MIL-2 more lost court cases

Castle

Two more losses being reported by the Prankster due principally to there being no valid deed of assignment. (The question is; why aren't the courts chucking the cases out before the hearings?)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mil-lose-in-court-northwest-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mil-collections-lose-deed-of-assignment.html

pappa_golf

Castle wrote: »

Two more losses being reported by the Prankster due principally to there being no valid deed of assignment. (The question is; why aren't the courts chucking the cases out before the hearings?)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mil-lose-in-court-northwest-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mil-collections-lose-deed-of-assignment.html

The question is; why aren't the courts chucking the cases out before the hearings?


not their job , the system is set up so that anyone can bring a case , no matter how stupid or silly , just by paying thec fee.
in the hope that the defendent fails to show or is simply worried by the threat of court and pays up

how many cases are dropped before court?

The_Deep

The question is; why aren't the courts chucking the cases out before the hearings?

No, the question is, why are solicitors accepting such cases in the first place. By failing due diligence, they must surely be in contravention of their cop.

pappa_golf

solisitors will take on any case that pays them money , they do not care , thier paid job is to act for the PPC , even tho they are wrong!

in a criminal trial , the solisitor will stand up for the accused and claom black is white , whilst the crown prosicution service ave got CCTV of him slaughtering 40 kittens (or grown ups)

money , money , money


however in county court , there should be a huge discontinuance fee imposed to stop this happening

The_Deep

I am sorry but I disagree. Solicitors and barristers must not knowingly break the law, or lie to the court. Also, they have a duty to advise their client when their case is hopeless.


They should never mention Elliott v Loake in a Civil claim, nor should they allow cases to proceed where clearly the NTK is non-compliant with POFA, money should not enter into it at all, if it does then it is up to the SRA to get rid of the bad apples.

pappa_golf

The_Deep wrote: »

I am sorry but I disagree. Solicitors and barristers must not knowingly break the law, or lie to the court. Also, they have a duty to advise their client when their case is hopeless.


They should never mention Elliott v Loake in a Civil claim, nor should they allow cases to proceed where clearly the NTK is non-compliant with POFA, money should not enter into it at all, if it does then it is up to the SRA to get rid of the bad apples.

in a perfect world , however acting that way does not buy luxuries

Northlakes

Particularly pleased that one of these cases was thrown out at Carlisle.
NWPE are a scourge in this part of the world and I'm glad it cost MIL some money to defend this baseless claim.
I can't see the logic of NWPE selling a PCN for £1 unless there are private arrangements where in successful claims (or where a payment is made) there is a further 'commission' paid to the PPC.
I think you might find that the PCN is in fact 'borrowed'.
I'm glad that a route has now been found to claim against NWPE for misuse of data. This may have far more implications than we realised.
It will be interest to see if Zenith can process debt claims originally sent to DRP. I need to find out if Zenith are a different legal entity with the same shareholders, admittedly. That's some work to do when I get a minute.

pappa_golf

shareholders in several companies?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/aLgmKnAD2uXFxkfBdpFM_Y25NY0/appointments

Castle

Northlakes wrote: »

It will be interest to see if Zenith can process debt claims originally sent to DRP. I need to find out if Zenith are a different legal entity with the same shareholders, admittedly. That's some work to do when I get a minute.

Zenith Collections is just another trading name of DRP; so they are the same legal entity. I didn't think DRP/Zenith actually bought "debts"; but just act as agents of the PPC's.

I'm wondering if CEL and DEAL Ltd are getting worried now, since CEL did "assign" some "debts" to DEAL. (I note that DEAL's accounts are overdue at Companies House).

Northlakes

Castle wrote: »

Zenith Collections is just another trading name of DRP; so they are the same legal entity. I didn't think DRP/Zenith actually bought "debts"; but just act as agents of the PPC's.

I'm wondering if CEL and DEAL Ltd are getting worried now, since CEL did "assign" some "debts" to DEAL. (I note that DEAL's accounts are overdue at Companies House).

If they are separate companies as detailed by Companies House (thanks PG) the ownership data has been transferred form one company to the next i.e. From DRP to Zenith.
In a particular case, I submitted a successful appeal to POPLA and the PPC (even before adjudication) passed on to DRP for recovery. Letters have now started coming from Zenith. As the PPC knows full well that the case has been lost only DRP could have passed this onto Zenith. I consider that a misuse of data.

pappa_golf

that is a misuse if data , the origional company should have informed thr dogs , failure has caused you distress ,

as dr+/zenith are BPA members , should a complaint not be sent?