Letter Before Claim - Reply

LiamD89

I gave them the name and address, yes.

I have been gaining advice on pepipoo also, so apologies for the lack of reply.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104129&st=0&gopid=1149646&#entry1149646

Quentin

LiamD89 wrote: »

I gave them the name and address, yes.

On your pepipoo thread you say different, and that you actually didn't pass on the driver details for the charge you have received this court claim for????

Coupon-mad

This is important. Was the driver's name and address given to them in writing at any point prior to the court papers? We must be sure.

If so, then that will feature as one of your (several) defence points because you cannot be held liable as registered keeper if the name and address of the driver was provided before action commenced. This is under the POFA 2012; you have discharged liability if you did give them those details (the parking firm will disagree but the Act shows they are wrong so you need to read it and understand it).

LiamD89

Hi,

As stated on the pepipoo thread, I was assuming this related to a different charge, I have had no contact at all regarding this charge, unlike a second one where I named the driver as per the advice from this thread.

I have drafted up a foi request for the contract between the uni and CPMS, I understand I need to send a part 18 request to MIL also, so will use the one I found on pepipoo forums.

Edit - just to be sure, the name of the driver was NOT given to the company/companies regarding this claim at all. I have never received a LBCCC regarding this PCN unlike the one I started this thread about, I mistakenly thought these papers were about the PCN I started this thread about, I hope that clears it up?

Coupon-mad

LiamD89 wrote: »

Northampton NN1 2LH

The claimant is MIL Collections LTD, Cornwall, TR1 2HE

That's odd that you have had nothing prior to these court papers although I assume you did know you had more than one PCN ages ago? And we wouldn't put anything past MIL who have just bought old parking ticket details for a quid, in the hope of making a killing by scare tactics using court as a cheap method of debt collection, even though it is not their legit debt.

Make sure your defence includes the fact that no LBCCC was ever sent so no details have ever been exchanged. I guess your pepipoo thread (which I haven't seen, not been on pepipoo for a few days) includes the following advice but thought I would put it here anyway:

See this Blog by the Prankster with info about defences in MIL cases:

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

So you could put together the usual sort of bullet point defence for parking cases, such as:

- this case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 due to the completely different facts and the wrong claimant.
- no contract nor offer by the parking company because the terms relating to parking as described are forbidding.
- no consent to pay the charge which is hidden in unclear, inadequate signage.
- surcharges and debt collection costs were not stated on the signage.
- POFA 2012 breaches - no keeper liability can apply and the driver from all that time ago has not been evidenced.
- BPA CoP breaches: signs not compliant and the sum pursued exceeds £100.
- no standing of the Claimant nor of the parking company as neither is the landowner.
- no GPEOL nor legitimate interest to allow such a disproportionate parking charge.
- failure to follow any pre-court protocol/practice directions. No LBCCC.


And include these points as well - thanks to the Prankster and Bargepole for parts of this wording:


- The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence, the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

- Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract, and it is submitted that such an assignment would be champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016.

- This Claimant is known to utilise the small claims track process and paperwork as an aggressive but cheap form of debt collection. This Claimant routinely fails to appear at hearings (e.g. in the case referenced above, one of a series from this Claimant) applying instead for cases to be heard "on the papers" but omitting to communicate this to defendants, to the detriment of unrepresented persons.

- Should this Claimant produce detailed Particulars of Claim, as Defendant I reserve the right to make further defence submissions.

- There is no reasonable prospect of success and this vexatious and frivolous form of litigation is disallowed, as a matter of public policy. The claim should be struck out due to the absence of any cause of action and because it is founded upon champerty and maintenance.