MIL collections CCJ

i think i am getting there?

Statement in support of application dated

---

to
!!!8226; Set aside the Default Judgement dated

---

as it was not properly served at my current address.
!!!8226; Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

Default Judgement
I the Defendant understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in case number

---

. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I as the Defendant was not aware of the Default Judgement until doing a routine check on my credit file. I understand that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS

---

. However, I moved to a new address in

---

. In support of this I can provide confirmation from

---

County Council showing my updated details and the date I moved into the new address which is 3 years prior to the judgement.


I the defendant contacted

---

County Court to find out details of the Default Judgement. The court representative informed me of the date of the judgement and that it was for a parking charge notice issued on

---

, and

---

LTD had purchased the parking charge notice from a parking enforcement company. There were no details of the parking enforcement company from whom

---

LTD purchased the parking charge notice.

I the Defendant have written to the DVLA to obtain the details of any requests made to the DVLA for the details of the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark

---

. The DVLA informed me in writing that as the registered keeper of the vehicle my details were requested by ___ LTD on (date) for the issue of a parking charge notice.

Defence statement.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons.
1. I the Defendant believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant!!!8217;s current and correct contact details.
2. The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, ----Ltd.

---

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.
3. The Claimant is not an agent of, or in any way associated with

---

Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and are in breach of the Data Protection Act.
4. It is the Defendants belief that

---

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.
5. [FONT=&quot]Additionally it is submitted that the alleged debt purportedly assigned represents nothing more than a bare right to litigate and is therefore incapable of being assigned. Neither are MIL a 'sub-contractor' of the parking company.[/FONT]
6. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring a claim. Further, it is averred that the parking operator that MIL claims was 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[/FONT][FONT=&quot] would be due to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the land-owner, not this third party Claimant who has made no contracts with any drivers.[/FONT]
7. [FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
8. [FONT=&quot]MIL Collections was warned in 2017 by the DVLA, in writing (an official DVLA FOI showing this, in the public domain) that it!!!8217;s so called debt 'purchases' were in breach of DVLA rules and such data 'sale' breached the Data Protection Act.[/FONT]
9. [FONT=&quot]At best, the alleged transaction described by MIL was an equitable assignment, not a legal assignment. Therefore the Claimant could not have issued a valid claim unless LDK was joined to it. [/FONT]
10. [FONT=&quot]It is my case that the 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, the Claimant's case savours of maintenance. [/FONT]
11. [FONT=&quot]Judges across the country have agreed with this view. Cases struck out by the courts include 22 Sept 2016 at Ipswich County Court, Case No: C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Mr X. In this case, 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 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 X owes you hundreds of pounds."[/FONT]
12. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industrys persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. This is a topical issue: I note that the Justice Minister the Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announced on the 23rd December 2016 a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers from debt claims. The consultation will look at ways to better protect consumers who are sent mail to inaccurate addresses and verify addresses again before a claim is sent. The Minister added that in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.
13. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendants correct current address when bringing the claim.
14. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (---- Ltd) to be assigned.
15. The defendant neither confirms nor denies being the driver of the alleged parking incident. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper liability has been proven in accordance with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012.
16. 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.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

any criticism or advice is very welcome and appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]I think i have captured it all.

The reference to the Sir Oliver Heald was in para 11. I have also added the draft order and stated that i had no knowledge of the original PCN. (which i certainly do not!)

here goes!

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT

---

MIL COLLECTIONS LIMITED (Claimant)

And

---

(Defendant)


District Judge

---

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated [date] and the annexed witness statement of [name] dated [date]

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The default judgment dated

---

be set aside.

2. Costs to be reserved.

3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form on the Defendant by 4pm on ---- paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £255 and the claim shall be struck out.

4. If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve a defence by 4pm on [date].[/FONT]

Witness Statement in support of application dated

---

to:-

• Set aside the Default Judgement dated

---

as it was not properly served at my current address.
• Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

Witness statement.

