PCN has been sold to ML Collections

The_Slithy_Tove

You need to acknowledge the claim and submit a defence, come what may. One of the MIL threads on Pepipoo is ahead of you, so plently of collateral there, including something to add to the defence around the entity making the claim being unclear. The letter you sent, which was not replied to, will be a strong part of the full defence.

Don't forget to keep track of the time and costs spent on this. You will be claiming for this to the court as MIL are clearly acting unreasonably.

acapaldi

Thanks will have a look on Pepipoo now

acapaldi

Hi everyone thanks for your help so far. Is it possible I could pm my skeleton address to anyone to have a quick look over before I submit it please.

Coupon-mad

Yes feel free, but you are not defending this just yet, you must acknowledge the claim within 14 days (leave defence blank) and then you have a further 14 days to submit a defence.

acapaldi

Thank you Coupon-mad glad you told me that got really confused I thought the skeleton defence had to be put on the acknowledgment. I will acknowledge it now and leave defence blank. I will add more to defence now and send you pm later.

acapaldi

Would you mind looking over my defence please - was not able to private message anyone. Thank you


Re Claim Form: xxxxxxx


Date


Address


In response to the claim form No xxxxxxx dated xxxxxxxxxxx the defendant disputes the claim and raises the following:


There are a number of errors, both factual and typographical) in the Letter Before Action issued by the claimant on 11/05/2015 and in the associated Agreement Under Assignment issued by Car Park Management Services on 09/05/2015, both of which were delivered in the same envelope. The extent of the errors leads the defendant to question the validity of the joint communications.


The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 29/08/2013. Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd was not incorporated until 18 June 2014 and cannot possibly be the company contracted to provide parking services in 2013 when the alleged incident took place. It follows that neither can it have any capacity to assign the disputed debt.


The defendant has never received any communication that the original operator, believed to be a sole trader, sold or in any other way assigned the alleged debt to a Limited company with a similar name that could in turn assign it to the Claimant.





In more detail,

• The unsigned Agreement Under Assignment issued by Car Park Management Services (no Limited mentioned) on 09/05/2015 (copy attached) provides the Registration number : 9091690
  
  1. The name does not correspond to the registration number that belongs to Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd
  2. The address at the top of the letter, 111 Piccadily, Manchester contains an obvious spelling mistake that would not be made if the company had a genuine connection to the address.
  3. This is also not the registered address for Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. The actual registered address for this company is: The Bristol Office, 2nd Floor, 5 High Street, Westbury On Trym, Bristol, BS9 3BY
  4. The Companies Act requires a company to display its name at its registered office, other places of business and on all business communications. It must also include its registration details in its letters.
     These requirements are included in:
     The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations (Statutory Instrument 2008/495)
     and
     The Companies (Trading Disclosures) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (SI No. 218)
  5. The letter lacks any valid letterhead and does not provide the company's registered address in direct contravention of the above.
  6. The incorrect company registration number used on the letter is also in contravention with The Companies Act
• The unsigned Letter Before Action issued by the claimant lists an incorrect date for when the alleged incident took place, stating 29/08/20.
  
  1. The same letter also uses out of date references to Civil Procedures Rules, Practice Direction, Pre-action Protocols.
  2. The letter states that the claimant bought the alleged debt from Car Park Management Services. This further compounds the confusion over who the legal entity that the claimant has been dealing.
• The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 29/08/2013. Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd was not incorporated until 18 June 2014 and cannot possibly be the company contracted to provide parking services in 2013 when the alleged incident took place.
  
  1. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that Car Park Management Services might in fact be the trading name used by an unidentified sole trader to operate at the location at the time of the alleged incident.
  2. The Companies Act 2006 and associated Companies Trading Disclosures Regulations also covers sole traders and chapter 9 of the guidance notes (Business names) available from www.gov.uk state that it is a requirement for a
     sole trader to display their own name at all of their business premises and on business letters, invoices, orders, receipts etc. This information is missing from the signage (details attached) and communications (copies also attached)
  3. The identity of the legal entity trading under this name has never been disclosed on any sign or in any document received by the Defendant.
  4. No agreement under assignment has been issued by the original operator to Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd
  5. In the absence of any recognised and legal transfer of the alleged debt from the original operator, it follows that Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd had no connection to the alleged debt and therefore is not and was not in a position to assign the alleged debt to the claimant.
• The Claim form states that no response was received following the Letter Before Action. In fact a detailed response dated 18 May 2015 (copy attached) was sent to the claimant highlighting a number of the above points and requesting them to investigate and advise on the particular issues around the identity of the original entity and the means by which they were able to assign the alleged debt to Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd and in turn the actual identity of the party it purchased the alleged debt from.
  
  1. There has been no response from the claimant , even to acknowledge the request.

5. The Defendant invites the court to conclude that the Claimant, by its silence, does not dispute his conclusion that the Claimant did not acquire good title to the disputed debt. The Defendant invites the Court to use its power under Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules to order the Claimant to provide the requested information or to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

The Defendant also invites the Court to have regard to the Claimant's conduct when disposing of the costs of the case afterward

bod1467

Regarding the letter you sent them (last bullet point) ... did you send it recorded delivery or obtain a certificate of posting? If yes, include the receipt in your defence pack (and say so). If you can prove you sent the stated response letter then that pulls the chair away from any such claim they make about there being no response - i.e. you can prove you sent it, they can't prove it wasn't received. (Interpretations Act 1978).

Other than some minor grammatical issues it looks good to me.

acapaldi

Thanks everyone will be submitting my defence over the weekend. Will keep you informed re the outcome.

Coupon-mad

Good points so far but very focussed only on the company name, which is putting all your eggs in one basket. Why does it have a point #5 when there are no other numbered points?

And I didn't see anything about 'no keeper liability because the claimant has never served a fully compliant 'Notice to Keeper' as defined in Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012'.

And I saw nothing saying the claimant has not evidenced that they have rights in the land.

And I saw nothing about GPEOL and the Beavis case? I would!

acapaldi

Thanks Coupon-mad working on your comments now and adding them in.