This case concerned a charge initially issued by Parking Awareness Ltd. The notice of debt assignment submitted by MIL as evidence had the defendants new address. However, the claim form was filed to the defendant's previous address.
MIL and the court were not aware of the defendant's new address until he informed both MIL and the court. MIL's other letters went to the defendant's old address. MIL's own contemporaneous records showed the date the address change was recorded.
To summarise the apparent timeline
- MIL send notice of debt assignment to new address
- MIL send other letters to old address
- MIL file claim to old address
- Defendant informs MIL of new address
- MIL update computer records with new address
The defendant was awarded £95 costs.
After the hearing MIL's solicitor threatened that MIL would bring the claim again with a new notice of debt assignment sent to the correct address. However this would appear to be a bluff as a claim cannot be brought twice. Only incompetent solicitors like Gladstone Solicitors are unaware of this.
The solicitor also claimed that MIL had never received the defendant's defence. However Mr A was able to produce postage and email confirmation to suggest the solicitor was lying.
It appears from this and previous cases that MIL signs deeds of assignment with parking companies without at the time identifying particular parking charges. Later on MIL and the parking company decide which parking charges to assign. This saves both companies the bother of continually signing deeds of assignment as parking charges pass through the system. While this is no doubt a great convenience to both compaies, this is not how deeds of assignment actually work, which is why MIL continually fail in court.
The Parking Prankster