Hi Everyone,

Well in July 2014 I received a ticket on my windscreen for unauthorised parking and for not using the car park providers premises (Staples). I can confirm that I did use the premises for a substantial amount of time to review some office products that I had found on-line. So the ticket must have been a mistake.

I do understand that there is a lot of similar forums on-line but my cases differs slightly as I actually emailed Jas parking the next day letting them know that the ticket was a possible mistake as I used the premises and I even went back to the store to get the Staples staff to cancel it but they told me to contact them(Jas Parking) directly. I never received a reply back from them, so a few days later I decided to save the email for reference and get on with life.

According to the forums I can imagine that I must have been receiving quite a few letters from them but I didn't have access to them as I was away at university. I did manage to get hold of one of those letters at some point but it was outdated and I decided to ignore it as many forums encourage to do so.

Last month I received two letters separately one informing that the debt has been sold to Mil Collections and another letter to warn me about taking the matter to court if the debt is not cleared. I ignored both letters as at this point I had lost interest to the matter as I still felt like it was a mistake from their part that happened 18 months ago.

Last week I received a claim form from county court business centre, I have acknowledged it with a view to defend the full claim. Could you please help me and advise on how I could tackle this matter and next steps going forward.

Any help will be much appreciated and many thanks in advance.

Hotel Oscar 87 has quite a few recent posts on MIL threads and there are a few that you should read through. If you find a MIL thread read through the contributions from HO87 and Gan in them. MIL progress their claims in almost identical processes, although the original issue of parking tickets vary, which will make it easier for you to formulate responses going forward.

There is also thread from a couple of years back by NedNats that will question the locus standi of Jas too with regards to staples contracts that can be thrown into the mix.
Because you have a claim then you should send a part 18 request for information to MIL which will be ignored in all probability but you are writing for the benefit of the court.

If you have acknowledged the claim then you will have about three weeks left to polish a defence.

EDIT:-
Changing Signs

MIL claims are basically designed to make you pay, they have absolutely no case in court
1/ I bet the letter 'from JAS' has the same barcode as the one from MIL and no signature, guess who sent it....... In that case MIL has no claim on you as JAS have no informed you they have sold the debt
2/ Now they have sold it why would JAS turn up in court to try and prove the original debt was real anyway?
3/ You have all the usual defences against the original claim that JAS/MIL have to counter, including the fact that you were actually a genuine customer which after all this time they would struggle to disprove

AS you have acknowledged the claim you have the remainder to formulate your defence, you need to get a part18 request (you'll find in other threads) off to MIL as soon as possible, they won't reply but you have to show the right intentions.

The lack of response to the part 18 will also be used in your defence - almost certainly the particulars of claim will be utterly deficient, and you use their lack of informaiton against them. The law requires them to cooperate to try to resolve matters outside of court if at all possible, and must give informaiton across that can assist. When they dont do this, you attack this - asking the court to draw conclusions on the validity of their claim, etc.

Thanks to both of your replies, I truly appreciate your help.

@AlbertRoss thanks I have had a thorough look at other threads some of them were helpful and informative. I am going to have a read through the NedNats thread. In regards of the Part 18 request I have seen a couple of examples in different forums that differ from each other, so am still a bit lost as to what exactly to request for them and on how to layout the letter for my case.

@The Rookie Yes the letter allegedly from Jas has no signature, how ever I have misplace the letter from MIL about the payment demand before court action, so I cant find that hope that doesn't cause too much harm. and also as I already mentioned to ALbertRoss could you briefly explain what I could request from MIL in the Part 18?

And also if everything goes to plan with that would my defence be strong enough if I include that I never receive a reply to my email to Jas and the Part 18 to MIL?

All help would be great-full and vastly appreciated.

Of the various MIL threads, this Gan Special letter is a good one to kick off with, obviously tailoring it as necessary:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1123845

Thank you @nosferatu for your clear answer.

