Claim Form - MIL Collections Options

[Singi]

I have received a claim form from MIL collections, I have acknowledged it and I'm now looking for some advice on how to put across my defence. The deadline for submitting my defence is the 16th.
I'm also going to send a part 18 request for further information (template found on here).

This is what I have so far;

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant MIL Collections or in the first instance Car Park Management Service Ltd, for all of the following reasons any of which is fatal to the claimants case.

i. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.
ii. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant.
iii. Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations
iv. The claimant provided no service to the Defendant.

The Claimant has not disclosed a full Cause of Action .

Any help is appreciated,
Singi

[Advertisement]

[emanresu]

could be DVLA

Won't be. They are simply a Registrar. The access is controlled by their ATA (honest!). So it may be the PPC and the ATA that are in the frame.

If the ICO decides the ATA is at fault too, the SoS won't be pleased as he appointed them.

[Singi]

This is what I have so far;

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 (Car Park Management Service Ltd) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim

The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, Car Park Management Service Ltd. Car Park Management Service 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 Car Park Management Service Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and is in breach of the Data Protection Act.
It is the defendants’ belief that Car Park Management Service 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 (Car Park Management Service 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 (Car Park Management Service 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.

4. No consideration passed from either the Operator (Car Park Management Service 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 license to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a license 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 (Car Park Management Service Ltd) did not identify the driver.

The defendant neither confirms nor 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 defense are true.

[nosferatu1001]

Every para must be numbered

For 1) why does this go on to talk about the deed of assignment? What relevance does it have to the point you were making?

For 2) You seem to confuse two issues - that it is a chose in action, and that it is a false instrument. I would separate these out.

[Singi]

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 (Car Park Management Service Ltd) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim

The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, Car Park Management Service Ltd. Car Park Management Service 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 Car Park Management Service Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and is in breach of the Data Protection Act.
It is the defendants’ belief that Car Park Management Service 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.


2. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Car Park Management Service 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.

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. The Operator (Car Park Management Service 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.

5. No consideration passed from either the Operator (Car Park Management Service 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 license to park. Whatever the conduct was that the Claimant alleges, a breach of a license would be trespass, not a breach of contract. It could only be pursued by the land-owner.


6. 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).

7. The Operator (Car Park Management Service Ltd) did not identify the driver.

The defendant neither confirms nor 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.


How does this look now?
Also I've been in contact with the DVLA, I need to fill out a V888 form to find out who accessed my details and when. Does this sound right?

[ostell]

there is an email address where you can request details of who asked for your details. Haven't got it to hand at the moment, a search should find it.

Edit: Back on the other computer SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 21:18

[nosferatu1001]

2. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Car Park Management Service Ltd) to be assigned.

Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, t

SHouldnt have had to say that this doesnt now make any sense, now 1 doesnt talk about a valid deed
You have to be very thorough once you make amendments. You cannot just delete and hope - for example the ;oint about the deed not being executed correctly didnt need deleting, it was just in the wrong place.

[Singi]

Apologies, I've amended it again. Hopefully this reads better.
Thanks Ostell for the email address, I've now requested the information through them.

1. The Claimant has not acquired the alleged debt as a valid assignment from the Operator (Car Park Management Service Ltd) and has no legal capacity to bring the claim.

The Claimant has purchased the alleged debt from a parking management Company, Car Park Management Service Ltd. Car Park Management Service 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 Car Park Management Service Ltd. The consequence of this is that the Claimant is unlawfully using the Defendants details and is in breach of the Data Protection Act.
It is the defendants’ belief that Car Park Management Service 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. This is therefore an invalid assignment of alleged debt.
Under the provisions set by Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, the Claimant must be prevented from benefiting from this unlawful act.


2. The Defendant has never owed any debt to the Operator (Car Park Management Service Ltd) to be assigned.

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.
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.