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
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 16th Oct 16, 1:07 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 3Thanks
    terry9999
    Claim form received
    • #1
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:07 PM
    Claim form received 16th Oct 16 at 1:07 PM
    Hi,

    My partner has received a claim form for the County Court Business Centre for an un paid parking ticket and I'm looking for advise on how to proceed. The unpaid fine was for Willon Lake in Milton Keynes and a company called MIL Collections Ltd have now bought the 'debt'. I have uploaded a picture showing the info and looking at the county court stamp and the county court logo these are very pixelated and do not look genuine.

    I would appreciate any advise you can give me thanks.

    Best regards,
    Terry
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Oct 16, 1:11 PM
    • 4,118 Posts
    • 4,725 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:11 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:11 PM
    Hi,

    My partner has received a claim form for the County Court Business Centre for an un paid parking ticket and I'm looking for advise on how to proceed. The unpaid fine was for Willon Lake in Milton Keynes and a company called MIL Collections Ltd have now bought the 'debt'. I have uploaded a picture showing the info and looking at the county court stamp and the county court logo these are very pixelated and do not look genuine.

    I would appreciate any advise you can give me thanks.

    Best regards,
    Terry
    Originally posted by terry9999
    You need to show the link to the pic
    use hxxp:// instead of http and someone will make it live for you
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Oct 16, 1:32 PM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,270 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:32 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:32 PM
    Best to treat it as genuine, they do take people to court

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mil-collections-fail-in-court.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mil-collections-lose-in-court-evidence.html

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/mil-collections/
    Last edited by The Deep; 16-10-2016 at 1:35 PM.
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 16th Oct 16, 1:34 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    • #4
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:34 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:34 PM
    [IMG]hxxp://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k83/terry_sharp2/20161016_131741_zpstyeza1tn.png[/IMG]
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 16th Oct 16, 1:37 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    • #5
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:37 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:37 PM
    hxxp://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k83/terry_sharp2/20161016_131741_zpstyeza1tn.png
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Oct 16, 1:44 PM
    • 4,118 Posts
    • 4,725 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #6
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:44 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:44 PM
    hxxp://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k83/terry_sharp2/20161016_131741_zpstyeza1tn.png
    Originally posted by terry9999
    OK, but you seem to have left all your personal info on this, please do not show anything about yourself
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 16th Oct 16, 1:50 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    • #7
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:50 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Oct 16, 1:50 PM
    woops not very good with computters
    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Oct 16, 2:15 PM
    • 1,062 Posts
    • 1,317 Thanks
    Castle
    • #8
    • 16th Oct 16, 2:15 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Oct 16, 2:15 PM
    Is this the site:-
    http://www.willenlake.org.uk/about-the-lake/about-willen-lake#.WAN8Z1IzXIU
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 16th Oct 16, 2:57 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    • #9
    • 16th Oct 16, 2:57 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Oct 16, 2:57 PM
    hi yes this is the place, car park was full so we parked on a grass verge, there was not a sign near where we parked saying about paying ect so we thought it was not part of the car park
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 16th Oct 16, 3:28 PM
    • 2,241 Posts
    • 2,724 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    while you wait for further comments ...

    please read the newbies thread

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    good luck

    Ralph
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Oct 16, 4:51 PM
    • 40,411 Posts
    • 52,297 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Interesting. We had a Napier case which went to court papers via Gladstone the other month:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5514645

    But you are best looking at examples of MIL defences like on cueball's thread (not his short & weak first draft!):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5528717

    Read HO87's posts about MIL cases by clicking on his username and 'see posts'. It is important to include in your defence the legal points about assignment, champerty and maintenance and you can use the cases cited by HO87 where endless MIL efforts have been thrown out by the courts.

    And as this is Napier, one point WILL be a lack of signs, normally their car parks have a huge 3000 word sign at the entrance (far too many terms to possibly read before parking!) but a lack of terms dotted around. And as you say, the car didn't even appear to be in the car park boundary that any signs seem to relate to.

    Acknowledge the claim urgently (online on MCOL) as explained in bargepole's advice about what to do when/what boxes to tick, which is linked as the second link under the heading 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THIS FIRST' FAQS sticky thread.

    Then you will have bought more time, extended your time to 28 days instead of 14, to defend. Show us your MIL-style defence draft later this month. You will also find examples on pepipoo forum, where HO87 also posts.

