PCN has been sold to ML Collections

acapaldi

I have sent the images to enfield freddie to put up for me so that you can see the letters

acapaldi

First letter from CPMS
Titled Debt Sold under Agreement of Assignment
Amount assigned £100.00
We write to inform you that we have assigned (Sold) our interest in this debt to MIL Collections Ltd (address and telephone details followed) This means MIL Collections Ltd are owed the outstanding balance as at 8 May 2015. You should now direct payment directly to MIL Collections Ltd (Bank account details followed. MIL Collections will contact you shortly with details of the action they will be taking. Yours faithfully etc

acapaldi

Letter from MIL Collections
Re: Original creditor account number xxxxxx
Dated 29/8/20
Amount purchased £100.00
Letter titled Debt purchased letter before action.
You are formally advised that the above account has been legally assigned (Sold) from Car Park Management Services to MIL COllections Ltd on 8/5/2015 all communications must now be directed to MIL Collections Ltd. You are hereby given notice that we are preparing to recover the sums due and costs via a small claims action within the next seven days. Court fees legal fees and interest may be added to the principle balance that could result in additional charges of more than the current outstanding balance. Even if you have previously raised a dispute or have some other reason for withholding payment you will need to comply with the civil procedure rules/practice direction, pre action protocols your attention is drawn to section 1.1, section 2.4.1 rule 3.1 and section 4.6.2. Do not underestimate the seriousness of this letter you may not receive further communication from us prior to issue of a small claims action. Yours faithfully etc

acapaldi

Hand typed the letters further down the thread

acapaldi

The date on the letter of when the alleged infringement took place is not a typo on my part and what is all this about an account

bazster

Just ignore it, it's a pack of lies. See post #25 above.

I love it when people blather on about those oh-so-scary practice directions when they've completely ignored them themselves!

acapaldi

bazster wrote: »

Just ignore it, it's a pack of lies. See post #25 above.

I love it when people blather on about those oh-so-scary practice directions when they've completely ignored them themselves!

So I don't correspond with them at all just ignore the letter completely

arabesque_101

nigelbb wrote: »

Car Park Management Manchester cannot sell the debt as the debt doesn't exist until a court says that your daughter owes the money.

Really? I wasn't aware of that.

nigelbb wrote: »

She has not entered into a credit agreement nor is there any proof of a contract between her & Car Park Management Manchester .

Well, she hasn't entered in a credit contract that's for sure, but how do we know there is no proof of a contract? Typically car park companies will produce the following in court as evidence of a contract, and case law says these are often accepted as proof of a contract:
- Photographs of signs and terms and conditions at the car park entrance
- Time-stamped photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

How do we know these don't exist? I thought this was standard PPC fodder.

nigelbb

The alleged debt doesn't exist. Credit agreements have special clauses that allow for assignment of the debt (that is agreed because it's in the credit agreement) that is why these debts can be assigned & sold off. Without a written contract there is no proof of any debt. Even assuming that there was a contract for parking accepted by performance this contract would be with the driver & Car Park Management Manchester don't have a clue who that was unless the OP's daughter tells them.

Aside from the dodgy DEAL/CEL alleged assignments of debt AFAIK there have never been any other cases of 3rd parties taking motorists to court for unpaid parking charges. DCAs cannot take people to court.

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

Even assuming that there was a contract for parking accepted by performance this contract would be with the driver & Car Park Management Manchester don't have a clue who that was unless the OP's daughter tells them.

Indeed, you can't formally notify that a debt supposedly arising under a contract has been assigned by writing to someone who wasn't a party to that contract!

I think people often forget that although Schedule 4 seeks to make keepers liable for a charge arising under a contract with the driver, it doesn't actually make the keeper a party to that contract.