MIL Judgements

Coupon-mad

I would remove these old cases, IMHO knocked aside by Beavis:

ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land ; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is down the claimant prove its authority.

Ed2000

very important that you complain to the dvla AND ICO.

The ICO are slow, you may have to keep reminding them of your complaint.

Captain_Krunch

Thanks for everyones responses so far. I've amended the defence as advised. I removed some paragraphs detailing poor POCs because the defendant never received a claim and expanded on some using other defence points Here tis....


Defence

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case :

2. The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (Llawnroc Ltd) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim .

3. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Llawnroc Ltd) to be assigned.

4. The Operator (Llawnroc Ltd) had no capacity to offer a contract with the motorist.

5. The signage did not offer a contract with the motorist.

6. No consideration passed from either the Operator (Llawnroc Ltd) ) or the motorist.

7. The Operator (Llawnroc Ltd) ) did not identify the driver.

8. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

9. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Land owner not the operator, nor the Claimant.



1. The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Llawnroc Ltd.Llawnroc Ltd obtained the Defendants personal data from the DVLA under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) agreement that strictly forbids passing on of the information to third parties. The Claimant is not an agent of, or in any way associated with UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and are in breach of the Data Protection Act. It is the Defendants belief that Llawnroc Ltd have sold the Defendants personal data with no prior written permission from the DVLA and is therefore in breach of the KADOE contract clause D5.1. Under the provisions set by Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, the Claimant must be prevented from benefiting from this unlawful act.
The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence, the Claimant has no locus in this matter and falls within the ambit of Champerty and Maintenance.

2, Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract, and it is submitted that such an assignment would be champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016

3. The Operator has failed to provide to the Defendant a copy of the assignment of the alleged debt to the Claimant. Furthermore, the partial assignment fails to meet the conditions required of a valid Legal Assignment in accordance with The Law of Property Act 1925 Section 136(1). As an Equitable Assignment the Claimant may not bring an action unless the Operator is included as a party.
It 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.

4. With regards to the Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract and it is submitted that such an assignment would be Champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Court is asked to consider striking the matter out, as was the case in MIL Collections Ltd -v- Stephen Bowker, Case No. B1QZ7N32 Oldham County Court 15/01/2016..

5. The Claimant is also put to proof that the Operator had sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf as required in the British Parking Association’s Legislation Guidance to Operators.

6. The Operator had no standing to offer a contract; there was no meeting of minds nor any consideration passed. None of the elements that are fundamental to a contract were present and therefore no contract could possibly have existed. The Defendant was, at the most, granted a licence to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a licence would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.

7. Whether there was a contract or a licence, only the Land-owner has standing to bring a claim, not the Claimant nor the operator.

8. The Defendant has no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs but disputes the Claimant’s statement that such an amount would have constituted an offer and submits that it in fact threatened punitive sanctions to discourage the undisclosed conduct. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Operator’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park at that price and the main purpose was to deter the undisclosed conduct by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188 : Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal) that was decided by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words (21 February 2014).

9. The defendant neither confirms or denies being the registered driver of the alleged parking incident. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper/driver liability has been proven in accordance with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012.
As a consequence of non-compliance with the POFA, a private parking charge can only be recovered from the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver who parked the vehicle on the material date and is reminded that it is trite law, that no lawful presumption can be made that a keeper was the driver. This was confirmed in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report, by Henry Greenslade, a parking law expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator (both of POPLA and previously, PATAS) who confirmed that there is no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver and without the parking firm's full compliance with Schedule 4 of the statute, the keeper cannot be held liable.

- This Claimant is put to strict proof that the notices issued and procedures followed fully complied with the requirements of the POFA and that they are entitled to
rely upon the keeper liability provisions. I submit that the Claimant has no such right, has no interest in this matter and there is no 'debt' and no cause of action

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

ampersand

op - re-do your numbering.
Omit the number 1 beneath Defence.
#
Begin your numbering at 2, which means you have 8 grounds, not 9.
#
As you have set things out, even when corrected as above, the numbers of your fuller paragraphs do not marry with their corresponding subject titles or matter.