    Almost no-one loses a defended MIL claim, so take heart. And this is no huge risk either, no CCJ and no solicitors fees.
    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.

    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 11th Nov 16, 11:21 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    Hi there, I have searched a few different defence letters to the claim forms received and I will post this next, please let me have any feedback you can offer, Best regards
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 11th Nov 16, 11:26 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    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 Napier lack standing to issue parking charges or to issue proceedings in their own name, then the Claimant also lack standing. The Claimant can not 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, Shorpe 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 driver recalls that on the day of the alleged offence the car park had heavy usage and the car was parked on a grassed area which appeared to be outside of the normal car park zone and so a ticket was not purchased. The location did not appear part of the car park as there were not any marked bays and there was no signage near to the area the car was parked which suggested this area was indeed part of the car park or that a ticket should be purchased. As such, if the Court should determine that the Claimant has a valid claim then the Defendant requests that the Court considers that there are mitigating circumstances in the Defendant’s favour.

    8. 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 proeprty Act 1993 . Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in the matter.
    9. Even if there was a valid deed of Assignment , the claimant has no interest in , or privity 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 Court is asked to consider striking the matter out , as was the case in MIL Collections Ltd -v- Stephen Bowker , Case No. B1QZ7N32 Oldham County Court 15/01/2016 .
    10. 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”.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. I believe this statement to be the Truth.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 12th Nov 16, 7:14 AM
    • 977 Posts
    • 1,716 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Suggest you go over to Pepipoo and look for postings on MIL Claims with regards to the validity of the sale of the debt.

    Or look for postings by HO87 here.
    General Election coming up? Your MP worried about his/her job? Give them something to do and get them to sort out these parking cowboys. Search "Theyworkforyou" for the name of your MP.
    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 25th Nov 16, 8:23 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    hi all, thanks for all of the replies received to date they are much appreciated.
    Unfortunately my IP address was blocked by one of the admin team in error and it took some time to get the block removed. My 28day deadline passed for replying to the claim form so I was not able to post a final draft of my letter. Please see the letter I filed below. I have now received some more paperwork in the post advising me this is now a defended claim and that I have until 2nd December to complete and return the N180 form to the court. I have taken a couple of pictures in the area that the car was parked in and also have a google birds eye view which looks like the area is not even part of the car park, there are alo no signs in the area the car was parked or marked bays, it is basically just a grassed area. I would appretiate if anyone on here can spare some time to have a look at what I have done so far and let me have any feedback, thanks allot.




    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. 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 no locus in this matter.
    6. 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. MIL Collections are a well-funded company who are using the court system as a ‘scare’ tactic to obtain moneys from individuals for debs that do not exist.



    7. 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.
    8. 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.



    9. The claimant obtained the registered keepers details in an illegal fashion as these were obtained from the DVLA by Napier and then ‘sold’ onto MIL Collections which is a misuse of the data protection act. The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.


    10. I believe this statement to be the Truth.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Nov 16, 1:08 AM
    • 40,411 Posts
    • 52,297 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    this is now a defended claim and that I have until 2nd December to complete and return the N180 form to the court.

    I have taken a couple of pictures in the area that the car was parked in and also have a google birds eye view which looks like the area is not even part of the car park, there are also no signs in the area the car was parked or marked bays, it is basically just a grassed area.

    I would appreciate if anyone on here can spare some time to have a look at what I have done so far and let me have any feedback, thanks a lot.
    OK we will help throughout. The N180 form stage is covered by bargepole in his post linked under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread.
    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.

    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 30th Nov 16, 6:00 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    ok thanks, I have read this and completed the N180 form and will post the original to Northampton county court and send a copy to mil collections. I did not mention in my defence letter about the car park area the car was parked in not haveing any marked bays or signage, should I have mentioned this? I think this is what the main part of the defence will come from, if I should have mentioned this can I bring it up if/when a court date is set or should I amend my defence for the £25?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Nov 16, 6:07 PM
    • 40,411 Posts
    • 52,297 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Your point #3 covers signs/no contract already, so that is enough for you to expand on later, if a hearing date is set. MIL often discontinue but do update your thread as you hear more. So, as you mentioned signage you are fine for now, can embellish that about 'no signs/lines' with photo evidence (if you can get it) later.
    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.

    • terry9999
    • By terry9999 30th Nov 16, 8:08 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    terry9999
    thank you, you have been a great help and I will definitely keep everyone up to date
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

2,726Posts Today

7,126Users online

Martin's Twitter