Mil Collections - Letter Before action

HO87

spook104 wrote: »

Perfect thank you - Just to clarify, I've sent a Part 18 request for information but should the court have got a copy of that too?

No. Not unless you intended to make a formal application for an order that MIL disclose the information (not recommended). Remember that the intention in sending the request is not that you necessarily obtain the information but that you can later demonstrate how uncooperative/unreasonable MIL are.

spook104

I now have my allocated date at my local court. I need to provide a witness statement, but I'm at a loss as to what to put in it above and beyond what is in my initial defence,

I've still had nothing from Mil beyond the small amount of information on the claim form.

Coupon-mad

spook104 wrote: »

I now have my allocated date at my local court. I need to provide a witness statement, but I'm at a loss as to what to put in it above and beyond what is in my initial defence,

I've still had nothing from Mil beyond the small amount of information on the claim form.

You should read other WS examples here first.

See the NEWBIES thread where at least one is linked now, under 'Small Claim?' (I have updated that section since you started this thread). There is also a link to IamEmanresu explaining the difference between a WS (the facts/truth as you can state it) and a skeleton argument that you can also include, (your legal arguments).

Either way you need documents - your evidence - which can include photos of signs, case law and transcripts you've referred to in defence (look in the Parking Prankster's case law) and Schedule 4 if you are defending as keeper ('not liable under the POFA') and a copy of the Beavis case sign as an example of a brief, clear sign with the parking charge in very large lettering, if their sign is in tiny font with the 'charge' buried in small print.

For another example of a WS you can read Gin and Milk's recent thread and Lamilad's thread.

Thing is with yours, it is MIL so don't rush this - you need extra arguments in yours about why they should not even have your data. If it was supplied by the DVLA to the original parking firm, a FOI to the DVLA confirms that parking firms have to get DVLA permission before passing the data on (and certainly if allegedly 'selling it'). Keepers can also argue that MIL have no rights to keeper liability, not being a landholder, and were granted no rights by the landowner, not being party to that agreement either.

Also you need to attack the purported 'assignment' as being not proper notice, not signed, nothing about your PCN (or any PCN!) was on it, nor the sums involved or the commercial intent - this will have been covered initially in your defence but can be summarised in a 'skeleton argument' with your WS and evidence docs. The Notice of Assignment also mentions an 'assignment agreement' which has never been disclosed in evidence so the whole thing is worthless as evidence, never mind the fact MIL have no interest in the 'charge' and have merely purchased some photographs, hoping a bare right to litigate and no contract or anything else, will be enough to scare you and fool the Judge.

Redx

and read this too

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/mil-burned-in-burnley-no-right-of.html

spook104

Funny enough I had spotted that earlier, not sure how long they will keep getting away with this. Any how....

One thing that has always made this harder to deal with is the fact I've had no details from Mil, no pictures, nothing other then an abbreviated location and what I think is them claiming parking while displaying no ticket.

I know Mil have to file the same witness statement and exhibits that they are relying on. Is their deadline the same as mine? I suppose what I'm getting at is am I likely to see any of that information before my time limit?

beamerguy

spook104 wrote: »

Funny enough I had spotted that earlier, not sure how long they will keep getting away with this. Any how....

One thing that has always made this harder to deal with is the fact I've had no details from Mil, no pictures, nothing other then an abbreviated location and what I think is them claiming parking while displaying no ticket.

I know Mil have to file the same witness statement and exhibits that they are relying on. Is their deadline the same as mine? I suppose what I'm getting at is am I likely to see any of that information before my time limit?

I doubt that MIL knows what day of the week it is let alone even knowing why they are taking people to court

The prankster link above is perfect for querying the right of audience who is not the claimant

spook104

So....

I've let this lapse a bit (Still have 12 days to submit the witness statement)

I'm struggling to compose a witness statement, I've seen on other mil threads that it is suggested to write a very simple witness statement basically saying the content of my initial defence forms the basis of my witness statement. I do need to add a point about where I was at the time this occurred as I've now discovered my google location history goes back that far and backs up me not being the driver.

I would then be able to form a skeleton argument based on their submissions. Is this acceptable/advisable? It is very difficult to add anything beyond my initial defence given that Mil have still provided me with nothing more than the information on the MCOL claim form.

pappa_golf

does Mr Dunsford of the DVLA know that MIL are taking you to court? , is he going to allow MIL to use data that they should not have?

spook104

I have in an effort to narrow the issues as the court advised to discuss this with Mil Collections. I've included Mr Dunsford on all the emails and I've had no response from him.

The response I've had from Mil are they are processing my data under section 35 (2)(a) of DPA. What they fail to grasp is it doesn't matter what section they are processing it under, they were in contravention of the act when obtaining it and so were the PPC. The PPC have failed to respond at all, and I've actually started a complaint about both MIL and PPC with the ICO.

pappa_golf

they were in contravention of the act when obtaining it


NO they are in contravention after being TOLD that it was illegally assigned to them (KODOE agreement)

at any point after being informed they continue , they are then breaching DPA