Move through each heading, with your fuller explanatory evidence beneath.
That will ensure that where you write about signage, for example, you will have a heading, then evidence relating to it.

One example: above, you have mismatched 5, with 8!!!

typo - change to 'not'.

9. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Land owner not the operator, nor the Claimant.

Throughout, 'defendant's details' is a possessive and needs a possesssive apostrophe.
Punctuation/correction as follows:
1. The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, Llawnroc Ltd.
Llawnroc Ltd obtained the Defendant's personal data from the DVLA under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) agreement that strictly forbids passing on of the information to third parties.'
#
I'm off now, but keep at it.
Others will be along to eagle-eye your corrected draft.

Captain_Krunch

Thank ampersands, Heres the next draft...

Defence!

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case :!

1. The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim

The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd. Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd obtained the Defendant's personal data from the DVLA under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) agreement that strictly forbids passing on of the information to third parties.. The Claimant is not an agent of, or in any way associated with UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and are in breach of the Data Protection Act.
It is the Defendants belief that Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd have sold the Defendants personal data with no prior written permission from the DVLA and is therefore in breach of the KADOE contract clause D5.1. Under the provisions set by Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, the Claimant must be prevented from benefiting from this unlawful act.!

The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence, the Claimant has no locus in this matter and falls within the ambit of Champerty and Maintenance.

2. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Llawnroc Ltd) to be assigned.

Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract, and it is submitted that such an assignment would be champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016!
The Operator has failed to provide to the Defendant a copy of the assignment of the alleged debt to the Claimant. Furthermore, the partial assignment fails to meet the conditions required of a valid Legal Assignment in accordance with The Law of Property Act 1925 Section 136(1). As an Equitable Assignment the Claimant may not bring an action unless the Operator is included as a party.!
It 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.

3. The Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd) had no capacity to offer a contract with the motorist.

With regards to the Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract and it is submitted that such an assignment would be Champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Court is asked to consider striking the matter out, as was the case in MIL Collections Ltd -v- Stephen Bowker, Case No. B1QZ7N32 Oldham County Court 15/01/2016..!
The Claimant is also put to proof that the Operator had sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf as required in the British Parking Association’s Legislation Guidance to Operators.! Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Land owner not the operator, nor the Claimant.Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Land owner not the operator, nor the Claimant.

4. No consideration passed from either the Operator (Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd) or the motorist.

The Operator had no standing to offer a contract; there was no meeting of minds nor any consideration passed. None of the elements that are fundamental to a contract were present and therefore no contract could possibly have existed. The Defendant was, at the most, granted a licence to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a licence would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.!


5. The signage did not offer a contract with the motorist.

The Defendant has no idea what terms and conditions were stated on the signs but disputes the Claimant’s statement that such an amount would have constituted an offer and submits that it in fact threatened punitive sanctions to discourage the undisclosed conduct. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Operator’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park at that price and the main purpose was to deter the undisclosed conduct by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188 : Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal) that was decided by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words (21 February 2014).!

6. The Operator ((Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd) did not identify the driver.!

The defendant neither confirms or denies being the registered driver of the alleged parking incident. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper/driver liability has been proven in accordance with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012.!
As a consequence of non-compliance with the POFA, a private parking charge can only be recovered from the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver who parked the vehicle on the material date and is reminded that it is trite law, that no lawful presumption can be made that a keeper was the driver. This was confirmed in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report, by Henry Greenslade, a parking law expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator (both of POPLA and previously, PATAS) who confirmed that there is no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver and without the parking firm's full compliance with Schedule 4 of the statute, the keeper cannot be held liable.

- This Claimant is put to strict proof that the notices issued and procedures followed fully complied with the requirements of the POFA and that they are entitled to
rely upon the keeper liability provisions. I submit that the Claimant has no such right, has no interest in this matter and there is no 'debt' and no cause of action

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Castle

UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd keeps reappearing in paragraph 1!!

The_Deep

I cannot believe that they took you to court, I hope you make life difficult for them.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.























i,,,,,