@The Silthy Tove thank you for the Link, I read through the answer by Gan which was very detailed and clear, but my question is would all those requests really be necessary and /or apply to me? As I actually used the store and the contravention I am been accused for could potentially be a mistake (maybe intentional) by Jas. Or maybe that doesn't matter at this stage? Could I request in the part 18 letter stuff that would emphasize the fact that I was actually using the premises on the day and actually made effort to contact the PPC?

Help is greatly appreciated and Thanks in advance.

You use everything that could possibly apply

JAS wont ssay its a mistake. they never make them. Theyre scum, trying to scam you out of money, and theyve "sold" (not actually sold, no legal assignment occurs) something they dont own to someone else, who is also scum looking to scam you out of money

You absolutely MUST question the letter of assignment not being from JAS but actually from MIl. This means there was no such assignment.

Stop looking for differences in your case to the ones before. Start NOW to put togeter a draft part 18, and post it here. You will get a MUCH better response if you do that - people wont do all your work for you.

A lot of your differences arent too key - the main one is you can state you were using the store, and given the balance of probabilities (what court works on, in a civil matter) you are unlikely to purjure yourself for the sake of a few hundred quid, they will be hard pressed to counter your argument - this means there is no cause in action i.e. no reason to bring the claim.

They alledge a debt you don't want to pay, so you challenge them on every single parameter they have to meet to be able to claim that debt, so YES.

You could add an extra line item along the lines of

'As the driver did visit and shop in Staples that day, can you clarify the basis behind alleging a debt for not car park providers premises'

Thanks for the help guys.

As @nosferatu1001 advised I have put together a draft Part 18 Request Letter using help from one of Gans answers to other forums and @The Rookie reply also.

Could you please have a look and advise me on what might need to be added or removed? and if its good enough?
(I looked at the Councils website at which the alleged contravention took place and they charge 50 or 70 pound depending on the nature of contravention, a lot lesser than what Jas initially charged).



Dear Sir

Ref : Claim (Number and Title)
Part 18 Request for Further Information

You have brought a claim against me
It appears that you have been misled because no debt to J.A.S Parking Solutions Limited has ever existed.Under the circumstances I cannot be expected make any payment to your company.

In order to clarify your Particulars of Claim and which facts are in dispute as well as resolve some inconsistencies in the claim, would you please provide the following information ?

1 -As the driver did visit and shop in Staples that day, can you clarify the basis behind alleging a debt for not car park providers premises
2- What was Jas Parking Ltd. interest in the location ? Land-owner ? Lessee ? Agent or Contractor ?
3- If not a Land-owner or Lessee, what was Jas Parking Ltd. legal capacity to issue a claim ?
4- What is the basis of Jas Parking Ltd. claim ? (a) An agreed contract ? (b) A breach of contract ? ©Trespass ?
5-(i) If (a) or (b) what was Jas Parking Ltd. legal capacity to offer parking at the location ?
5-(ii) If © what was Jas Parking Ltd. legal capacity if not the land-owner or lessee ?
6-(i) Does Jas Parking Ltd. pay 15.6% of every paid parking notice to HMRC as VAT ?
6-(ii) If No, would it be correct to conclude that the parking notices are not contractual? If not please explain.
7- What reason does Jas Parking Ltd have to believe that the driver would, in free negotiation, agree to pay £ 94 to use the parking space if not entitled ?
8- What value does Jas Parking Ltd. believe the driver received by using the space if not entitled ?
9- What loss, if any, would Jas Parking Ltd. incur if the driver had parked without entitlement ?
10- What is the standard penalty in a local council car park for parking in such a space if not entitled ?
11- If an undisputed penalty from a council is less than £94 (currently £50 - £70), why does Jas Parking Ltd. believe that its charge is not extravagant and unconscionable ?
12- How many claims has Jas Parking Ltd. issued since October 2012 ?
13- Have Jas Parking Ltd. invoiced the sum and details of the alleged “assignment (sale) of a debt” to you ? If so, please provide the invoice number, date and details. Please state if the invoice includes VAT ?
14- Have you paid the invoice ? If so, when and have you applied for recovery of the VAT ?


