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
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 6th Jun 17, 10:55 AM
    • 463Posts
    • 213Thanks
    marty1888
    Letter before Claim - Wright Hassall/ZZPS
    • #1
    • 6th Jun 17, 10:55 AM
    Letter before Claim - Wright Hassall/ZZPS 6th Jun 17 at 10:55 AM
    I received a LBC today from Wright Hassall on the instructions of ZZPS stating that I have 14 days from the date of the letter to settle the PCN claim.

    In December 2016 I was issued with a ticket for parking 'Without Valid Permit or Authority' in my space at work.

    Unfortunately the permit had fallen from the windscreen when the PCN was issued but I do have valid authority to park there and have done for 8 years without issue.

    Intially I rang the number on the PCN and requested that they remove it as it was my allocated space, paid for by the company I work for and that I have a valid permit to park there. They requested I send over photos so I did along with a formal email appealing the ticket.

    They replied back with their own photos and said that they did not dispute that I had authority to park there just that I hadn't been displaying a permit at the time.

    Should I have received a POPLA at the point where I emailed the appeal?

    Subsequently, a letter was received to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle (my partner) and she passed on my details to them via email.

    For the past number of months ZZPS and Wright Hassall have been contacting me regularly in regards to the alleged debt which has now increased from £25 to £196.00 inlcuding additonal charges.

    What are my options here?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by marty1888; 06-06-2017 at 11:14 AM.
Page 4
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 1st Feb 18, 10:47 AM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    Updated now. Anything else I should add or remove?

    Defence:

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

    1. The Claimant has no locus standi in this case.

    i) The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (Local Car Park Management) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim

    ii) 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.

    iii) The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 25/11/17, Assignment notice sent 26/11/17. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned, to the registered keeper.

    iv) 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.

    v) 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 landowner.

    vi) Whether there was a contract or a licence, only the Landowner has standing to bring a claim, not the Claimant nor the operator.

    vii). 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.

    viii).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 .

    (ix) Both the original £100 and the additional £50 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, or any legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the carpark.

    (x) The provision requiring payment of £150 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.

    (x) Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £150 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.

    2. It seems that the sole grounds upon which this Claimant has issued proceedings is that the Defendant was the registered keeper or driver of a vehicle and they allege, with no evidence, no contract, and no cause of action, that they have ‘purchased a debt’.

    3. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date, I was responsible for the vehicle mentioned in the Particulars. The claim purports to relate to an alleged ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN) issued by another company regarding an alleged but unproven and vaguely stated breach of contract where the originating parking company was made aware by a timely appeal (that they unreasonably refused and in addition failed to provide a POPLA appeal code which is in breach of BPA code of practice of which Local Car Park Management are an approved operator) that the driver was parked without valid permit or authority. The appeal and their response will be produced in evidence.

    4. This Claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in a matter in which it has 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. MIL cases struck out by the courts include 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Cook, where DJ Spencer suggested that the witness statement supplied by this Claimant provided no evidence and could actually have been boiled down to a single sentence - "We bought some photographs". The judge 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."

    5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any assignment they might plead conformed to the Law of Property Act 1925 and was properly executed in respect of the alleged debt before proceedings were issued. It is specifically denied, given the absence of any Schedule of Assignment, that the letter produced by them purporting to have originated from their assignor represents proper notice.

    6. It therefore follows that without any true assignment the Claimant has no cause of action and these proceedings have no basis whatsoever and are wholly unreasonable and vexatious; the purported assignment being a false instrument.

    7. In the alternative, it is the Defendant's case that this Claimant had no prior interest in the underlying transaction whether by way of privity, civil wrong or tort and as it represents a bare chose in action, that the Claimant’s case savours of maintenance. This offends against public policy and may well constitute an abuse of process as established in the cases of Simpson -v-Norfolk and Norwich Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149 and Giles –v- Thompson [1993] UKHL 2.

    8. The car park in question , although accessible to all during normal working hours (7am to 10pm), has a lockable security gate which can be opened only by authorised personnel outside of this time, of which the defendant is a keyholder with unrestricted 24 hour access. In this case, it is my belief that as a keyholder the vehicle was parked inside the premises with permission from my employer and leaseholder during the time of the alleged incident and cannot be parked illegally on the premises at any point.

    9. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

    10. The driver was allowed the right to park by his employer, who are a leasehold business, with express permission from Group Business Services staff as supported by an accompanying letter in the form of a second witness statement which will be submitted in evidence stating so.

