claim form

simegchris

hi,
I'm new to the site.
can anyone advise on my situation.
Ive recently received a claim form with the defendants being MIL collections claiming that i parked on private property(disused computer shop) back in February last year.
the only correspondence was a letter from a company called zenith collections?
my wife did park there but said there were other cars parking there.
The cost they are claiming for is £175 which is crazy.
Please can you advise which way to go?
Shall i admit in full admit part or defend it?

any advise will be greatly appreciated.

thank you..

Redx

defend it , they are chancers who buy alleged debts and issue court claims

look on pepipoo forums and here for similar court claims and be prepared to defend the claim, possibly using private help from some regulars on here who have helped others

read parking pranksters blogs about MIL Collections and court cases

read his court book too

and read post #1 of the NEWBIES sticky thread near the top of this forum and check the court section two thirds of the way doen that post #1

use the forum search box and search words MIL COLLECTIONS COURT to find other similar threads too

beamerguy

simegchris wrote: »

hi,
I'm new to the site.
can anyone advise on my situation.
Ive recently received a claim form with the defendants being MIL collections claiming that i parked on private property(disused computer shop) back in February last year.
the only correspondence was a letter from a company called zenith collections?
my wife did park there but said there were other cars parking there.
The cost they are claiming for is £175 which is crazy.
Please can you advise which way to go?
Shall i admit in full admit part or defend it?

any advise will be greatly appreciated.

thank you..

yes, follow what redx has said. this is the prankster site about MIL
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mil-collections-fail-in-court.html

The problem with debt collectors who buy debts is they do not look any further than their greedy noses. They also claim that they are the legal entity of the "so called" debt.

Before the debt can be sold to a debt collector the FIRST (so called creditor) must advise you of what they are doing..

THE AMINISTRATION OF THE JUSTICES ACT 1970 clearly states that it is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to harass creditors by ignoring disputes about whether the debtor owes the money

Whether or not you disputed this, the first creditor is obliged to advise you that they sold the "so called" dept to a third party.

The majority of debt collectors chasing bogus parking fines are simply chancers just hoping and to be ignored.

The moment they purchase a so called debt, they fall into a different category and the PPC must tell you

I think that any debt collector who purchases a so called debt from a PPC is round the bend as they are buying a scam and they are then responsible for the scam

REMEMBER
THE AMINISTRATION OF THE JUSTICES ACT 1970 clearly states that it is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to harass creditors by ignoring disputes about whether the debtor owes the money

The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40 makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor’s agent (often a debt collection agency) to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing ‘alarm, distress or humiliation, because of their frequency or publicity or manner’.

IE:
1: Suggesting or scaring you regarding the Beavis case
2: Suggesting your credit rating will be affected
3: Suggesting a bailiff visit

Equally, a creditor will be committing an offence if they falsely imply that non-payment of the debt will lead to criminal proceedings; or the creditor pretends to be someone they are not e.g. a court official or bailiff. It is also an offence to send a person a document which looks like it has been sent from a court.

DEBT COLLECTORS SENDING FREQUENT LETTERS ARE IN BREACH

This also applies when a PPC ignores you

As an example, National Parking Control state this on their web site
"ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970
Our collection procedure is operated in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act 1970".

REALLY ??????

HO87

@OP You have a PM

@beamerguy - the Administration of Justice Act is all but irrelevant in these circumstances.

beamerguy

HO87 wrote: »

@OP You have a PM

@beamerguy - the Administration of Justice Act is all but irrelevant in these circumstances.

Your PM has not arrived.

As I have used Administration of Justice Act in the same circumstances as described on Peppipoo with success, please explain why it is irrelevant

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

Your PM has not arrived.

As I have used Administration of Justice Act in the same circumstances as described on Peppipoo with success, please explain why it is irrelevant

The PM was sent to the OP!

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

The PM was sent to the OP!

but not received

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

but not received

And how would you know that then?

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

but not received

Why would you receive the OP's PM?

trisontana

I don't think beamerguy knows what "OP" means.

Quentin

Ignorance is bliss!