Please provide the answers to the above questions within seven days in order that I can provide a full defence

Thank You

Yours Faithfully

15.

Hi Lynnzer, thanks for your reply. So do you propose that I also add the point you added in red to my Part 18 request letter?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Yes, it shows you expect to see such a trivial item showing the actual "debt" was bought.

1 - The original Parking Notice states that it was issued because the driver did not visit the client's (Staples) premises. If the Operator was mistaken and the driver DID visit Staples - is it correct that the claim would be entirely without foundation ?

Okay thank you really appreciate your replies.

So this what I have got so far after the updates, I am planning to send this of as soon as reasonably possible. So if you see any thing wrong in it or propose to add other elements could point them out to me please.

The support has been great and thoroughly appreciated.

Thanks


Dear Sir

Ref : Claim (Number and Title)
Part 18 Request for Further Information

You have brought a claim against me
It appears that you have been misled because no debt to J.A.S Parking Solutions Limited has ever existed. Under the circumstances I cannot be expected make any payment to your company.

In order to clarify your Particulars of Claim and which facts are in dispute as well as resolve some inconsistencies in the claim, would you please provide the following information?

1 - The original Parking Notice states that it was issued because the driver did not visit the client's (Staples) premises. If the Operator was mistaken and the driver DID visit Staples - is it correct that the claim would be entirely without foundation ?
2- What was Jas Parking Ltd. interest in the location ? Land-owner ? Lessee ? Agent or Contractor ?
3- If not a Land-owner or Lessee, what was Jas Parking Ltd. legal capacity to issue a claim ?
4- What is the basis of Jas Parking Ltd. claim ? (a) An agreed contract ? (b) A breach of contract ? ©Trespass ?
5-(i) If (a) or (b) what was Jas Parking Ltd. legal capacity to offer parking at the location ?
5-(ii) If © what was Jas Parking Ltd. legal capacity if not the land-owner or lessee ?
6-(i) Does Jas Parking Ltd. pay 15.6% of every paid parking notice to HMRC as VAT ?
6-(ii) If No, would it be correct to conclude that the parking notices are not contractual? If not please explain.
7- What reason does Jas Parking Ltd have to believe that the driver would, in free negotiation, agree to pay £ 94 to use the parking space if not entitled ?
8- What value does Jas Parking Ltd. believe the driver received by using the space if not entitled ?
9- What loss, if any, would Jas Parking Ltd. incur if the driver had parked without entitlement ?
10- What is the standard penalty in a local council car park for parking in such a space if not entitled ?
11- If an undisputed a penalty from the council in which the alleged contravention took place, is less than £94 (currently £50 - £70), why does Jas Parking Ltd. believe that its charge is not extravagant and unconscionable ?
12- How many claims has Jas Parking Ltd. issued since October 2012 ?
13- Have Jas Parking Ltd. invoiced the sum and details of the alleged “assignment (sale) of a debt” to you ? If so, please provide the invoice number, date and details. Please state if the invoice includes VAT ?
14- Have you paid the invoice ? If so, when and have you applied for recovery of the VAT ?
15- Please provide a copy invoice of the amount paid for the assignment of the alleged debt.

Please provide the answers to the above questions within seven days in order that I can provide a full defence

Thank You

Yours Faithfully

I respectfully suggest that your request is far too long and incorporates requests for provision of evidence which Part 18 doesn't cover. As far as that is concerned a request under Part 31 should be made. There is something of a tendency to be over-detailed. As with all things MIL don't expect a reply or at least one that addresses the subject.

Part 18 is about "information".

The Practice Direction also provides the following advice at 1.2:


With that in mind I'd suggest trimming things down to the following:



As much as anything else this request is about putting MIL on notice that you see certain information (and the evidence behind it) as crucial to your defence although I wouldn't be giving them a run down of questions you might put to them in court. Nor would I be sending the Part 18 until I had filed an initial defence.

If and when MIL arrive at court - having been put on notice - armed with a print-out of this thread, having not addressed the questions and without the necessary documents one wonders what view a judge might take?

