PCN has been sold to ML Collections

enfield_freddy

ok , piccis arrived


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/CPM.gif


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/MIL.gif

acapaldi

Very many thanks. She did initially advise the parking company in writing that she had a valid permit to use a specified bay in the car park but someone else had occupied it so she parked in a non designated bay (assuming it would not inconvenience anyone). On this basis she stated that she did not recognise their PCN and would not respond to any further contact from them.
The letters from the debt collection agancy assume there is a debt (at the moment it is an invoice (PCN) ) and that there is an account that has been transferred (an account assumes that 2 parties have entered into some sort of agreement, which I am sure cannot be the case here.
All rather confusing.

acapaldi

Just had this reply on another site from a retired barisster
The issue in this case is did the management company actually have a valid debt to sell.
MIL cannot acquire any rights unless CPMM had them to start with.
Typically this is in fact not the case.
Just because they are a management company does not give them legal status. That usually resides with the landowner.
So if they proceeded the first part of the defence is that MIL have no status to bring the case.
They would have to prove CPMM had status and my guess is they haven't a clue whether they did or not - still less will they have the evidence to prove it as it commercially sensitive.
Typically the deal with the landowner is the management company pay a fee which is a fixed sum. They do not acquire any rights of occupation merely the right to enter and manage.
So unless they can show an agency in which they act on behalf of the landowner they would have no basis of claim.
Most landowners are not bothered as they do not gain whether there is one ticket or one thousand issued.
Companies are reluctant to disclose the nature of the deals as it would show competitors what they are paying. So it is highly unlikely they would disclose to MIL.
Secondly of course it is at present not a legally established debt anyway.st had this reply from a retired barrister on another site

enfield_freddy

me thinks reading that , the retired barrister did not understand your question fully ,


you were ticketed by Car Park Management


he is reading this a a property management company , not a scum bag firm of knuckle dragging &*(^$%


although he then changes in the second half of the reply




was he drunk?


I thought you had to be pre warned of a sale , and possibly given one final chance to pay , I don't mean a letter in 2014 , I mean a fixed time before the sale ,


there is only 2 days between selling and buying the "alleged debt"

arabesque_101

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.

The OP's daughter has told them, so what does that mean now with regards to the ability of the debt to be sold?

HO87

With respect arabesque101 I think your question is wrong. It presupposes that there is a debt capable of being sold. I suggest that that is unlikely.

Firstly, as far as I can see what the "barrister" has concluded is correct albeit I would question the likelihood of his assumption that CPMS pay a fee to operate (a la PE at Riverside). I suggest that it is very unlikely that a fee is paid at all.

Secondly, we cannot ignore the probability/possibility that some other form of agreement (licence, ASH or lease) supervenes here in respect of the OP daughter's right to park or indeed even right to peaceful enjoyment of her own property (or that that she leases). That will knock flat any claim CPMS may attempt to bring in respect of its supposed contract.

The OP's daughter isn't going to contract with CPMS if she was granted a licence/lease to use the parking space by her landlords (no intention to establish legal relations).

Thirdly, a debt doesn't exist simply because CPMS assert that it does or that it is called a Parking Charge Notice.

Lastly, I would further contend that any dispute that may have arisen is, at worst, a result of the OP's daughter having failed to abide by the terms of her licence. At worst this can only render her liable to proceedings in trespass and the nominal recompense (she can have caused no damage to the car park) only ever due to the landlords. In such circumstances CPMS have even less likelihood of having standing if pursuing the matter in their name which they appear to have done.

All that aside, and assuming that there is actually a debt, bazster is entirely correct. Both CPMS and MiL have assumed that they have the details of the debtor when that is simply wrong. At this stage they could only rely on POFA for the purposes of keeper liability and in order to pursue the debt MiL - who clearly have no understanding of the Civil Procedure Rules - are going to have to show POFA was complied with.

Methinks MiL have bought themselves nothing more than a pig in a poke.

bazster

acapaldi wrote: »

Very many thanks. She did initially advise the parking company in writing that she had a valid permit to use a specified bay in the car park but someone else had occupied it so she parked in a non designated bay (assuming it would not inconvenience anyone).
...
All rather confusing.

It would perhaps be less confusing for us if you gave us all the relevant information instead of drip-feeding it.

An interesting pair of letters. There is a company named "Car Park Management Services Limited". It is company registration number 04541369, it's registered office is in Blackpool, and it is most certainly not the company that issued this ticket. I would suggest, therefore, that the letter is not valid as a notice of assignment because the company name, insofar as it identifies any company at all (note the absence of "Limited") identifies the wrong company.

The letter from the PPC also gets their own company name wrong, it also doesn't use "Limited", it doesn't show their registered address (the Manchester address shown is not the registered address) and it doesn't even get the registration number quite right (it's 09091690, not 9091690). All breaches of company law, they are required to show their registered name, address and number on all official paperwork.

It's all a load of cobblers anyway. They're not going to start legal action within seven days. Just look at Fawkes' example: he got these letters in January (as far as I can make out). And have they started legal action against him? Nope!

Incidentally the Civil Procedure Rules which they blather on about state that the time allowed for a defendant to respond to a Letter Before Claim should be between 14 days and 3 months depending on the complexity of the case, so their 7 days breaches the very rules they are using to try to intimidate you.

Edna_Basher

Also, the OP needs to bear in mind that Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd, Company Number 09091690 was only incorporated on 18th June 2014. Yet the OP has highlighted that this particular incident took place on 29th August 2013, nearly a year before this company had even been formed.

Even if there is / was a debt, it was not Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd's to sell. It looks like MIL Collections has been sold a lemon.

This incident dates back to the time when Lesley C / Lesley H was operating as a sole trader under the alias of CPMS. I don't believe she ever made her name known on any signage or business stationery, in which case it would not have been possible for her to form a binding contract with any driver.

As Bazster says, MIL's claim is a load of cobblers.

bazster

Absolutely brilliant spot Edna. Any assignment would have to be from Lesley Cubbins (in her actual name) to MIL, not from any company or trading name.

enfield_freddy

OK MIL are going to be so !!!!ed off , seems there idea of a "bulk buy" might not work.


another case starting here


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98867


I suspect that a lot of people will just pay up , ids there any "legal" way of stopping this fraud?