    11. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract.

    12. New signage cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’ which also adduced a business car park decision, analogous to this present case.

    (i) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.

    (ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

    13. The right of the on site businesses to allow authorised vehicles to park pre-dates the arrival of this Claimant.

    14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Local Car Park Management and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee company and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site.

    15. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £150 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

    16. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £150 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    17. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

    18. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.

    19. Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver.

    20(i) In 'Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011' a tenant was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landholder, who later proposed to reduce the availability of parking and to charge for it. On appeal it was held that the landholder was only entitled to change the location of spaces, not to reduce their number, nor to unreasonably restrict parking previously offered, nor to charge for it. Such restrictions would interfere with easements enjoyed under the lease.



    It is therefore denied that:
    a. Any ‘debt’ exists or existed
    b. This purported debt was assigned at all
    c. Any notice was provided of the purported assignment save for a deceptive letter produced by the Claimant themselves, intending that it be accepted as having originated from their alleged assignor
    d. The alleged assignor had locus standi at the location on the date in question
    e. Any signage relied upon comprised a contractual offer
    f. There was any contravention by the driver
    j. Any ‘administrative & collection fee’ of £50 was incurred or is due.

    Statement of Truth:

    I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Feb 18, 8:26 PM
    • 54,026 Posts
    • 67,695 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove all if this, all old and not a good argument at all (some of this has no legs at all):

    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 !!!8220;Not Clearly Displayed a Valid Permit!!!8221;. 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 .

    (ix) Both the original £100 and the additional £50 debt are penalties. The claimant has provided no evidence of the loss or damage to the PCC or landowner caused by the Defendant!!!8217;s parking, or any legitimate interest in enforcing the rules of the carpark.

    (x) The provision requiring payment of £150 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.

    (x) Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £150 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.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 6th Feb 18, 11:32 AM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    Ok, so I've been following this thread closely and can see that it was struck out by the court.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760456&highlight=mil+collections

    Can I request the same on the basis of the 'charge' and 'offence' argument?

    4. The particulars of claim fail to outline any legal basis upon which the claim against the Defendant is brought. In particular:

    i. Paragraph 2 uses the expressions “the charge” and “OFFENCE”, but fails to specify any piece of legislation, or other legal basis, which would provide a cause of action for the claim;

    ii. If the claim is based upon a purported breach contract, no reference is made to any particular term, warranty or condition which has been so breached;

    iii. Furthermore, if the claim is based upon a purported breach of contract, no particulars of loss are specified;

    iv. Indeed, there is no reference at all to the existence of any purported contract between the Claimant and Defendant.

    5. For all of the reasons set out in paragraphs 1 – 4 above, the Defendant submits that the particulars of claim fail to disclose any reasonable ground for bringing the claim, the court is asked to exercise its discretion on Rule 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the same.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 1:15 PM
    • 54,026 Posts
    • 67,695 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you can ask, you never know.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 14th Feb 18, 10:40 AM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    My deadline for submission is tomorrow. Just a quick question on submitting my defence. On MCOL do I enter anything at all in the defence box or do I just simply send my defence today via recorded delivery?

    Any feedback on my defence is appreciated. Here it is.

    IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

    Claim No: XXX


    MIL COLLECTIONS LTD
    Claimant

    -v-

    Me
    Defendant

    APPLICATION FOR STRIKE OUT & DEFENCE


    Application for strike out

    1. The court is referred to Rule 3.4(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) which provides:

    The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

    (a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim

    2. In addition, the court is also referred to Rule 5.2 of Practice Direction 7E of the Civil Procedure Rules – Money Claim Online (‘the Practice Direction) which provides:

    Detailed particulars of claim must either be –

    (1) included in the online claim form but must be limited in size to no more than 1080 characters (including spaces); or

    (2) served and filed by the claimant separately from the claim form in accordance with paragraph 6 but the claimant must –

    (a) state that detailed particulars of claim will follows; and

    (b) include a brief summary of the claim,

    in the online claim form in the section headed ‘particulars of claim’.

    3. As the Claimant has not specified that the particulars of claim are to follow, as per Rule 5.2(2)(a) of the Practice Direction, it is presumed that the matters set out under the heading on the Claim Form“Charge for parking on private land” are the Claimant’s particulars of claim.

