MIL Collections !!

HO87

AshleyKent wrote: »

Just to let everyone know I have found the parking firm is UK Parking Patrol office LTD. had a little call to them to find out if it was in fact these guys in 2014 that patrolled the land, turns out it is...

When I explained that MIL had taken me to court and got a default judgement, that they had sold a debt that wasn't actually a legal debt and had breached the Data Protection Act by passing my details on....

She said "Yeah something was going on but its all sorted with the DVLA now"

I asked for the directors details, she wouldn't provide them, so I explained about companies house and it being public information and she hung up!!

Glad that all this going on is to detriment and stress to these companies that abuse the system!

Now... Just need to sue them!

Are they sure of that?

According to my records (and those of others) up until April 2015 they operated as a sole trader - i.e. not as a Limited company.

@twhitehousescat

twhitehousescat wrote: »

remind me ,who shut poxburge down?

The OFT. As the result of a long-running and wide-ranging investigation (it had started in 2011 IIRC) into the group of companies and controlling individuals with which Roxburghe was associated - the OFT decided not to renew their consumer credit licences. This had the effect of shutting them down but they were not actually shut down directly. There is no reason to doubt that the numerous complaints that originated from the forums had some influence. However, the practices it was alleged Roxburghe was involved in were common to the other companies around it and what we saw (in the way they approached PPC debts) was consistent with that.

MIL Collections ARE serial litigators just like many other companies that buy up debt (more usually consumer credit cases). There is nothing wrong in that. What is wrong is their approach and the fact that they are attempting to use the CCA approach to unregulated debt. That, and quite plainly never reviewing cases unless and until they have to.

Whilst we all know that few if any of their cases have any merit that is unlikely to be the view that the justice system takes given the fact that the vast majority of claims they issue result in an immediate payment or a default win. The cases we see on the forums are very much in the minority. As a consequence there is as much chance of MIL being declared a vexatious litigant as a certain PPC proprietor falling in love with DJ Lateef in Stockport.

---

The Data Protection Act (at s.1) makes it clear that "processing" includes the use of data and whilst MIL might try to argue that they are not actually processing the data (electronically) they are still using it.

Whilst I have sympathy with those at any stage of the court process my particular sympathy is with those who have listed hearings. When you receive that Notice of Hearing things do tend to get real and the butterflies and cold sweats start to set in.

Handbags-at-dawn

PPCs and MIL describe the thing that has been assigned as a "debt". It is not. We should stop going along with this deliberate misnomer as it disguises the legal reality.

A debt is a sum of money payable by one person to another. A sum payable upon a contingency does not become a debt until that contingency is satisfied.

The thing that has been assigned to MIL is (in most cases) a claim for damages for breach of contract. Damages are only payable if and when liability for the breach has been established. Until this contingency is satisfied, damages are nothing more than an aspirational goal.

Because the damages in question are liquidated damages (ie quantum has been agreed in advance) it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking of them as established debts. As a result, many people, including judges, are being led up the wrong track.

Only the parties to a contract have the right to sue for its breach. The thing which is in fact being assigned is this right to sue. Whilst established debts can be legally assigned, a bare right to sue cannot.

MIL therefore have no standing to bring these claims.

HO87

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

PPCs and MIL describe the thing that has been assigned as a "debt". It is not. We should stop going along with this deliberate misnomer as it disguises the legal reality.

I agree. This argument has been at the heart of the forum assisted defences (involving MIL cases) for the last 2 years and I would suggest has in no small part contributed to the success such defences have enjoyed.

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

The thing that has been assigned to MIL is (in most cases) a claim for damages for breach of contract. Damages are only payable if and when liability for the breach has been established. Until this contingency is satisfied, damages are nothing more than an aspirational goal.

Incorrect. In the vast majority of MIL cases the alleged debt is supposedly an agreed contractual charge.

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

Because the damages in question are liquidated damages (ie quantum has been agreed in advance) it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking of them as established debts. As a result, many people, including judges, are being led up the wrong track.

Quite possibly. Much as it would appear you have. . Again in a majority of MIL cases it is possible to show that such signage as there is (that inevitably fail to meet the requirements of prominence, visibility and clarity of terms) is forbidding or fails to make out a contractual offer. The genuine pre-estimate of loss approach fell out of favour as a result of Beavis as a result of which even PPC's realised that dressing up their charges as contractual charges was an easier route. However, recent experience clearly shows that judges are getting wise to that ruse too.

