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
    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 15th Apr 17, 10:08 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 5Thanks
    joiningbattle
    £160 fine for no permit - county court
    • #1
    • 15th Apr 17, 10:08 PM
    £160 fine for no permit - county court 15th Apr 17 at 10:08 PM
    Hi there
    1. I am a newbie. I have to send off my defence for the county court THIS TUESDAY.
    2. I have already made lots of mistakes - eg I threw away all the paperwork to do with the claim. Responded to none of it - apart from the court action.
    BUT, having come across this site, wish to make amends!!

    Would very much appreciate any help with the defence.

    3. Short version: I parked for 50 minutes in what looked like a carpark. I returned to find a 'fine' on the car. Looked around for a while and saw a couple of signs, 10ft off the ground, one half covered, saying 'permit holders only'. The fine was for £100 (reduced to £60 if you pay up quick) But since then went to £160 as I ignored it. I was there at 7pm - no other car around. This was Sept 2014. The debt was bought by MIL Collections who are taking me to court - and asking for £50 'expenses' on top!
    4. For my defence I will use:

    a. lousy signage (plus pics)

    b. unconscionable' invoice - £160

    c.Locus standi
    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.As such evidence is absent, the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

    d. champerty and maintenance
    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, 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

    e Right Of Audience : Claimant is not a a registered litigation, legal or law company but a third party debt collecting interloper and therefore the defendant is of the belief that the claimant has no Right Of Audience to bring a legal representation claim in to court on behalf of any client as they are not a registered legal practice governed by the SRA.
    (is this a valid argument??)

    f No Contract : No Contract exists between the registered keeper (defendant) and no CCA agreement or service contract is in place for any debt, funds or monies owed in any way between the claimant and defendant thus no such debt as claimed exists.
    (is this a valid argument?)

    g. I will point out how my case differs from ParkingEye vs Beavis

    BUT - I am very confused about where the law stands now vis a vis the actual invoice for £160. (which is not a fine, I picked that up). It started off at £100, and then the original parking company slapped on £60 when I did not pay it.
    Can I say that we have no contract - as I was simply told I could not park at all?
    It's a ridiculous amount of money, but what is my argument in law?

    Many thanks
Page 1
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 15th Apr 17, 11:19 PM
    • 268 Posts
    • 445 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 17, 11:19 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 17, 11:19 PM
    In terms of contract there is a difference between a sign that says "no parking - permit holders only" (forbidding) and "terms of parking: you must display a permit" (arguably a contractual term capable of agreement by a driver).

    Obviously no-one can agree to any sign that is hidden from view, whatever it says.

    Bowker is obviously helpful. Note that an appropriate officer or manager of a commercial Claimant must have endorsed the claim form or a solicitor, failing which it may be even more defective than they usually are....

    In theory it could be argued that additional administration fees were agreed if advertised on signs, but that may be difficult for them. The Claimant will have to prove incurred legal costs a day they are not likely to be able to.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 17, 11:49 PM
    • 48,770 Posts
    • 62,276 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 15th Apr 17, 11:49 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Apr 17, 11:49 PM
    The debt was bought by MIL Collections who are taking me to court - and asking for £50 'expenses' on top!
    Make sure you read lots of other MIL defences because these are very winnable and ALL cases I know of recently which were well-defended, have been discontinued by MIL. I am so confident about these cases that I would say this is the BEST Claimant to have!

    Who was the parking firm?

    It is important to state in your defence as well, that the DVLA have confirmed that data supplied by them to parking firms was NOT to be sold to MIL.

    These two are good threads to read re defending v MIL (Spook104 and cueball's threads):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5542413

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


    And here's an email to quote from the DVLA, which I was copied into when helping someone beat MIL:

    From: David Dunford <David.Dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk>
    Date: 20 February 2017 at 08:01:18 GMT


    Thank you for your email. I can confirm that MIL have stated...

    “Only where we have positive information supplied by the motorist to either the seller or ourselves are continuing with those cases. We are assuming by default that data that has been supplied is DVLA unless we know otherwise”

    If the data being used has not been obtained directly from DVLA, the Agency could not provide any instructions on this data. If however, the data is vehicle keeper data that has been obtained directly from DVLA, this should not be used as permission was not provided by the DVLA for this to be passed to MIL.