    4. The particulars of claim fail to outline any legal basis upon which the claim against the Defendant is brought. In particular:

    i. Paragraph 2 uses the expressions “the charge” and “OFFENCE”, but fails to specify any piece of legislation, or other legal basis, which would provide a cause of action for the claim;

    ii. If the claim is based upon a purported breach contract, no reference is made to any particular term, warranty or condition which has been so breached;

    iii. Furthermore, if the claim is based upon a purported breach of contract, no particulars of loss are specified;

    iv. Indeed, there is no reference at all to the existence of any purported contract between the Claimant and Defendant.

    5. For all of the reasons set out in paragraphs 1 – 4 above, the Defendant submits that the particulars of claim fail to disclose any reasonable ground for bringing the claim, the court is asked to exercise its discretion on Rule 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the same.



    Defence:

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

    6. The Claimant has no locus standi in this case.

    i) The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (Local Car Park Management) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim

    ii) 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.

    iii) The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 25/11/17, Assignment notice sent 26/11/17. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned, to the registered keeper.

    iv) 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.

    v) 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 landowner.

    vi) Whether there was a contract or a licence, only the Landowner has standing to bring a claim, not the Claimant nor the operator.

    vii). 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.

    viii).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.

    7. It seems that the sole grounds upon which this Claimant has issued proceedings is that the Defendant was the registered keeper or driver of a vehicle and they allege, with no evidence, no contract, and no cause of action, that they have ‘purchased a debt’.

    8. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date, I was responsible for the vehicle mentioned in the Particulars. The claim purports to relate to an alleged ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN) issued by another company regarding an alleged but unproven and vaguely stated breach of contract where the originating parking company was made aware by a timely appeal (that they unreasonably refused and in addition failed to provide a POPLA appeal code which is in breach of BPA code of practice of which Local Car Park Management are an approved operator) that the driver was parked without valid permit or authority. The appeal and their response will be produced in evidence.

    9. This Claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in a matter in which it has 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. MIL cases struck out by the courts include 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Cook, where DJ Spencer suggested that the witness statement supplied by this Claimant provided no evidence and could actually have been boiled down to a single sentence - "We bought some photographs". The judge 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."

    10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any assignment they might plead conformed to the Law of Property Act 1925 and was properly executed in respect of the alleged debt before proceedings were issued. It is specifically denied, given the absence of any Schedule of Assignment, that the letter produced by them purporting to have originated from their assignor represents proper notice.


    11. It therefore follows that without any true assignment the Claimant has no cause of action and these proceedings have no basis whatsoever and are wholly unreasonable and vexatious; the purported assignment being a false instrument.

    12. In the alternative, it is the Defendant's case that this Claimant had no prior interest in the underlying transaction whether by way of privity, civil wrong or tort and as it represents a bare chose in action, that the Claimant’s case savours of maintenance. This offends against public policy and may well constitute an abuse of process as established in the cases of Simpson -v-Norfolk and Norwich Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149 and Giles –v- Thompson [1993] UKHL 2.

    13. The car park in question , although accessible to all during normal working hours (7am to 10pm), has a lockable security gate which can be opened only by authorised personnel outside of this time, of which the defendant is a keyholder with unrestricted 24 hour access. In this case, it is my belief that as a keyholder the vehicle was parked inside the premises with permission from my employer and leaseholder during the time of the alleged incident and cannot be parked illegally on the premises at any point.

    14. The reason for this parking company's presence on this gated site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

    15. The driver was allowed the right to park by his employer, who are a leasehold business, with express permission from Group Business Services staff as supported by an accompanying letter in the form of a second witness statement which will be submitted in evidence stating so.

    16. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract.

    17. New signage cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’ which also adduced a business car park decision, analogous to this present case.

    (i) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.

    (ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.

    18. The right of the on site businesses to allow authorised vehicles to park pre-dates the arrival of this Claimant.

    19. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Local Car Park Management and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee company and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site.

    20. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £150 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

    21. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £150 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    22. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

    23. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.

    24. Landholders cannot allow or promise this on the one hand, then on the other hand, take away this permission or promise, in allowing a third party to disallow and/or seek to charge for the permitted action by a driver.

    (i) In 'Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011' a tenant was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landholder, who later proposed to reduce the availability of parking and to charge for it. On appeal it was held that the landholder was only entitled to change the location of spaces, not to reduce their number, nor to unreasonably restrict parking previously offered, nor to charge for it. Such restrictions would interfere with easements enjoyed under the lease.


