PCN/CPMS/MILCollections

HO87

bod1467 wrote: »

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-fail-in-court-champerty.html

That your case?

You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment.

Fawkes

Yes that's my case.

Although not used to being in court (never been in court in my life), the information being given wasn't fully being retained as it was coming thick and fast. But it looks like it's on the right track.

Soon as I get the paperwork in the post I will clarify it for you.

Thanks again

hoohoo

Well done Mr Fawkes! A sterling effort in court and one which will help many other motorists. Now they have been identified as failing on the maintenance issue they will find it very hard to win any claims, ever, and are potentially setting themselves up for costs awards against them on the grounds of being unreasonable.

Fawkes

Thank you hoohoo, caught you late .

Hello everyone.

The post has arrived and the details regarding the dismissal with MIL Collections/ CPMS Ltd are,

(i) The claimant failed to prove the alleged contractual arrangements between the land owner and CPMS Limited conferring any rights on CPMS Limited to assert any claim.

(ii) The claimant has, on the evidence, no legitimate commercial interest in the events concerning the alleged trespass (a tort or civil wrong) and as such, has required a bare right to litigate which is not capable of valid assignment because it offends against the legal doctrine of "maintenance" {Chitty on contracts 32nd edition at 19-050}

Fawkes

Coupon-mad

Worth more people seeing this...