    Unfortunately, I cannot provide any further advice on this matter but I hope this helps

    Kind regards


    David Dunford
    Data Sharing Strategy & Compliance

    Strategy, Policy & Communications Directorate | D16 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1DY
    Twitter: @dvlagovuk
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-04-2017 at 11:53 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>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 16th Apr 17, 7:21 AM
    • 4,192 Posts
    • 7,514 Thanks
    HO87
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 17, 7:21 AM
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 17, 7:21 AM
    @OP Before we go any further can you confirm that the Claimant in your case is MIL Collections? Can you also confirm when the claim was issued (relevant to the points above by C-M)?
    Last edited by HO87; 16-04-2017 at 7:27 AM.
    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
    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 16th Apr 17, 1:52 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    joiningbattle
    • #5
    • 16th Apr 17, 1:52 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Apr 17, 1:52 PM
    Thanks for all these very helpful replies.

    Rewriting suggested defence, will post soon.

    Yes, MIL Collections
    Claim issued - ie they wrote to me saying they intended to issue a summons - on 12/10/2016.

    Original PPC Capital2Coast ; have read your other threads and unfortunately they were official at the time they issued my PCN.

    The signs have changed since I was 'done' and although I took a photograph in fact I cannot read what the sign actually says. But then, nor can anyone else.......

    I think it said something like, 'if you do not display a permit then...dreadful consequences'

    But the so-called parking area is clearly a scam - hard to read signs then a whopping fine - which is why I refused to pay the fine. (oops invoice)
    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 16th Apr 17, 6:00 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    joiningbattle
    • #6
    • 16th Apr 17, 6:00 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Apr 17, 6:00 PM
    I have cut and pasted one of those defences where I believe it applies to me.

    Does it sound reasonable?

    Will add about Freedom of information and that MIL have no right to my details.

    Still not sure how to approach the £100 - and I threw away the letter that explained why it went up to £160, so not sure how to go about that.

    (will address the many spellling mistakes if general outline is agreed.

    1. The claimant has failed at each point so far to address the alleged matter in accordance with established practice directions (PD)
    a) The letter before action was insufficent in meeting the requirements of PD 6.3(a)(b)©(d)(e)(f)

    I do not know what this means – looked up practice directions and did not understand how it was related.

    c) The claiment is persuing a debt they believe is founded in the acceptance of contract, yet they have failed to produce the contract or it particulars as per PD 7.3-7.5.
    a. 3. 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:

    a) The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (One Parking Limited) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim
    b) The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (One Parking Limited) to be assigned.
    c) The Operator (One Parking Limited) had no capacity to offer a contract with the motorist
    d) The signage did not offer a contract with the motorist
    e) No consideration passed from either the Operator (One Parking Limited) or the motorist
    f) The Operator (One Parking Limited) did not identify the driver
    g) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt
    h) Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner not the operator, nor the Claimant.

    4. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt and as such is put to strict proof that a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 exists. Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 11/10/16, Assignment notice sent 12/10/16. The Claimant is put to strcit proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned, to the registered keeper.

    8. The Claimant is also put to strcit 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.

    9. 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.

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

    12. Signage: The signage did not comply with the British Parking Associations Code of Practice;
    i. There were no signs at the entrance to the (so-called) carpark

    ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.’ (18.2)

    ii. The signs IN the carpark were not ‘conspicuous and legible, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking, and are throughout the site’, (18.3)

    The signs were about 10 ft off the ground – at the level of the shop fascia. A driver could not see them through the windscreen once they had entered the carpark. The signs look as though they are concerning the upper part of the building rather than concerning parking. One is half-covered by a black box of some sort. The wording related to ‘parking’ is in small letters in the middle of the text.

    The signage is inadequate to warn drivers that the bays outside the Laura Ashley shop are not for parking in, even after 6pm.

    iii. To support this point, attached are photographs of the site currently. The new signs are a. at driver height b. away from the wall, so clearly related to parking c. of a large size d. with clear writing e. numerous throughout the site f. with large signs at the entrance g. parking bays are labelled on the tarmac.

    The Operator would not go to the expense of paying for new signage in this way if they genuinely believed the old signage was adequate.

    Indeed, shop owners around this (apparent) carpark expressed deep frustration with the Operator. One of them, the charity St Peter and St James Hospice Shop, used to put up their own signs to warn drivers that they will be fined if they park.

    iv. The Claimant may cite ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ in their defence. In this case, unlike this one, the signs were large, clear, legible and numerous.



    14. The Defendant disputes the claimant incurred £50 costs. 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.


    15. 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.

    16. 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:

    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"


    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 17, 9:27 PM
    • 48,770 Posts
    • 62,276 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 17, 9:27 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 17, 9:27 PM
    On the PCN dated Sept 2014, if you have it, what was C2C's company number at the bottom? Or can you make it out from the signage photo you took?

