premier parking logistics... help

bazster

What a pity she contacted them. Otherwise they'd have had no idea who she was.

MIL are new kids on the block, supposedly buying up the poorest quality fake fines from the real bottom-feeders of PPC world, probably for a tenner, if that. Most of what they've got is such rubbish that they probably wouldn't dare go in front of a judge with it, but nonetheless they are filing claims, probably working on the CEL "enough will pay to make it worthwhile" principle.

Please post up what you have received, redacted of identifying details. If there's a supposed "Letter of Assignment" let's see that too. What is on your side is that there is no such company as Premier Parking Logisitics, and I'm betting that nothing you have received carries the name Walton Wilkins. So let's see it.

oscardrell

Cheers Bazster, will copy tomorrow redact and post.

oscardrell

Please find link IT problem's caused my delay apologies everyone!!
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j75/_hannahluke2015/20150803_091308_resized_zps6c6f7035.jpg[/IMG][/URL

Umkomaas

You might want to follow this thread on PePiPoo. Same circumstances by the look of things.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100570

bazster

Is that it? Just the one letter? Nothing purporting to be from Walton Wilkins?

bazster

You could try this very simple response:

Dear Sirs

Your purported Letter Before Action falls well short of the requirements set out in the Civil Procedure Rules and I believe is an attempt by you at a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage.

Should you provide me with a compliant Letter Before Action then I will respond accordingly. However, should you proceed to bring a claim without first providing a compliant Letter Before Action I will be sure to draw the court's attention to your non-compliance as to the question of costs.

I will point out now, however, that (i) the Law of Property Act 1925 does not provide for the assignment of the right to sue for a breach of contract already committed and (ii) in any case I believe the purported assignment to be champertous and therefore void. You may wish to refer to the House of Lords judgment in Trendtex Trading Corp v Credit Suisse (1982) AC 679 HL before you decide on your next action.

oscardrell

That's it. One letter simply saying they've bought the debt and intend to prosecute. I'll send the letter worded as you suggest tomorrow, recorded delivery.
Many thanks.

bazster

oscardrell wrote: »

That's it. One letter simply saying they've bought the debt and intend to prosecute. I'll send the letter worded as you suggest tomorrow, recorded delivery.
Many thanks.

I've amended it slightly.

oscardrell

Had no reply and today have received a letter from County Court business centre on behalf of MIL..!!! Do I simply dispute the claim here guys...Getting a bit concerned now..

Umkomaas

You'll need to acknowledge service of the claim urgently. That will provide you a further 14 days on top of the basic 14 days to develop your defence.

You could go over to PePiPoo and read the many MIL threads over there, all in varying states of evolvement. You might even want to open your own thread on your case there as they are really on top of MIL.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

The bottom line seems to be:

1. if you don't fight this you will get a judgment against you by default and a CCJ.
2. If you put up a robust defence (with PePiPoo input), MIL won't go anywhere near court, withdraw their claim, leaving the possibility for you to claim your costs of defending against them.