Mr Brass parked in the car park by Iceland in Carlisle and paid the wrong meter, As it was not clear that there were two car parks covered by different schemes, he did not consider a charge should be paid. Mr Brass purchased a ticket from Horizon Parking rather than Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd
He phoned to dispute the charge, but NPE were rude and dismissive on the phone.
He wrote to appeal the charge but his appeal was refused.
Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd then sold the right to sue for the disputed charge to MIL Collections.
In the hearing Mr Brass argued there is no clear separation between the two car parks, which there isn't. The judge agreed and dismissed the claim, awarding Mr Brass his costs.
Mr Brass posted on facebook to warn other drivers about the situation.
It is clear that no parking charge should have been issued in this case, and this was a valid reason to contest the hearing.
A more fundamental reason is that the alleged debt was never assigned to MIL Collections in the first place. When MIL are confronted with this line of defence they now do not even usually bother to turn up for hearings (although they do try the odd one here or there).
MIL claim they purchased the alleged debt from NPE on 20/05/2016 and produced an undated deed of assignment to 'prove' this. The deed was not witnessed properly and did not contain any details of Mr Brass's charge (or indeed any charge).
A big problem is that exactly the same undated deed of assignment was used to 'prove' they purchased an alleged debt from Mr N. M. on 07/04/2016.
Here is the wording used on all known MIL Collection deeds of assignment. (This is not from an NPE deed, this is from a JAS Parking Solutions Ltd deed)
It is clear from this wording that the same deed cannot be used to support purchases of alleged debts on different occasions. It would therefore appear on the face of it that MIL are committing perjury when they claim in court that debts have been validly assigned because the debt are being purchased at various intervals after the deed has actually been signed, and not at the time of signing the deed itself.
Claiming against MIL and NPE
This FOI request reveals that NPE are committing a data protection breach selling keeper data to MIL
It is also worth considering a similar claim against MIL. As the deed of assignment is not valid, they are also using personal data improperly, and a claim of £250 would appear to be justified.
Start with a letter before claim
Dear Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd,
My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). You obtained this data from the DVLA and your contract with them only allows you to sell this data to third parties if you have the DVLAs written permission. You did not have this permission.
This is therefore misuse of my my personal data.
The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc  EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd  All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
In this particular case I estimate £250 would be a reasonable amount to claim. Please therefore remit the sum of £250 sum to myself 14 days. I will accept this sum in full and final compensation for the matter. I reserve the right to take legal action without further notice if this amount is not paid.
I am willing to use alternative dispute resolution to attempt to settle this dispute and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman is a suitable body.
The Parking Prankster