Court Claim Form received - MIL Collections |
Court Claim Form received - MIL Collections |
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 - 14:23
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
I hope someone can help please. I believe Hotel Oscar 87 & GAN are the experts where MIL Collections are concerned !
Registered keeper has received a court Claim Form. Claimant is MIL. Claim is for £175. In short the registered keeper received a parking ticket from a private parking company (Northwest Parking Enforcement). It was a Pay & Display car park & 2 hrs parking was purchased for £2. We accidentally overstayed by 9 minutes and received a ticket for that. Photos were taken of vehicle after only 7 mins. I'm aware in Oct 2015 regulations were introduced to allow a statutory 10 minute (minimum) grace period in which to leave the car park. The operator should not begin to issue a ticket until the 10 min grace period has expired. So I believe they breached their COP and no debt exists. To also charge £100 for an overstay of 9 mins, when it only cost £1 to park for an hour is surely a penalty & is not lawful in contract law. We ignored NWPE letters and Debt Recovery Plus letters. We then received a letter from MIL pretending to be NWPE stating that the debt had been sold under agreement of assignment to MIL. We then received a Letter Before Action from MIL. We responded to the LBA strongly denying any debt exists and pointing out to MIL that their letter failed entirely to comply with the requirements of the Pre-Action conduct. We also requested further info from MIL similar to a Part 18 request. I used examples posted by HO87. I also took advice from the BMPA who suggested I wrote a letter of complaint to MIL since they had broken the CSA cop and the FCA cop. Again I strongly disputed any debt. I had hoped the letter would stall MIL as they are supposed to suspend proceedings whilst a complaint is investigated. Needless to say I received no replies to my 2 letters. (Proof of postage obtained). We were dismayed to therefore receive the court Claim Form last week. The Particulars of Claim state the charge is for parking on private land. The offence is "parked after the expiry of paid for time". Not sure whether this is trespass or breach of contract ? Anyway I have spent hours & hours reading the forums regarding MIL and in particular posts by the experts. I have a pretty good idea what a defence should look like from reading the posts...... breaches of cop, no valid deed of assignment, champerty & maintenance, claimant does not have a direct interest in the claim, no GPEOL etc. I've collated a lot of info but I could do with help in making a defence relevant to the case and pointing out anything we've omitted. I have of course kept all correspondence & I have photos of the carpark signage. I have used MCOL to acknowledge the Claim on line & stated that the claim will be defended in full. I have not submitted any defence yet. I now have 28 days from date of service to submit a defence. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 - 14:23
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 09:15
Post
#161
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
I was wondering is it worth writing to the judge to ask for the case to be struck out ?
I have the judge's name from the Notice of Allocation. I've read on earlier posts on Pepipoo that people have been advised to write to the judge. Is it likely the judge would strike out the case and what sort of things should I say to make a persuasive argument ? Thanks in advance for any advice. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 11:26
Post
#162
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Well you need to make it clear that the Claiamnt has never attained any interest in the alleged debt, and have no notice of assignment signed and dated. You have a reasonable belief in this. Also incldue that he DVLA stated that they had been told by MIL that no further claims were taking place, when this didnt happen.
You can write a letter. As for "likely", DDJ lottery, entirely. They may not even look at it without you making an Application (£100, which you should get back if the app is granted) or they may decide they need a hearing to decide this. Just draft something first - then we can critique. You do the legwork, not us |
|
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 14:01
Post
#163
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
OK. This is the gist of my letter to the judge. Personal details removed.
