Bought ticket but PPC says not displayed

georgd84

Hi
I'd be grateful for any comments and advice on my draft skeleton defence:

1. There is no debt and as such there could be no assignment. In any event the action by the Claimant is champertous and is a misuse of the court process.

1b. The Assignor is not the owner of the land and has failed to supply any details of a contract with the landowner which allows it to issue a parking charge notice. As the Assignor is not the landowner it has suffered no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question. The Claimant is put to proof that the Assignor has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in a contract with the landowner to allow a parking charge invoice to be issued.

1c. The signage on the private land is inadequate to form a contract with a vehicle driver.

2. The particulars say "driver or keeper" but fails to identify whether the defendant was the driver.

2a. It is denied that the car was parked without a valid ticket. A copy of a valid ticket was sent on the day in question by email and also by recorded delivery to the assignor XXXXX Parking Services on 2nd June 2017. The assignor ignored the evidence presented of a valid ticket and has chosen to make representation to the Claimant that a debt existed when there was none.

2b. The valid ticket was displayed prominently inside the windscreen. The signs on the land do not contain an obligation as to how to “prominently display” the ticket so there was no breach of any relevant obligation or contract.

2c. The location in the Particulars of Claim are incorrect. The vehicle was not parked in Port Pendennis Marina, Challenger Quay.


3. The Defendant responded to the Claimants letter of the 28th October further asserting any debt was denied and pointing out the Claimant’s business operated under Financial Conduct Authority rules which it was ignoring in pursuing a denied debt.

The Claimants Claim:
As there is no debt, there is no “administration and collection fee”. The Claimant could have chosen to verify the facts with the Assignor prior to making a claim. Neither the Claimant nor the Assignor has supplied any details of how the charge was arrived at.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.



The Defendant

Coupon-mad

Here are some points that I've used in MIL defences before, all of which were discontinued (a person would have to try very hard to lose a MIL case in court and I have only ever heard of one, that I can only assume was badly defended).

It seems that the sole grounds upon which this Claimant has issued proceedings is that the Defendant was the registered keeper or driver of a vehicle and they allege, with no evidence, no contract, and no cause of action, that they have ‘purchased a debt’.

For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the Particulars. The claim purports to relate to an alleged ‘parking charge notice’ (PCN) issued by another company regarding an alleged but unproven and vaguely-stated breach of contract in a pay and display car park, where the originating parking company was made aware by a timely appeal (that they unreasonably refused) that the driver did pay and display a ticket. The appeal and the Pay and Display ticket will be produced in evidence.

If pled, the Claimant is put to strict proof of the relevance of the judgment in ParkingEye Ltd -v- Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In the matter at issue, the location charges a small hourly tariff where any loss is easily quantifiable, and there was no unpaid parking charge or tariff. Therefore, the same facts and complex commercial justification of charging after a free licence, do not apply even if the Claimant had been the parking operator, which it is not.

This Claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in a matter in which it has no prior interest; this is frivolous litigation with no evidence nor any particulars that could give rise to a claim in law.

Judges across the country have agreed with this view. MIL cases struck out by the courts include 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Cook, where DJ Spencer suggested that the witness statement supplied by this Claimant provided no evidence and could actually have been boiled down to a single sentence - "We bought some photographs". The judge said "This is the problem with MIL, you buy all these supposed debts and rush them to court and can't even be bothered to provide remotely sufficient evidence as to why, in this instance, Mr Cook owes you hundreds of pounds."

The Claimant is put to strict proof that any assignment they might plead conformed to the Law of Property Act 1925 and was properly executed in respect of the alleged debt before proceedings were issued. It is specifically denied, given the absence of any Schedule of Assignment, that the letter produced by them purporting to have originated from their assignor represents proper notice.

It therefore follows that without any true assignment the Claimant has no cause of action and these proceedings have no basis whatsoever and are wholly unreasonable and vexatious; the purported assignment being a false instrument.

