore no contract could possibly have existed. The Defendant was, at the most, granted a licence to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a licence would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.

    9. Whether there was a contract or a licence, only the Land-owner has standing to bring a claim, not the Claimant nor the operator.

    10. The Defendant has no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs but disputes the Claimant’s statement that such an amount would have constituted an offer and submits that it in fact threatened punitive sanctions to discourage the undisclosed conduct. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Operator’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park at that price and the main purpose was to deter the undisclosed conduct by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188 : Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal) that was decided by Mr. Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words (21 February 2014).



    11. The signage is of sparse placement and lack of clarity of terms were not bound to have been seen by drivers (as opposed to the signs in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis). Nor was the alleged 'charge' in sufficiently large lettering to meet the requirements of the CRA 2015. Nor do the signs comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 as regards providing 'adequate notice' of any parking charge nor setting any clear 'relevant obligation' nor 'relevant contract'.

    12. The defendant neither confirms nor denies being the driver of the alleged offence. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper liability has been
    established by the issue of compliant documents, in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012.

    13. The Defendant disputes the claimant incurred £50 costs writing letters. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the claimant, not merely “Not Clearly Displayed a Valid Permit”. The court stated that the claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing just what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments
    The cost of administration staff involved with the processing of parking notices cannot be presented as a loss because their employment is essential to the Claimant’s revenue.
    If the Operator suggests that these costs are in fact the charges of an external Debt Collection Agent, the Defendant submits that such a contract would be most unusual and understands that such companies are normally paid only if successful.


    14. The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring a claim; the Operator that it states to be the assignor of the debt has never had any legal capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. Even if a debt had ever existed, it would be due to the land-owner, not the Claimant. The Claimant has also failed to disclose the conduct that is complained of and has therefore brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimants, Statement of Truth has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.



    a. 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Paul Cook

    It was in this case particularly in which the judge (DJ Spencer) suggested that the 6 page witness statement supplied by MIL that in effect provided no evidence 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 Cook owes you hundreds of pounds"

    b. 30 Sept 2016 Colchester CC Case No C2QZ582J MIL -v- Mrs McK

    Case dismissed for lack of any evidence, lack of signage.




    If the court chooses not to strike out the claim, the Defendant invites the court to order the Operator to be added as a party to the claim

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true

    (Name) (Signature) (Date)


    Last edited by cueball; 17-10-2016 at 7:17 PM. Reason: Add other info
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Oct 16, 9:28 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks OK although I would explain why you've added the two cases at the end, perhaps by splitting point #14 into two, above those cases, so they tie in:

    14. The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring a claim; the Operator that it states to be the assignor of the debt has never had any legal capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. Even if a debt had ever existed, it would be due to the land-owner, not the Claimant.

    15. The Claimant has also failed to disclose the conduct that is complained of and has therefore brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimant's Statement of Truth has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success as has been the case in many incoherent 'MIL Collections' robo-claims since the Bowker case B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC referred to in my defence above. It is submitted that this is a vexatious litigant, merely buying sets of photographs from parking firms for as little as £1, with the aim of inflating any damages for this claimant's own profit. This claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in cases where they have no prior interest; this is frivolous litigation with no evidence nor any particulars that could give rise to a claim in law. Judges across the country have agreed with this view. Recent cases struck out by the courts include:

    (then your bit about the two Sept cases...)




    Re emails, HO87 says he advises people to copy to both, just in case:

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    and

    ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    Keep us informed!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-10-2016 at 9:48 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • cueball
    • By cueball 17th Oct 16, 10:24 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    cueball
    Brilliant C-m I'll do that and keep you updated.




    Also do I have to print this off, sign it, scan it back in and email, do I have to get it in by a certain time or as long as it's the 18th will I be fine
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,214Posts Today

5,643Users online

Martin's Twitter