Dear Sir, I am writing to you with regards to the (Referenced) case. This case has a hearing scheduled for xx/xx/xx, but I hope you will consider the facts of the case and strike it out prior to the hearing date. I believe that the claimant has no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant is a serial abuser of the court process. MIL Collections is well known for advertising to buy debts and uses the slogan "litigation without the cost". This suggests they are "trafficking in litigation". This is champerty and maintenance and is not allowed as a matter of public policy. MIL Collections has never once produced a valid Deed of Assignment. The Deed they produce is not signed, not witnessed, not dated and contains no details of any particular debt. It is publicly known that MIL Collections are widely discontinuing cases where champerty & maintenance and lack of valid assignment are filed as a defence. Here are examples of some discontinued cases: MIL -v- Mrs S. D., Case No. C0QZ173C MIL -v- Mr S. C., Case No. C8QZ540N MIL -v- Mr S. H., Case No. C1QZ911D MIL -v- Mr R. M, Case No. C3QZ569P MIL -v- Mrs G. D., Case No. C7QZ8344 MIL -v- Mr P. V., Case No C8QZ707N MIL -v- Mr M. O. Case No. B6QZ3H7A MIL -v- C Ltd, Case No. B8QZ0K4T MIL -v- Mr C. H., Case No. C6QZ220N MIL -v- M M. A., Case No. C9QZ531N The claimant has no legal interest in the matter and is only interested in profit. The sole purpose is to enable the claimant to instigate legal proceedings. For this reason the following case was struck out : MIL Collections Ltd -v- Stephen Bowker, Case No. B1QZ7N32 Oldham County Court 15/01/2016. The claimant has never disclosed a full Cause of Action and has no grounds for bringing a claim. They have not complied with Practice Direction and CPR. Mr. X received a Letter Before Action from MIL Collections which failed entirely to comply with Practice direction and no cause of action was disclosed. Mr. X wrote to MIL Collections requesting further information. No reply was received. Mr. X wrote again to MIL Collections stating that both the FSA and CSA codes of practice had been breached by themselves. No reply was received. Mr. X wrote to MIL Collections a further two times but no response was ever received. The claimant's complete failure to respond to Mr. X's correspondence demonstrates a lack of will to engage in any attempt to resolve their case before court, something which is required by Practice Direction. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR16.4 and PD16 para 7.3 – 7.5 and a similar MIL Collections case - C8QZ22G6 Preston 27/07/2016 - was struck out for this reason. MIL Collections have lost in court due to several failings : champerty and maintenance ; invalid Deed of Assignment ; no right of audience ; witness statements described as a travesty ; no assignment of debt ; falsifying data ; particulars of claim failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD16 para 7.3 – 7.5. Examples of cases are as follows : MIL -v- Dr.S in Manchester - MIL lost this case due to failure to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, the lack of a valid Deed of Assignment, no proof that the parking company had the right to issue tickets and no proof of the right to litigate. MIL -v- Mrs McK, Case No. C2QZ582J – in Colchester 30/09/2016. - Case dismissed for lack of any evidence. MIL -v- Paul Cook, Case No C8QZ57G1- in Ipswich 22/09/2016. - It was in this case particularly in which the judge (DJ Spencer) suggested that the 6 page witness statement supplied by MIL in effect 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 Cook owes you hundreds of pounds" Mr. X's details were obtained from the DVLA by the private parking company who then sold the alleged debt to MIL Collections and passed on keeper details. Mr. X wrote to the DVLA about this and they confirmed that MIL must cease processing the data. MIL promised the DVLA that it would not process DVLA data obtained from any parking company. MIL has clearly lied. A further email from the DVLA stated that MIL is not a sub-contractor of any parking company and therefore must cease processing DVLA data. The DVLA also confirmed that permission has never been granted for any parking company to pass on DVLA data to MIL. The parking company and MIL Collections have breached the Data Protection Act and MIL is continuing to do so by unlawfully continuing to process Mr. X's data, despite assurances to the contrary. The DVLA have confirmed a massive data protection breach to MIL Collections. (I have enclosed the emails from the DVLA). The issues raised in this letter are expanded upon in Mr. X's defence which was filed on line in (Month & Year) and in his Witness Statement. I respectfully request that you consider the contents of my letter and strike out this claim. Yours faithfully, |
|
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 16:55
Post
#164
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
It sounds good to me
Give it a little bit, get other people to look at it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 07:24
Post
#165
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
I recently emailed MIL Collections asking why they are continuing with a claim when they had promised the DVLA that they would not process DVLA data obtained from parking companies and would only continue with cases where data has NOT come from the DVLA.
