Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • georgd84
    • By georgd84 28th Dec 17, 3:39 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 11Thanks
    georgd84
    Bought ticket but PPC says not displayed
    • #1
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:39 PM
    Bought ticket but PPC says not displayed 28th Dec 17 at 3:39 PM
    Hello
    I am being taken to court by MIL Collections for an alleged "debt" which they have bought. I deny the debt. Hoping for some advice and thanks in anticipation.
    Brief outline.
    30/05/17 Bought and displayed a ticket at carpark run by Llawnroc Parking. Got a PCN, they said ticket was not displayed. Sent them pic of ticket by email and when they ignored it sent a copy by recorded delivery. They said "appeal" not accepted. Months later the "debt" was allegedly assigned to MIL Collections. Followed all the usual advice to point out debt was denied etc.
    14/10/17 Received court claim form from MIL Collections. Acknowledged service and said I will defend. Working on my defence but can't seem to find any previous examples where a ticket was purchased but the PPC claiming incorrectly displayed. I am guessing that many of the usual defences will be helpful such as poor signage, no evidence of contract with landowner, poorly worded particulars of claim (they simply say they purchased the debt and give times and dates of parking) etc. Unfortunately, I snatched up the ticket to check it before taking a photo of it on the dashboard.
    Any help on the ticket not displayed claim very gratefully received.
    Thank you.
    David
    Last edited by georgd84; 28-12-2017 at 8:35 PM.
Page 1
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 28th Dec 17, 3:46 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #2
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:46 PM
    • #2
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:46 PM
    OK , at the start of this episode , did you give them your full name and address , or did they obtain this from the DVLA at a later date
    • georgd84
    • By georgd84 28th Dec 17, 3:53 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    georgd84
    • #3
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:53 PM
    Address
    • #3
    • 28th Dec 17, 3:53 PM
    Hi
    I was naive because I had not dealt with any of these "businesses" before so yes I wrote to them giving my name address because (wrongly as it turned out) I thought they would have accepted they had made a mistake. Clearly my mistake.
    David
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 28th Dec 17, 4:01 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #4
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:01 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:01 PM
    ok , you are now dealing with a debt buying company , that have no interest in the case (and prob no info)

    thay are trying to get you to pay up by threatening court action , but often will fold when challenged , or simply fail to turn up at court on the day

    start reading about MIL collections , good start here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mil+collections
    • georgd84
    • By georgd84 28th Dec 17, 4:05 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    georgd84
    • #5
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:05 PM
    • #5
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:05 PM
    Hi
    Thanks for your very swift response. I have read the above. I have perhaps not made it clear that they have issued a county court claim against me. I'm looking for any help on setting out my defence. Thanks again.
    D
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 28th Dec 17, 4:08 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #6
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:08 PM
    • #6
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:08 PM
    PS: , dont forget , you say ticket was visible , they say it was not

    your word against parking operative

    you would like to discuss this with him in court ,

    as MIL have only paid about £1 for your case , ie Llawnroc parking. have only got a token £1 , they are likely to decline to appear in YOUR local court

    you say this was "a few mths ago" , WHEN was it ?
    • georgd84
    • By georgd84 28th Dec 17, 4:46 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    georgd84
    • #7
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:46 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Dec 17, 4:46 PM
    Hi
    Alleged parking infringement 30/05/17
    After various correspondence with lawnroc including claims and offers from debt collectors the "debt" was assigned on 17/10/17 and MIL wrote asking for payment and threatening court action on 28/10/17. They issued the court claim on 12/12/17 and I ackowledged service online on 15/12/17.
    Lawnroc never produced evidence the ticket was not correctly displayed although they claim they have "studied photographs".
    It may be worth noting that I am in Truro where MIL are based so perhaps I will meet someone in court! Also I have had a suggestion locally that MIL and Lawnroc parking are connected.
    Thanks again for taking an interest, much appreciated.
    D
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Dec 17, 10:38 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,060 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 28th Dec 17, 10:38 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Dec 17, 10:38 PM
    Here you go:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72412155#post72412155

    Same sort of defence as we used to do last year v MIL, should see them off without a hearing.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Dec 17, 12:06 AM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,442 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #9
    • 29th Dec 17, 12:06 AM
    • #9
    • 29th Dec 17, 12:06 AM
    Yep, they won!!!8217;t want to go to a hearing and lose, again

    How!!!8217;s the dvla complaint? You!!!8217;re demanding an explanation why another company is breaching the DPA, using dvla data, AGAIN despite the dvla being very clear that this would not happen again
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 29th Dec 17, 12:10 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    Yep, they won’t want to go to a hearing and lose, again

    How’s the dvla complaint? You’re demanding an explanation why another company is breaching the DPA, using dvla data, AGAIN despite the dvla being very clear that this would not happen again
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001


    the OP handed his info to the PPC , so no breach of DVLA info
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Dec 17, 12:33 AM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,442 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Ah boo
    Missed that! Either way, no possible interest exists. Champertous
    • georgd84
    • By georgd84 8th Jan 18, 2:35 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    georgd84
    Defence?
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jan 18, 1:16 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,060 Thanks
    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 !!!8216;purchased a debt!!!8217;.
    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 !!!8216;parking charge notice!!!8217; (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!!!8217;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 !!!8211;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 !!!8216;debt!!!8217; 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 !!!8216;administrative & collection fee!!!8217; of £50 was incurred or is due.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • georgd84
    • By georgd84 10th Apr 18, 9:39 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    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
    • By beamerguy 10th Apr 18, 10:17 PM
    • 7,565 Posts
    • 10,078 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Yet another advert ????
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,233Posts Today

5,216Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I'm worrying myself by starting to get ambitious for #England in this World Cup. No good can come of that.

  • Hi folks, I'm taking an early Friday, to enjoy a long family weekend. And as always I'm signing off social media? https://t.co/xFwuIQv694

  • RT @hmtreasury: *Announcement* Today's @UKFtweets stats show that Banking Protocol has: ???? Prevented £24.7 million of fraud ???? Resulted in?

  • Follow Martin