PCN/CPMS/MILCollections

Umkomaas

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

But at least it allows me to expand my vocabulary. Hadn't come across the word champtery before - had to look it up :think:.

You've over-expanded it with champtery!

It's champerty!

Fawkes

Hello everyone,

I've had a reply off MIL Collections which isn't one bit helpful. I would post a picture but I've been warned against doing this.

Would anyone be willing to offer some advice as it doesn't follow the PD at all. I would most probably have to inbox it to you.

Thanks

bod1467

Fawkes wrote: »

I would post a picture but I've been warned against doing this.

By whom? MIL? What did they say would be the repercussions if you did do so?

Fawkes

Hi Bod,

By whom? MIL? What did they say would be the repercussions if you did do so?

Sorry, I say "warned" but I would say more advised not to post due to MIL having a look at the forums.

The letter itself is not helpful. It doesn't follow the PD and just rambles on about a debt being owed and the right to chase a debt. It's getting pretty boring.

Fawkes

Hi

I've had a reply from MIL which isn't helpful in the slightest. The reply is provided by the link below.

MIL provide no information only that a "debt is owed" when a debt does not exist, the same letter every time.

If this does go to court, then wouldn't the argument and defence be on the "legality of the debt" rather than the actual parking charge?

Any help would be appreciated

Fawkes

Fawkes

Any help or input?

Herzlos

You're right, primarily it'd be about the legality of the debt, but if they get past that hurdle, you'd need to shoot down the validity of the parking charge.

In your position, I'd be inclined to reply that you are aware of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and that it does not apply in this case, then re-state your original point.

I'd also send off a complaint to the SRA about their solicitor, because they are trying to mislead you into paying. They know they don't have a case (or even a debt) and are hoping you'll fold before they do.

ManxRed

The use of the word 'summons' indicates to me that this letter was written by someone who doesn't understand what they're on about.

Also, they've quoted that rather sweeping excerpt from PoFA without all the conditions necessary to make that statement apply, most of which I'm pretty sure they (or rather CPMS) haven't complied with.

There's a debate going on over on Pepipoo at the moment as to whether the assignee of a 'debt' has any right to pursue a RK under PoFA, as schedule 4 only refers to the creditor, who is defined as the creditor on the original ticket. It doesn't say 'creditor and any assignees' which is what MiL falls under.

What did you write to them? If they've ignored some key issues in your letter then that letter won't look favourable to them when produced in court.

Fawkes

Cheers Herzlos.

So it's pretty much the same letter sent twice, just adding that I know of the POFA Act

Herzlos

Yeah. I'd also make a point that they haven't actually addressed any of your initial points.

But most importantly, complain to the SRA. If you've got a complaint reference it'll make things look much more favourable to you when claiming your costs back, and it might even make them go away.