Xx

Stucod

Hi I am after some advice

Coupon-mad

Read these other threads and the Parking Prankster's Blog linked here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5368840

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5399626

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5417680

You can defend this. The bank statement won't be as relevant really as you might think - and you certainly DO NOT make admissions about leaving the site or anything else.

Was the PCN for leaving the site?

Was it from JAS or Car Park Management Services?

Read everything above thoroughly and the penny will drop on how to defend this, nothing like what's in your mind at the moment. By all means show us your draft defence and we'll help. MIL cases are easier to defend than a parking company one which you will understand when you read about their non-assignment and learn that they have just purchased old PCNs in bulk for £1 a pop.

Whether the PCN had any validity or not, MIL are chancers and are not the right claimant.

By the way, we have NOT recommended ignoring private PCNS for three years so it was not our advice in mid-2014 to ignore the PCN.

beamerguy

Stucod wrote: »

Hi I am after some advice. I have today received a county court claim form relating to a private parking charge at B & M bargains in Stockport in August 2014. I did park there on the date in question. It is not a pay and display car park. My understanding was that you had to use the store if you were parking there. On this particular day. I parked up with my 3 month old daughter and 3 year old son. I was going to shop in B & M bargains but as my son was hungry we crossed over the road and went to Boots to buy a sandwich. If I recall correctly we sat on the bench outside Boots whilst he ate his sandwich and I fed my 3 month old daughter. We then returned to B & M bargains and purchased £15 worth of goods. I was given a parking charge. I have a bank statement confirming that I made a purchase in B & M bargains amounting to £15 on that day. I ignored the letters from the parking company as recommended on here at the time. The matter has now been passed to MIL Collections Ltd who are based in Cornwall and they gave started court proceedings as the claimant, the debt amount is £149 with £50 admin fee and £25 court fee. I have lodged an acknowledgement of service with the court today and intend to file a defence setting out the above and attaching a copy of the bank statement confirming that I did shop in B & m bargains on that day. Can anybody offer any advice in respect of this? Is a court really going to suggest that I should not have left the carp ark/store? Thanks in advance.

Who was the parking company ??

I draw your attention to a parking prankster report dated 17 October 2015
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mil-collections-fail-in-court.html

What is the actual claim for? Just an overstay or does it say leaving the car park to shop elsewhere. It is depending on what they are claiming as to how you answer. In other words, do not admit to something they no nothing about.

You can certainly try to ask the store to intervene with your receipts and any future business with them which will be subject to a suitable response.
However, the CEO of B&M seems a bit short in the "smart" department so try but no guarantee.

Have you checked the signs are correct ?

Does the parking company have planning permission for these signs, if not they are illegal, check with your council

4consumerrights

Stucod wrote: »

Can anybody offer any advice in respect of this? I.

yes acknowledge service of the claim within 14 days of service as this will give you more time to submit a 'proper defence' sorry what you have supplied in post 1 will not do !

Please do not rush this ......


@ BeamerGuy - there are newer Prankster Blogs including these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_01_01_archive.html

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

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

Redx

B&M in Stockport used to be JAS so I suspect MIL bought the alleged "debt " from JAS

but as its MIL, then its likely a regular on here may get involved and help you privately, even if its only the paperwork you need to submit

HO87

Don't rush to submit your defence quite yet.

You have a PM

Just to hearten those who understandably fear aggressive litigators like MIL you will be pleased to hear that they have failed once more - this time in Willesden last Monday and costs were again awarded against them. True to form they failed to appear but instead applied for the matter to be heard on the papers. Their claim (filed late of course) was the standard mass-produced set of papers adjusted to fit the defendants name, vehicle details and the details of the alleged parking infraction.

Their full claim (filed late, of course) was the usual boilerplate cobbled-together, mish-mash of poorly photocopied paperwork and a statement of claim that only fleetingly made references to minor items of evidence and majored on groundless assertions. Yet this claim - and presumably all of the others - are supposedly put forward by MIL's "Legal Advisor" though one has to ask what experience of the law this person has.

It is particularly worrying that MIL are obtaining default judgments with many of their claims based on no more evidence (and conceivably less) than they produce in the defended cases. This is most assuredly not a reflection of the legal "strength" of their claims but the lack of scrutiny most MCOL cases receive unless allocated to a court (default judgments are dealt with by a solely administrative process). The poor innocents who are falling victim to their claims really should do some research before they sign their settlement cheques.

Umkomaas

@Stucod - HO87 is the guru in terms of dealing with this shower, both here and on PePiPoo - MIL's worst nightmare!

You can be confident you are in very good hands.

bargepole

Umkomaas wrote: »

@Stucod - HO87 is the guru in terms of dealing with this shower, both here and on PePiPoo - MIL's worst nightmare!

You can be confident you are in very good hands.

Yes, HO87 prepared all the documents for the Willesden case, and I went along as Lay Rep for the defendant to make sure there wasn't a rogue decision, and that due costs were awarded to the defendant.

We believe that Judges have thrown out MIL's claim every time when the defendant has had the proper advice / representation.

The actual details of the parking incident are almost irrelevant in these cases; it is the lack of proper assignment of the so-called 'debt' which sinks MIL.

The_Deep

If this was for leaving the site, did the Parking Weasel attempt to mitigate his/her employers losses by warning you of the consequence of doing so? If not, you can summon him/her to court and ask him what instructions he received from his employers.

Leaving site cases are extremely difficult for a PPC to win, see VCS v Ibbotson

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Guys_Dad

If you deny the contravention in court, how are MIL going to prove it? Get the PPC to provide the warden on the day as a witness???

They have to prove a debt exists and they can not!

Coupon-mad

It's not really about the contravention/parking company any more in these cases, more about MIL having no basis to claim.

HO87 is the expert for MIL cases, along with bargepole of course.