Hi Hotel Oscar 87,

Thank for the detailed reply and explanation.

So if I understood correctly, you suggest that I go ahead with a Part 18 request letter still, (and not necessarily a part 31) but have it trimmed down to the necessary and relevant stuff as you demonstrated?

Also what do you mean by the statement: "although I wouldn't be giving them a run down of questions you might put to them in court" - didn't quite catch that.

And finally are you suggesting that the Part 18 shouldn't be sent until I have sent of my defence first?

Thanks in advance.

Yes


You've posed a number of questions concerning detail that are those you might ask of MIL at court but not at this stage.


Yes - but I had only skim-read your post. See below.


Concentrate on the central issues for now and deal with detail later. Your initial defence can major on the absence of crucial detail - like that set out in the Part 18. It would probably be seen as unreasonable to offer MIL only 7 days within which to answer the questions and 21 days is likely to take you outside the 28 days. It might be better that you give them 14 days as conceivably if they did respond in time that your initial defence could be more detailed. Get this off to them asap - obtain a free certificate of posting by sending the letter from a post office counter - don't bother with Special or Recorded Delivery. Make sure you keep copies of everything and the postage certificate.

Who are these clowns actually sending to court to fight their case?
Am I right in thinking that even if they win they won't make a profit? If that's the case id rather be forced to pay more by a court than just hand them less of my hard earned money and them be better off. Cut your nose of to spite your face but I'm ok with that as long as they get nothing

It's basically the last roll threatogram, PE and CEL have been doing it for ages......not at all an abuse of the court system.....

Hi Hotel Oscar 87,

Thanks you reply has made things a lot clearer now.

I have a a question though, you mentioned to give MIL 14 days to reply, However the date of service is in the second half of November. 14 days from today is 16 of December.

I thought that timeline would be tight for me and would add more pressure in producing a defence in time?

Thanks MrMember04

14 days is seen as reasonable, in your defence you note the issues you seek to clarify and reserve the right to adjust your defence when they are, of course it won't happen as they won't reply so its academic, you just do everything to appear constructive and reasonable.

Thank for your reply @The Rookie.

Taking into account what you said what you said and Hotel Oscar 87's reply this is my latest draft of the Part 18 request.


Dear Sir
Ref : Claim (Number and Title)
Part 18 Request for Further Information
You have brought a claim against me

It appears that you have been misled because no debt to J.A.S Parking Solutions Limited has ever existed. Under the circumstances I cannot be expected make any payment to your company.
In order to clarify your Particulars of Claim and which facts are in dispute as well as resolve some inconsistencies in the claim, would you please provide the following information?

1. Please identify the head or heads of action under which you have issued proceedings in terms of whether it is based in breach of contract trespass or enforcement of a contractual term.

2. Please confirm that you have or will have in your possession the original deed of assignment of the alleged debt; that it is available for inspection and that you can provide certified copies of it in due course; if it is not currently in your possession when it will be.

3. Please confirm that you have in your possession evidence of your assignor’s legal capacity in respect of the car park in question by way of freehold title lease contract or other agreement; that this is available for inspection and that you are able to supply certified copies of it in due course; if it is not currently in your possession when it will be.

4. In light of your assertion in the Particulars of Claim to the effect that you and your assignor have complied with Sch 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 please confirm that you have in your possession all documentary evidence (including details and location of any signage) you intend to rely on in support of the assertion; that it is available for inspection and that you are able to provide certified copies of it in due course; if it is not currently in your possession when it will be.

Please provide the answers to the above in the form of a signed statement of truth within 14 days.

Thank You
Yours Faithfully

If you intend this to be a Part 18 request then confine it to the issues you want to be clarified.

I'd therefore omit your first paragraph - this is commentary and is the sort of thing that should be included in a letter not in the request.

You should have a PM by the way.

Thank you Hotel Oscar 87,

I have altered the p18 request as you suggested.

You should also have a reply to your PM.

Regards

Hi Oscar Hotel 87,

I have sent you some details to your PM, could please advise me if its now okay to send off the p18 request?

Thanks in Advance