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

Only the parties to a contract have the right to sue for its breach. The thing which is in fact being assigned is this right to sue. Whilst established debts can be legally assigned, a bare right to sue cannot.

Absolutely.

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

MIL therefore have no standing to bring these claims.

Have you been reading one of our basic forum defences?

Handbags-at-dawn

Sorry HO - I wasn't trying to tread on your toes. It's obvious you know what you're talking about, but I've noticed a lot of people get mis-led by the use of the word debt, mainly because the amount claimed is a specific sum - whether it's an alleged contractual charge or liquidated damages.

This OP isn't one of them - he clearly understands it. I think my post really springs from a comment on a recent Prankster blog, which tried to suggest that selling the "debt" was not incompatible with the specific purpose as set out in the KADOE contract (recovery of unpaid parking charges) and therefore not in breach of the DPA 2nd principle. (You went to some trouble to explain it to him).

Maybe whenever the word "debt" arises in this context we could substitute it with something less ambiguous/confusing.
"Claim" perhaps?

Coupon-mad

This OP will get a bespoke defence and counter-claim sorted out off-forum and I see no issues with his chances of getting the CCJ set aside first. All is in hand.

I agree about the point where these claimants describe an unwarranted, unproven 'parking charge' as 'a debt'. Defences on here do not call it a debt and reject all liability anyway but it is an insult to read the drivel calling it a 'debt'.

AshleyKent

Went to court today for the set aside!

GOOD NEWS! I got the set aside!!

I DIDNT get my costs however and the DJ left that for the final hearing! He placed certain obligations on the parking company for the final hearing, namely they have to provide pictures/evidence from the day and prove there is a debt!

TBH he wasn't really willing to listen to my waffle, he wanted to set it aside and go for lunch I think! He seemed to think the fact the DVLA have an undertaking with MIL was irrelevant in the courts as thats between the DVLA and MIL, which will be great if I get him again:mad:

I produced a bill of costs today for almost £450 - obviously MIL will get a copy in due course!

I think my next course of action is an early settlement letter to MIL, saying I will accept my costs to date and walk away, or unleash mighty hell!

What does everyone think?

Thanks in advance!:T

pappa_golf

He placed certain obligations on the parking company for the final hearing


MIL who brought the charge are NOT a parking Ci , nor are they in a recognised parking ATA.

your paperwork states that the claim was assigned (ie sols) to MIL , the parking co first involved are no longer involved , they have had there "queens shilling" so why should they help MIL?

as this situation as come to light and the BPA and IPC informed they can "assign" no more



more DPA breeches when parking control hand more data over

you will be telling Mr dunsford (DVLA) that they will be challenging you on "xx" date in "XX" court


and can we start a book to see if MIL show there face in court?

beamerguy

AshleyKent wrote: »

Went to court today for the set aside!

GOOD NEWS! I got the set aside!!

I DIDNT get my costs however and the DJ left that for the final hearing! He placed certain obligations on the parking company for the final hearing, namely they have to provide pictures/evidence from the day and prove there is a debt!

TBH he wasn't really willing to listen to my waffle, he wanted to set it aside and go for lunch I think! He seemed to think the fact the DVLA have an undertaking with MIL was irrelevant in the courts as thats between the DVLA and MIL, which will be great if I get him again:mad:

I produced a bill of costs today for almost £450 - obviously MIL will get a copy in due course!

I think my next course of action is an early settlement letter to MIL, saying I will accept my costs to date and walk away, or unleash mighty hell!

What does everyone think?

Thanks in advance!:T

That is good news

Unleash the dogs on MIL

As pappa above said, MIL are not the parking company

The parking company washed their hands of it and passed IT to MIL. Cannot see the parking company getting involved as they could face a data breach.

And if MIL show for the hearing it's straight to the DVLA

This is what happens when scammers scam.

In reality, MIL cannot provide proof so it's check mate for them

pappa_golf

just a thought (others will assist) a S.A.R to parking control will show an and ALL evidence held about you , or held on you for 2 yrs

AshleyKent

I want my £255 back minimum for the set aside!

They are def going to back out of this hearing!

The judge asked for proof of the parking...

he also asked me if I was driving... Said I didn't recall going to Wembley!

I have also noticed they say I was in a car park.... I wasn't


I did manage to get a copy of the claim form today, so that was a start!