Thursday, 28 January 2016

MIL Collections lose in court

MIL Collections v Mrs C, Manchester County Court 28/01/2016

MIL didn't turn up. Again. Quelle Surprise. Mrs C was accompanied by her lay representative, John Wilkie (16-2) from the BMPA and a witness.

MIL's bundle did arrive and they asked for the matter to be considered without their attendance, which was not objected to, because it was fatal to their case.

This was a Keeper Liability case, where MIL were pursuing the keeper for a ticket issued by CPMS/CPMS Ltd. However, the keeper was not the driver, and MIL's own evidence clearly showed that the driver had been named in August 2014, long before MIL got involved.

As there was no keeper liability, there was no case to answer. The claim was dismissed with Witness and Client loss of earnings for the day.

Mr Wilkie also asked for a Civil Restraining order. On this point the judge wasn't satisfied on Unreasonableness so declined to answer.

Mr Wilkie (now 17-2) has no losses representing motorists against MIL, but does have losses against ParkingEye and UKPC.

Prankster Note

Many parking companies, debt collection companies and trade associations incorrectly believe that the keeper only has 28 days to name the driver once a valid Notice to Keeper has been served. This is not correct. The keeper can name the driver at any time up until proceedings start. The relevant paragraphs of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, are 5(1)(b) and 5(2)

5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor 
does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is
given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking
charges from the keeper.
MIL only began proceedings in 2015, wheras the driver was named in 2014, and therefore keeper liability did not apply

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

No comments:

Post a Comment