PCN has been sold to ML Collections

HO87

acapaldi wrote: »

Would you mind looking over my defence please - was not able to private message anyone. Thank youThe unsigned Agreement Under Assignment issued by Car Park Management Services (no Limited mentioned) on 09/05/2015 (copy attached) provides the Registration number : 9091690

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.

Can I suggest that you keep your (or rather your daughter's) initial defence far shorter and to the point keeping in mind the old maxims of "that which is not denied is accepted" and "say what you mean and mean what say" Something like:

1. I deny that I owe a debt to the claimant. Further I deny that such a debt exists or could exist.

2. The so-called Letter Before Action significantly falls short of the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Protocols in respect of the basis of the claim, copies of relevant documents or provision of time to respond. It cannot therefore be relied upon as notice of anything and the court is asked to disregard it.

3. The document included with the so-called Letter Before Action does not make clear in either its content or title what it is intended to be; it is unsigned; fails to properly disclose or disclose at all the legal entity from whom the claimant asserts they were assigned the alleged debt and, having been included in the envelope from the claimant was clearly produced by them and cannot therefore have been given "under the hand" of the alleged original creditor. Whether this document was intended to be a formal Notice of Assignment or a Deed of Assignment is not made clear and in any event fails in all respects to comply with the requirements of ss 136 or 196 Law of Property Act 1925.

4. As both of these documents form the essential basis of the claim the court is asked of its own motion to dismiss the matter as materially failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

5. In the alternative, the claimant is put to strict proof of both the basis for their assertion that a debt exists; if so, that it was capable of being assigned by the purported assignor; and that if this was so that it was assigned adequately and competently. Finally, the claimant is put to strict proof that I am the debtor.

5. Further, that in demonstrating that such a debt exists the claimant is put to strict proof of their assertion that the alleged original creditor complied in all respects with the requirements of s.56, Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6. Having had no knowledge of the matter before receipt of the purported Letter Before Action I respectfully ask that the court permit me to amend or supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's full case.

You need to keep some powder dry and can hit them with the detail of their failures later. The principal aim here, I suggest, is that you let them know that you are not a walk over and have put them on notice that they are going to have to prove everything.

acapaldi

Thanks so much HO87 really appreciate all this help could not do it without you all giving your advice. Also we have not received a letter offering mediation etc as the others have got from MIL do they have to do this?

acapaldi

HO87 thanks so much having looked at your advice fully understand what you are suggesting and fully agree with your guidance you are so knowledgeable thank you.

The_Slithy_Tove

Can I suggest that tis sentence is reworded. It doesn't make sense as it is, containing too many different ideas all at once.

it is unsigned; fails to properly disclose or disclose at all the legal entity from whom the claimant asserts they were assigned the alleged debt and, having been included in the envelope from the claimant was clearly produced by them and cannot therefore have been given "under the hand" of the alleged original creditor.

The defence needs to be crystal clear; this is not.

HO87

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Can I suggest that tis sentence is reworded. It doesn't make sense as it is, containing too many different ideas all at once.

The defence needs to be crystal clear; this is not.

In your opinion...:whistle:

How about:

it is unsigned and fails to properly disclose or disclose at all the legal entity from whom the claimant asserts they were assigned the alleged debt. Further, having been included in the envelope from the claimant it was clearly produced by them and cannot therefore have been given "under the hand" of the alleged original creditor.

The_Deep

How about correcting the split infinitive.

HO87

Be my guest TD. Feel free to correct as you see fit.

arabesque_101

The_Deep wrote: »

How about correcting the split infinitive.

It is unsigned and fails to disclose properly, or disclose at all, the legal entity from whom the claimant asserts they were assigned the alleged debt. Further, having been included in the envelope from the claimant it was clearly produced by them and cannot therefore have been given "under the hand" of the alleged original creditor.

HO87

arabesque_101 wrote: »

It is unsigned and fails to disclose properly, or disclose at all, the legal entity from whom the claimant asserts they were assigned the alleged debt. Further, having been included in the envelope from the claimant it was clearly produced by them and cannot therefore have been given "under the hand" of the alleged original creditor.

Thank you for the punctuation. There is a very specific reason why punctuation is minimised in legal documents.

That having been said I'm afraid you missed one. Technically the phrase "having been included in the envelope from the claimant" is parenthetical and should therefore have commas at each end[/pedant mode].

arabesque_101

I wasn't intending to fix punctuation, just removing the split infinitive as requested by The Deep.