    25. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendants costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    It is therefore denied that:
    a. Any ‘debt’ exists or existed
    b. This purported debt was assigned at all
    c. Any notice was provided of the purported assignment save for a deceptive letter produced by the Claimant themselves, intending that it be accepted as having originated from their alleged assignor
    d. The alleged assignor had locus standi at the location on the date in question
    e. Any signage relied upon comprised a contractual offer
    f. There was any contravention by the driver
    j. Any ‘administrative & collection fee’ of £50 was incurred or is due.

    Statement of Truth:

    I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Feb 18, 11:27 AM
    • 1,711 Posts
    • 1,917 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Dont send it via post!

    Print, sign and scan it to PDF, then email to the court, with case ref in the subject line.
    You do not then need to do ANYTHING on MCOL
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 14th Feb 18, 11:35 AM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    Dont send it via post!

    Print, sign and scan it to PDF, then email to the court, with case ref in the subject line.
    You do not then need to do ANYTHING on MCOL
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Perfect. Thank you. I assume this is the correct email address?

    ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    Anything I should change on the defence?
    Last edited by marty1888; 14-02-2018 at 11:39 AM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Feb 18, 12:47 PM
    • 5,674 Posts
    • 4,379 Thanks
    KeithP
    From this page, I would be using:

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


    Where did you get ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk from?
    Last edited by KeithP; 14-02-2018 at 12:49 PM.
    .
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 14th Feb 18, 12:55 PM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    From this page, I would be using:

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


    Where did you get ccbcdefendants@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk from?
    Originally posted by KeithP

    Here:

    https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/ccbc.aspx
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Feb 18, 1:04 PM
    • 54,026 Posts
    • 67,695 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Use the ccbcaq email, it's mentioned on so many threads already.

    Attach the defence as a PDF, a physically signed & dated document (of course).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Feb 18, 1:39 PM
    • 5,674 Posts
    • 4,379 Thanks
    KeithP
    But that's a commercial enterprise.
    Have you seen their charges?
    .
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 14th Feb 18, 2:17 PM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    But that's a commercial enterprise.
    Have you seen their charges?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    I just googled it and that was the link that came up.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 14th Feb 18, 4:00 PM
    • 3,993 Posts
    • 4,038 Thanks
    DoaM
    Can I suggest you pay closer attention to your defence than you appear to take to Google search results?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 14th Feb 18, 4:46 PM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    Duly noted.
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 22nd Feb 18, 8:32 AM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    Two letters received.

    One from the CC Business Centre enclosing the N180 form to be filled in and returned.

    Second letter from MILC consenting to mediation on the matter.

    I'll fill out my N180 as per the instructions in the newbies thread and send a copy to both parties.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Feb 18, 10:02 AM
    • 16,661 Posts
    • 26,051 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Second letter from MILC consenting to mediation on the matter.
    Who/what is MILC?

    Have you agreed anything relating to mediation?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 22nd Feb 18, 10:19 AM
    • 1,495 Posts
    • 1,984 Thanks
    Castle
    Who/what is MILC?

    Have you agreed anything relating to mediation?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I'm guessing MIL Collections.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Feb 18, 10:47 AM
    • 16,661 Posts
    • 26,051 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I'm guessing MIL Collections.
    Originally posted by Castle
    Yep, I guessed it might be them, but failed to spot the name on a skim back over this page. Funnily enough, I can now see it quite easily now!

    Would still like to know what the OP is thinking of doing on the mediation front in response to MIL's position.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 22nd Feb 18, 10:50 AM
    • 929 Posts
    • 1,152 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    I've been looking through this again and MIL Collections have been chasing this since September 2017 but only purchased the 'alleged debt' on the 25/11/2017.

    Are they allowed to do that?
    Originally posted by marty1888

    on or about that date Javed IQBAL (sole trader) left the company , then returned as a director in november

    perhaps it was sold by a sole trader that does not exist anymore https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09074641/officers
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • marty1888
    • By marty1888 22nd Feb 18, 11:05 AM
    • 463 Posts
    • 213 Thanks
    marty1888
    Who/what is MILC?

    Have you agreed anything relating to mediation?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I'm guessing MIL Collections.
    Originally posted by Castle
    I will not be agreeing to mediation. I will defend the claim in court if required as I do not owe any alleged debt to this company.
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

3,464Posts Today

8,529Users online

Martin's Twitter