This is the reply I received : Dear Sir/Madam, In regard to your query received concerning your personal data being processed. I would take this opportunity to confirm that we are processing your data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 more specifically under the legal exemption s35(2)(a) which is exempt from the non-disclosure provisions as it is in relation to ongoing legal proceedings. We would encourage you to seek professional legal advice in respect of the ongoing claim. A number of sources of free advice are available on our website. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 07:50
Post
#166
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,587 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
s35 doesn't give them the right to assign the 'debt' without DVLA confirmation but whilst no one seems to want to stop their practice then they'll carry on.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 08:59
Post
#167
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
I received this letter from the DVLA today :
DISCLOSURE OF DVLA VEHICLE KEEPER DATA TO MIL COLLECTIONS On xx/xx/2018 you contacted DVLA about Northwest Parking Enforcement Awareness Services (NPE) Ltd passing your vehicle keeper data to MIL Collections Ltd. This followed previous correspondence between you and DVLA on this matter. In my response to you on xx/xx/2018 I stated that DVLA was still in the process of looking into the arrangements in place between parking operators like NPE Ltd (who are now known as Northwest Parking Management Ltd) and MIL Collections Ltd and that I would contact you when an update is available. I am now able to provide you with an update on the current position. The arrangements in question, referred to as “debt assignment”, involve private parking companies assigning or selling debt or alleged debt arising from unpaid parking charges to MIL Collections Ltd, who then become the legal owner of that debt. This is different to sub-contracted debt collection, where the debt collection company acts on behalf of the private parking company. This issue has required careful consideration due to the sensitivities surrounding the disclosure and use of the personal data of vehicle keepers held by DVLA. The Agency’s consideration has necessarily taken some time, but soon DVLA will conduct a full audit of Northwest Parking Management Ltd’s compliance with the terms & conditions relating to its use of DVLA data. Any issues found at that audit could result in suspension from being able to request vehicle keeper data from DVLA. DVLA will also be working closely with the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) - the Accredited Trade Associations for the private parking industry - to ensure DVLA’s position on debt assignment is clearly understood. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 09:17
Post
#168
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Wriggle wriggle wriggle.
I, and I'm sure many others, look forward to this so-called clarification of the DVLA's position on this. -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 09:44
Post
#169
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,587 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Strange they didn't state s35 allows it. Funny that.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 09:59
Post
#170
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
The creditor that sold the debt was Northwest Parking Enforcement. Why would the audit of Northwest Parking Management be of any interest?
Suggest you go back and ask why. This post has been edited by emanresu: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 09:59 |
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 07:35
Post
#171
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
I've received a letter back from the judge in response to my letter to the court.
The judge's response is : " The determination of the issues raised in your letter will require a hearing on notice." Can any lawyers out there explain what this means please ? Does it mean that the issues will be dealt with at the hearing that has already been scheduled or is it referring to some other hearing ? |
|
|
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 14:12
Post
#172
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
Just read this on the Parking Prankster website. Brilliant ! I'll be showing this to the judge.
MIL Collections - £750 awarded against them for “Unreasonable conduct in litigation”. MIL Collections v George. D8QZ60RM Truro 10/04/2018. DDJ Rutherford I hope my case goes the same way ! I think I need to engage Mr John Wilkie. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 06:15
Post
#173
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,265 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You could approach John, or you could use the helpful information in the press article and George's post on here
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119720 https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-...company-1442360 as guidance -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 07:21
Post
#174
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
Thanks for the link to George's post, I'll read that. I've already printed off the press article & Prankster's blog on the case. I've included them in my WS as evidence.
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 07:57
Post
#175
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,265 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I trust you made it clear it was only as 'evidence' (its somewhat hearsay of course) of their unreasonableness when it came to accessing costs and not to do with whether any money was owed?
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 08:02
Post
#176
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
Indeed.
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 07:33
Post
#177
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
Update - MIL Collections have discontinued their claim. I received a Notice of Discontinuation last week, just a couple of days before their court fees were due !
I'm disappointed it's not going to court as I'm sure I'd have won & maybe been awarded a nice pay out in costs for unreasonable behaviour, like Mr. George earlier this month. I expect MIL knew that though & that's why they've discontinued. I will be checking with the court today to make sure that they have received the Notice of Discontinuation. Thank you to all those who have given advice & help over the last 2 years, much appreciated. |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 07:50
Post
#178
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Since they have discontinued after you exchanged information then they should be liable to pay your costs for their unreasonable behaviour. A quick letter to the judge about their unreasonable behaviour and your costs at £19 per hour.
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 08:00
Post
#179
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 78 Joined: 3 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,160 |
@Ostell - Unfortunately we hadn't exchanged any paperwork. Documents weren't due to be exchanged until 11th May.
I spent hours working on defence, witness statement, gathering evidence etc and it was all ready to be posted. Can I still claim costs (£19/hour) for the time spent ? |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 08:09
Post
#180
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
but you sent your defence in ?
I must admit I'm not completely clear about the rules but if a case is started but then discontinued after a defence has been submitted then the claimant could beliable for costs. Worth a punt. Point out that the PPCs are using the courts as a cheap form of det collectors. This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 08:11 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 19:48 |