Mil Collections - Letter Before action

Thanks Pappa Golf as suggested I'll keep it in mind.

Looking through the NTK and schedule 4 and the other suggested threads. I think I've got my head around where the NTK falls short of schedule 4.

1 - Schedule 4 Part 8.2.C - If I read this correctly they should have included a copy of the PCN they have stated was attached to the windscreen

2 - Schedule 4 Part 8.2.F - They actually don't give a period of time by when the charge has to be paid.

Surely point 2 is a big problem for them here. I'm not late at paying because there is no payment date?

Draft Defense

Very much lifted from Cueballs post, but I've added a couple of parts and removed another that didn't apply. It not my intention to simply copy and paste. I'm just cautious of editing to much when mil collections defense is fairly specific from what I've read

I had some questions regard the Particular of claim (see here )

Particularly around the PoFA 2012 failings and the wording for part 2 of the POC. It states that
"The defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of vehicle xxxxx at the time. "

They haven't established who the driver was and they have not followed the PoFA in relation to establishing Keeper Liability. Is it worth adding this as an additional point or does the wording in the defense below cover this.

Also I've not made any comments about the failings over practice directions, is this the place to put it?

Lastly (maybe) they failed to respond to my initial letter have stated that "No Resolution achieved" in the POC. Again should this be included at this point.

---
Claim Number: *******

Statement of Defence

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of thevehicle in question

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:

I. The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid Assignment from the Operator (One Parking Limited) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim
II. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (One Parking Limited) to be assigned.
III. The Operator (One Parking Limited) had no capacity to offer a contract with the motorist
IV. The signage did not offer a contract with the motorist
V. No consideration passed from either the Operator (One Parking Limited) or the motorist
VI. The Operator (One Parking Limited) did not identify the driver
VII. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt
VIII. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner not the operator, nor the Claimant.

2) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being
complied with.
a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.
b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the all strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of any charges and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and with mandatory wording.
c) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort'(2015).

3. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt and as such is put to strict proof that a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 exists. Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in this matter.

4. Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privy 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.

5. The Claimant has not explained what authority the Operator had to acquire a chose in action to assign to the Claimant.
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.

6. The Particulars of Claim state that the alleged debt was purchased by the Claimant on the 11/10/16, Assignment notice sent 12/10/16. The Claimant is put to strcit proof that the Operator’s contract provided for parking charges to be so assigned.

7. The Claimant is also put to strcit 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.

8. 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.

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

10. 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).


11. The signage is of sparse placement and lack of clarity of terms were not bound to have been seen by drivers (as opposed to the signs in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis). Nor was the alleged 'charge' in sufficiently large lettering to meet the requirements of the CRA 2015. Nor do the signs comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 as regards providing 'adequate notice' of any parking charge nor setting any clear 'relevant obligation' nor 'relevant contract'.

12. The defendant neither confirms nor denies being the driver of the alleged offence. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper liability has been established by the issue of compliant documents, in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012.

13. The Defendant disputes the claimant incurred £50 costs writing letters. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the claimant, not merely “Not Clearly Displayed a Valid Permit”. The court stated that the claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing just what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments
The cost of administration staff involved with the processing of parking notices cannot be presented as a loss because their employment is essential to the Claimant’s revenue.
If the Operator suggests that these costs are in fact the charges of an external Debt Collection Agent, the Defendant submits that such a contract would be most unusual and understands that such companies are normally paid only if successful.


14. The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring a claim; the Operator that it states to be the assignor of the debt has never had any legal capacity to offer a contract to the motorist. Even if a debt had ever existed, it would be due to the land-owner, not the Claimant.

15. The Claimant has also failed to disclose the conduct that is complained of and has therefore brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimant's Statement of Truth has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success as has been the case in many incoherent 'MIL Collections' robo-claims since the Bowker case B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC referred to in my defence above. It is submitted that this is a vexatious litigant, merely buying sets of photographs from parking firms for as little as £1, with the aim of inflating any damages for this claimant's own profit. This claimant is wantonly and officiously intermeddling in cases where they have 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. Recent cases struck out by the courts include:

a. 22 Sept 2016, Ipswich CC Case No C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Paul Cook

It was in this case particularly in which the judge (DJ Spencer) suggested that the 6 page witness statement supplied by MIL that in effect provided no evidence could actually have been boiled down to a single sentence - "We bought some photographs"

The judge also 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"

b. 30 Sept 2016 Colchester CC Case No C2QZ582J MIL -v- Mrs McK

Case dismissed for lack of any evidence, lack of signage.



If the court chooses not to strike out the claim, the Defendant invites the court to order the Operator to be added as a party to the claim

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true

(Name) (Signature) (Date)