In the alternative, it is the Defendant's case that this Claimant had no prior interest in the underlying transaction whether by way of privity, civil wrong or tort and as it represents a bare chose in action, that the Claimant’s case savours of maintenance. This offends against public policy and may well constitute an abuse of process as established in the cases of Simpson -v-Norfolk and Norwich Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149 and Giles –v- Thompson [1993] UKHL 2.

I will also submit the judgment in the case of Trendtex Trading Corporation -v- Credit Suisse [1981] AC 679 to be properly considered. The matter is further considered in Chitty on Contracts 30th Edition at 16-057, pp 1258-1259.

It is denied that:
a. Any ‘debt’ exists or existed
b. This purported debt was assigned at all
c. Any notice was provided of the purported assignment save for a deceptive letter produced by the Claimant themselves, intending that it be accepted as having originated from their alleged assignor
d. The alleged assignor had locus standi at the location on the date in question
e. Any signage relied upon comprised a contractual offer
f. There was any contravention by the driver
j. Any ‘administrative & collection fee’ of £50 was incurred or is due.

georgd84

Success!!!

MIL Collections - !!!8220;Unreasonable conduct in litigation!!!8221;.

A judge has quashed a parking charge and seriously rebuked debt collection company MIL Collections Ltd. The Truro based company were also ordered to pay £750 in costs to the defendant because of their !!!8220;unreasonable conduct in litigation!!!8221;.
The exceptional order came after Cornwall based Llawnroc Parking Services and MIL Collections had pursued motorist David George for payment despite Mr George having bought a parking ticket and proved this to the private parking company. Mr George was helped by members on these pages, along with BMPA and Private Parking Appeals director John Wilkie (acting privately as a Lay Representative) in his defence of a claim from MIL Collections for £215 after the alleged debt was incorrectly assigned to it by Llawnroc.

MIL Collections Christopher Barrett, who calls himself !!!8220;Head of Legal!!!8221; for the firm, under cross examination from John Wilkie, admitted the company often provided fictitious names or pseudonyms on documents used in evidence. He agreed Paul King, G Watson and Matt Murdoch and Matt Murdock, names which often appear on MIL litigation, were all made up. In finding for the defendant and awarding exceptional costs Deputy District Judge Stephen Rutherford said:

!!!8220;If a professional debt agency bring a claim it must get the basic facts right!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;!!!8230;
Many of the letters were written by fictitious people or the names they used are pseudonyms, the problem is these letter were produced (in evidence) and that information would never have come out without the astute questioning of Mr Wilkie. They included wrong dates and wrong amounts, I can forgive one mistake, when it get to two or more I become worried.!!!8221;

The judges criticisms of MIL continued:
!!!8220;Debt has to be properly assigned and a notice properly given. I!!!8217;m not satisfied notice of assignment was properly given. I!!!8217;m not satisfied this was a proper assignment in the first place. It was undated !!!8230;!!!8230;. and signed by a Mr Haddock which is a resemblance to a fictional character!!!8221;.

When awarding costs to Mr George, Deputy District Judge Rutherford said in a small claim court case
!!!8220;Costs are only awarded if there has been unreasonable conduct. Late service of the (evidence) bundle, failure to comply with the pre-action protocols, breaking the Financial Conduct Authority rules, failure to comply with court orders, adding additional administration charges twice, effectively a way of trying to get back costs over and above small claims costs by the back door, all of that puts MIL Collections as having a cost order against them. It amounts to unreasonable conduct in litigation!!!8221;.

After the case the defendant, David George, said !!!8220; MIL Collections appears to use claims to the small claims track to scare people into paying debts which maybe disputed, they use tactics which are, at best misleading to individuals like myself, and the judge has found them out and rebuked them in court!!!8221;. Mr George also said he was extremely grateful for the help provided by John Wilkie, and to the BMPA and the many Private Parking blogs and websites for their help and encouragement.

Ends

beamerguy

Yet another advert ????