I the Defendant understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in case number

---

. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I as the Defendant was not aware of the Default Judgement until doing a routine check on my credit file on (date). I understand that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS

---

. However, I moved to a new address in

---

. In support of this I can provide confirmation from

---

County Council showing my updated details and the date I moved into the new address which is 3 years prior to the judgement.


I the defendant promptly contacted

---

County Court on (date) to find out details of the Default Judgement. The court representative informed me of the date of the judgement and that it was for a parking charge notice issued on

---

, and

---

LTD had purchased the parking charge notice from a parking enforcement company. There were no details of the parking enforcement company from whom

---

LTD purchased the parking charge notice.

I the Defendant have written to the DVLA to obtain the details of any requests made to the DVLA for the details of the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark

---

. The DVLA informed me in writing that as the registered keeper of the vehicle my details were requested by ___ LTD on (date) for the issue of a parking charge notice.

I the registered keeper of vehicle marked

---

at the alleged date of the parking charge notice have never received nor is aware of any parking charge notices issued to this vehicle.

Defence.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons.
1. I the Defendant believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details.
2. The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, ----Ltd.

---

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.
3. The Claimant is not an agent of, or in any way associated with

---

Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and are in breach of the Data Protection Act.
4. It is the Defendants belief that

---

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.
5. [FONT=&quot]Additionally it is submitted that the alleged debt purportedly assigned represents nothing more than a bare right to litigate and is therefore incapable of being assigned. Neither are MIL a 'sub-contractor' of the parking company.[/FONT]
6. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no legal capacity to bring a claim. Further, it is averred that the parking operator that MIL claims was 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[/FONT][FONT=&quot] would be due to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the land-owner, not this third party Claimant who has made no contracts with any drivers.[/FONT]
7. [FONT=&quot]MIL Collections was warned in 2017 by the DVLA, in writing (an official DVLA FOI showing this, in the public domain) that it’s so called debt 'purchases' were in breach of DVLA rules and such data 'sale' breached the Data Protection Act.[/FONT]
8. [FONT=&quot]At best, the alleged transaction described by MIL was an equitable assignment, not a legal assignment. Therefore the Claimant could not have issued a valid claim unless LDK was joined to it. [/FONT]
9. [FONT=&quot]It is my case that the 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, the Claimant's case savours of maintenance. [/FONT]
10. [FONT=&quot]Judges across the country have agreed with this view. Cases struck out by the courts include 22 Sept 2016 at Ipswich County Court, Case No: C8QZ57G1 MIL -v- Mr X. In this case, 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 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 X owes you hundreds of pounds."[/FONT]
11. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industrys persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. This is a topical issue: I note that the Justice Minister the Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announced on the 23rd December 2016 a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers from debt claims. The consultation will look at ways to better protect consumers who are sent mail to inaccurate addresses and verify addresses again before a claim is sent. The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.
12. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendants correct current address when bringing the claim.
13. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (---- Ltd) to be assigned.
14. The defendant neither confirms nor denies being the driver of the alleged parking incident. It is therefore for the claimant to provide proof that this is the case and that keeper liability has been proven in accordance with schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012.
15. 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.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Any thoughts?



Thanks in advance.

Ed2000 wrote: »

You should complain to the DVLA that your data has been unlawfully passed to MIL by the parking co.
Attention: Mr Robert Toft
Data Sharing Strategy and Compliance Team
[EMAIL="dvladatarequests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]dvladatarequests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL].
D16 DVLA Longview Road Swansea SA99 1DY ...

"Dear Mr Toft,

this is a formal complaint under the Data Protection Act 1998.

I have received a county court claim form from MIL Collections Ltd. for £xxx.

Why has the DVLA failed to stop this misuse of data supplied by DVLA?

You have been aware that MIL has been doing this since 2015.

Has DVLA informed the ICO? I would like a copy of this letter to be
forwarded to the CEO of DVLA and Chris Grayling MP.

I certainly will be complaining, thanks for the template.