PCN/CPMS/MILCollections

Fawkes

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.

I've read a few over on Pepipoo, they're either ahead of me but cannot find any letters similar to mine in reply from MIL, or everything has gone a little quiet, on MSE and Pepipoo.

My letter was based around Practice Direction, proof of debt including the assignment of the debt, and about the legality of CPMs/CPMS Ltd. None of the questions I have asked have been answered at all.

In their first letter they sent, they stated "CPMS" had sold them the debt. When this was questioned that CPMS doesn't and never has existed they changed their letter to CPMS Ltd has sold the debt.

ManxRed

Them conveniently changing the name of the creditor won't look good in court either.

Here's a current debate about whether an assignee (MiL in this case) can even use PoFA. Might also be a good defence point.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100913

HO87

Fawkes wrote: »

I've read a few over on Pepipoo, they're either ahead of me but cannot find any letters similar to mine in reply from MIL, or everything has gone a little quiet, on MSE and Pepipoo.

My letter was based around Practice Direction, proof of debt including the assignment of the debt, and about the legality of CPMs/CPMS Ltd. None of the questions I have asked have been answered at all.

In their first letter they sent, they stated "CPMS" had sold them the debt. When this was questioned that CPMS doesn't and never has existed they changed their letter to CPMS Ltd has sold the debt.

Without making reference to any particular case or any particular detail - you will be aware that quite a number of MIL cases are being assisted offboard - none of those same questions have yet been answered either at all or sufficiently to clarify the matter. In that respect you are not alone. As gently hinted at before there is good reason why the individual manoeuvrings of cases are not openly discussed on the forums. :cool:

Fawkes

Without making reference to any particular case or any particular detail - you will be aware that quite a number of MIL cases are being assisted offboard - none of those same questions have yet been answered either at all or sufficiently to clarify the matter. In that respect you are not alone. As gently hinted at before there is good reason why the individual manoeuvrings of cases are not openly discussed on the forums.

Hi HO87

I understand why they are not openly discussed and I agree it is better to deal with the letters this way. However, I also have to be aware of the time scale to reply to the letters that's why I am chasing up for advice on how to deal with these letters

Fawkes

Hi

Could anyone direct me to a link that advises or has a good template to look at on how to respond to a "Particulars of Claim". I've been searching for ages and I have come to nothing.


Thanks

HO87

I believe the above request has been addressed.

Fawkes

Hello everybody

I bring good news!

I won my case in court against Mil Collections and their evil sidekick CPMS.

I will follow up with further details.

Thank you to all who helped in the past and also a BIG thanks to HO87!

Kind regards

Edna_Basher

Excellent news, Fawkes.
Hearty congratulations on seeing this through. :beer:

ManxRed

Looking forward to the further details. I may pour myself a pint while I wait.

Umkomaas

Did they actually turn up?