MPS/MIL collections

Coupon-mad

Nearly over then!

desres52

Don't think so, I have to get my defence to the court and MIL by 12/7 despite the hearing not being until 10/8 - so the letter from the court tells me. I have already submitted my defence on the Directions Questionnaire to MIL and the court, is this sufficient or do I need to send another copy?

Coupon-mad

Best to send a fuller copy - each point numbered, in a file or small ring-binder for the court (and a copy to the claimant) and you should send a 'witness statement' to all parties as well:

http://www.bmpa.eu/static_witness_statement.php

Comply with the court directions to the letter.

desres52

I wonder if I could have your opinions please? I need to send a copy of my defence to the Claimant tomorrow, I've put this together, can you have a quick look to see if I should add or remove anything? I will be taking the file to the court on Tuesday. Do I send the claimant only my Witness Statement or a copy of all the other items as well? Here's my defence so far:
On this date I was the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration number ........
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. MIL has no valid assignment of debt in the form of a Deed of Assignment pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence, the claimant has no cause of action. The Deed of Assignment and Letter Before Action copies (enclosed) are unsigned and arrived in the same envelope, which may indicate that they were both produced by the Claimant.

2. Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract, and such an assignment would be champertous.

3. The event was over 18 months ago and the defendant, who was not the driver on the date stated in the claim, has no recollection of who may or may not have been driving that day. I put the claimant to strict proof of the individual supposedly entering into the original contact.

4. It is common ground that any contract at the site would be formed by the driver based on terms that were visible, coherent and in the legitimate interests of the site itself as opposed to some arbitrary rule introduced for the sole benefit of the parking contractor who has no possessory rights on site. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of these three elements.


5. It is a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that a Notice to Keeper must be served within 56 days if “keeper liability” is to be invoked. The claimant states that 'Keeper Liability' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch 4 applies, but have not produced any evidence that the requirements of the Act were complied with. The dates on the original paperwork - if the claimant will actually produce the same - will indicate they did not meet the requirements and as such are put to strict proof that Keeper Liability applies.

6. It is disputed the amount of £50 claimed for administrative and collection fees was incurred. Only one letter was received from the Claimant. These charges are not allowable costs on the small claims track.

7. The Claimant states that the Location of the alleged offence was ‘GCS Swansea Vale’, however, GCS have confirmed that they vacated the premises some 8 months prior to the date on the ‘Particulars of Claim’ Form, in August 2014, copy of e-mail enclosed.

As stated in point 1 above, the Claimant has made several claims using a false instrument which have later been discontinued by the Claimant, as stated below:

MIL -v- Mrs S. D., Case No. C0QZ173C

MIL -v- Mr S. C., Case No. C8QZ540N

MIL -v- Mr S. H., Case No. C1QZ911D

MIL -v- Mr R. M, Case No. C3QZ569P

MIL -v- Mrs G. D., Case No. C7QZ8344

MIL -v- Mr P. V., Case No C8QZ707N

MIL -v- Mr M. O. Case No. B6QZ3H7A

MIL -v- C Ltd, Case No. B8QZ0K4T

MIL -v- Mr C. H., Case No. C6QZ220N

MIL -v- M M. A., Case No. C9QZ531N

As such I believe that the Claimant is abusing the court process and wasting valuable Court time by taking this action.

I believe the facts contained in this Witness Statement are true.

I have put the claim and court details at the top along with my name and address.

If I could have a response asap I would be very grateful, thank you.

Coupon-mad

5. It is a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that a compliant Notice to Keeper must be served within 56 days if “keeper liability” is to be invoked. The claimant states that 'Keeper Liability' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch 4 applies, but have not produced any evidence that the requirements of the Act were complied with. The dates and wording of the original paperwork - if the claimant will actually produce the same - will indicate they did not meet the requirements and as such are put to strict proof that Keeper Liability applies.

I would just add the above parts I've added in red, as keeper liability is as much about compliant wording as it is about dates.

HO87

@desres

How about including the fact that MIL's original claim form will have been signed "MIL Collections Ltd". This does not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules which states that a claim issued by a limited company must include a statement of truth signed by a director or authorised officer? Their claim must therefore have been improperly issued.

We cannot know the reasons for the cases listed being discontinued by MIL and to link this with the possibility that their Notices of Assignment may be false instruments is mistaken. You may want to change the wording to the effect that MIL appear to discontinue just defended cases and that this may amount to an abuse of the courts.

Is the PPC that was MIL's assignor the original creditor? In other words is the assignor the same company that issued the PCN? There have been several companies who MIL claim have assigned old unpaid PCN's to them who were not the original creditor - Car Park Management Services (CPMS Ltd) and OKS Empire Ltd are just two.

What about signage on site? You may not have been the driver but that is no reason not to point out that regardless of who was driving at the time of the parking event the signage was not capable of making a contractual offer, wasn't illuminated at night (if this is relevant), were poorly distributed, included no warning signs at the entrance etc etc. Google Street View can be your friend (check the dates on the images)

The same with their (the original PPC's) paperwork - as C-M has alluded to. The Act requires that their paperwork was compliant in every respect. Did it include all of the elements set out in Schedule 4? Was it served at the correct time? (Remember: A Notice to Keeper must be given (served) within 56 days but it cannot be given before Day 29). You should set out everything you can think of and put MIL to strict proof of these points. They must prove their case.

Keep in mind the old legal maxim: "That which is not denied is admitted". In other words if you leave an aspect uncommented upon then MIL's case in respect of that aspect will stand. So challenge every conceivable aspect.

MIL have not yet produced the original of any of the so-called Deeds of Assignment. They produce what they claim is the (reconstituted) front page of what might be that document but it is undated and never makes any specific reference to the debt they are chasing you for. The document they produce is therefore worthless - so put them to proof.

In the cases I have dealt with they have produced just one (copy) contract with the landowner (tenant) and that does not confer any rights to do anything whatsoever so really challenge their standing. If their assignor didn't have standing then they certainly don't. In at least two cases I am aware of the so-called landowner was not the landowner at the time of the parking event.

In not one case have MIL specified the legal basis for their claim. Is it because of an alleged breach of contract? A failure to pay a contractual sum or is it trespass? When you examine the signage in many cases the only case they could argue is that of trespass. Well, did their assignor have any rights of occupation of the land? Did they have a lease or had they purchased it? Did they have the authority of the landowner to issue proceedings (on their behalf)? If so why isn't the landowner joined in (a party) the proceedings? If they simply manage the car park then does their contract grant them rights to occupy the land? Do they have any intention to occupy the land? Quote the case of Manchester Airport Plc -v- Dutton [1999] EWCA Civ 844 which set out very clear tests to be applied to assess ownership/rights of occupation of land - it goes well beyond and "interest" in the land.

Challenge, challenge, challenge.

Coupon-mad

HO87 is the expert, ^^^ what he says goes re MIL cases.

desres52

Thanks for your advice both, do I send just the above statement (amended) to MIL?

HO87

No you must serve a copy on the court AND MIL.

desres52

Thanks both... so defence bundle all sorted and on the way to the court. Your right H087, no deed of assignment received.. hopefully another nail in their coffin! According to the court instructions, the documents need to be served by both parties by tomorrow, so MIL have to provide documents to me as well by tomorrow... only we don't receive any post on a Tuesday!. If I don't receive anything over the next few days, should I take any action?