    Is this a site in Brighton?

    Do you really only have till Tuesday? I could help you with this defence later in the week but am busy tomorrow(!!) and at work on Tuesday.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 16th Apr 17, 10:43 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    joiningbattle
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 17, 10:43 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 17, 10:43 PM
    Thanks again for support.

    I have updated my defence. It is not easy to get your head around.

    I only have til Tuesday, yes. Thanks so much for your offer, Coupon Mad. But at least I have better arguments now I have looked at this site.
    The apparent carpark was not in Brighton - don't know how much detail to give.

    Frustratingly, cannot make out any details on the photo I took of the sign, and the signs were changed a few months later.

    The Defendant is the vehicle owner in this case.
    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant. The reasons fall into the following 2 main categories:
    1. The Claimant has no locus standi in this case.
    2. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (One Parking Limited) to be assigned.
    1. The Claimant has no locus standi in this case
    a. No Contract exists between the registered keeper (defendant) and no CCA agreement or service contract is in place for any debt, funds or monies owed in any way between the claimant and defendant thus no such debt as claimed exists.
    bA freedom of information request has established that parking companies cannot sell keeper data obtained from the DVLA to MIL Collections unless the DVLA has approved this.

    For parking companies to get keeper data from the DVLA, they sign a contract known as the KADOE contract. This contract says what you can and cannot do with the keeper data. In particular, clause D5.1 of the KADOE contract prohibits the Customer from disclosing the information they have received from the DVLA to any other person except:-

    a) to a sub-contractor who acts as the Customer's data processor;
    b) to a sub- contractor who acts as the Customer's debt collector;
    c) with the prior written agreement of the DVLA.

    MIL Collections are clearly not acting as a sub-contractor, and therefore parking companies must have prior written agreement from the DVLA to sell KADOE data to MIL.
    The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have a prior written agreement to be given my personal details from DVLA .

    c, The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (One Parking Limited) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim
    d. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt and as such is put to strict proof that a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 exists. Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in this matter.
    e. The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 11/10/16, Assignment notice sent 12/10/16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned, to the registered keeper.

    f. The Claimant is also put to strict 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.

    g. 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.

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


    i. Champerty and Maintenance
    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.
    and 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Paul Cook
    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.
    j.The Defendant disputes the claimant incurred £50 ‘administrative and collection fee’. MIL Collections bought some photographs of the Defendant;s car in a carpark for the express reason of attempting to force the Defendant to pay money to them. It is absolutely outrageous that they are also adding a fee of £50 for the privilege.
    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.




    2. The defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (One Parking Limited) to be assigned

    a. Signage: The signage did not comply with the British Parking Associations Code of Practice;
    i. There were no signs at the entrance to the (so-called) carpark

    ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.’ (BPA Code 18.2)

    ii. The signs IN the carpark were not ‘conspicuous and legible, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking, and are throughout the site’, (BPA Code 18.3)

    The signs were about 10 ft off the ground – at the level of the shop fascia. As soon as they had entered the carpark a driver would not be able to see them through the windscreen. The signs look as though they are concerning the upper part of the building rather than concerning parking. One is half-covered by a black box of some sort. The wording related to ‘parking’ is in small letters in the middle of the text.

    The apparent parking bays in question sit innocently outside a Laura Ashley shop where a driver would reasonably expect to park after 6pm.

    iii. To support this point, attached are photographs of the site currently. The carpark is now ‘Pay and Display’.The new signs are a. at driver height b. away from the wall, so clearly related to parking c. of a large size d. with clear writing e. numerous throughout the site f. with large signs at the entrance g. parking bays are labelled on the tarmac.

    The Operator would not go to the expense of paying for new signage in this way if they genuinely believed the old signage was adequate.

    Indeed, shop owners around this (apparent) carpark expressed deep frustration with the Operator. One of them, the charity St Peter and St James Hospice Shop told me they used to put up their own signs to warn drivers that they will be fined if they park.

    iv. The Claimant may cite ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ in their defence. In this case, unlike this one, the signs were large, clear, legible and numerous.

    b. Both the original £100 and the additional £60 debt are penalties. The claimant has provided no evidence of the loss or damage to the PCC or landowner caused by the Defendant’s parking for 50 minutes, or any legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the carpark. The Defendant’s was the only car in the carpark, so again, this case is nothing like ParkingEye vs Beavis.

    The Claimant has also failed to justify the addition of £60 to the debt.

    The provision requiring payment of £160 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; (c) the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs.

    Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £160 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true
    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 16th Apr 17, 10:53 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    joiningbattle
    • #9
    • 16th Apr 17, 10:53 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Apr 17, 10:53 PM
    Note that an appropriate officer or manager of a commercial Claimant must have endorsed the claim form or a solicitor, failing which it may be even more defective than they usually are....

    Aha - the Claim Form - I have that signed by the man himself Mr Alan Davies - are you saying this form should be endorsed by a Solicitor? So he was not following the Practice Directions?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 16th Apr 17, 11:45 PM
    • 268 Posts
    • 445 Thanks
    Johnersh
    No. As a director of Milton he can sign. If a random employee had signed that would've been insufficient.

    Needless to say that his signature does not mean that the other defence points you will raise are not perfectly good ones.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 16th Apr 17, 11:46 PM
    • 268 Posts
    • 445 Thanks
    Johnersh
    *MIL* autocorrect sorry.
    • SmellyMog
    • By SmellyMog 17th Apr 17, 9:44 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    SmellyMog
    When you say it was what looked to be a car park, without disclosing the actual location was it just an enclosed site with entrance straight off a street, or attached to/part of a residential apartment complex or something other than these?

    Also, was the original 'ticket' from One Parking Ltd. T/A Capital 2 Coast Parking Management, or from Capital 2 Coast Security Ltd.?
    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 17th Apr 17, 1:08 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    joiningbattle
    enclosed site with entrance straight off a street
    • joiningbattle
    • By joiningbattle 20th Apr 17, 8:17 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    joiningbattle
    YAY - MIL stopped their claim
    Just heard - once they got my witness statement MIL stopped their claim. Phew!

    Thanks so much for all the help and ideas - particularly Coupon-mad, I think your letter did the trick.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Apr 17, 8:52 PM
    • 48,770 Posts
    • 62,276 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great! Round one done! That was very quick, did you attach the email from the DVLA as a separate piece of evidence/

    That email from David Dunford at the DVLA is worded like dynamite because it actually says that the DVLA did not give permission to the parking firm to sell the data to MIL.

    I say ''round one done'' because you should now strongly consider this:


    1. Make a complaint online to the Information Commissioner, about:

    (a) MIL Collections and
    (b) One Parking Ltd t/a Capital 2 Coast Parking Management (both MIL and them, in one complaint).

    Stating and proving that One Parking should never have sold DVLA data to MIL and alleging also that you think the original PCN (which you no longer have) wasn't even from the same company. Allege that you believe the charge was issued by (and the DVLA data obtained by) a business registered in England and Wales under the registration number 06659495 (Capital 2 Coast Security Limited). Companies House records that the company was formally dissolved on 20 September 2016, with only one shareholder (and that was not the alleged '''assignor'' to MIL Collections, given as One Parking Ltd t/a Capital 2 Coast Parking Management).

    As such, due to the strict rules of the KADOE process (DVLA data system) the data should never have been passed from company to company.

    Even if the data was originally obtained by One Parking Ltd (the non-dissolved company) they were not authorised by the DVLA to sell your data like a commodity, to MIL Collections again because the KADOE disallows it. MIL Collections are not a debt collector, they have spent 2016 purchasing private parking 'debts' they have no entitlement to and using and processing data they have misappropriated, to try to obtain monies they are not lawfully entitled to demand.

    Then tell the ICO about the court claim and how distressing it has been. Show them the discontinuation notice and the DVLA email obtained from another MIL victim, stating that this is the official position of the DVLA, as also confirmed in FOI requests in the public domain.

    2. Get the complaint upheld by the ICO (takes a few months but with the above evidence you should get your complaint upheld).

    3. Use that and all the above evidence to sue MIL Collections Ltd and One Parking Ltd (get the right company number for the current firm who sold the data, not 'Capital 2 Coast' under the dissolved number above!) for, say, £750 as compensation for distress caused by the misuse of your data by both companies: MIL having carried out no due diligence before setting up to buy parking debts that include data obtained under strict conditions by the DVLA - and One Parking having sold DVLA data which they had no legal right to do.

    Explained here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388

    ...this could pay for Christmas...or whatever you fancy! Costs you about £50 to claim for £750 on MCOL once you have your ducks in a row, and of course you can claim your court fee(s) back as well. I can't see this going to a hearing, I suspect one or other firm would offer a financial settlement to you - possibly even at Letter before Claim stage, without even needing to file a claim, as long as you show them your evidence and have the ICO complaint in place too.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 20-04-2017 at 8:57 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

2,908Posts Today

8,867Users online

Martin's Twitter