MPS/MIL collections

System

NTK dated 57 days later,

Does the MIL claim say that they are using "Keeper Liability" if so point out to MIL that 57 days means there is no keeper liability.

I'd be interested in helping with this one if it does.

The_Deep

This could be "a nice little earner" for you.

System

This could be "a nice little earner" for you.

If it is anything like the J.A.S. one, it'll be priceless.

desres52

Yes MIL are assuming that the keeper was the driver at the time of the incident. I sent the letter to MIL as above and obtained proof of postage but they still went ahead and issued court papers. The vehicle was parked at GCS in Swansea vale where the driver parked early in the morning, still dark, and the unlit sign was around 7 foot up and not clearly legible. I was wondering about my defence and going down the route of CCA agreements where a debt is concerned, what do you think? Also if I e-mail the landowner and get it cancelled, would I then forward the evidence to MIL to cancel the court case or still go ahead in court and claim damages from them?

pappa_golf

MIL will just push on in the hope that you give in and pay


remind me , how many court cases (outside Cornwall) have they turned up to?

Coupon-mad

desres52 wrote: »

Yes MIL are assuming that the keeper was the driver at the time of the incident. I sent the letter to MIL as above and obtained proof of postage but they still went ahead and issued court papers. The vehicle was parked at GCS in Swansea vale where the driver parked early in the morning, still dark, and the unlit sign was around 7 foot up and not clearly legible. I was wondering about my defence and going down the route of CCA agreements where a debt is concerned, what do you think? Also if I e-mail the landowner and get it cancelled, would I then forward the evidence to MIL to cancel the court case or still go ahead in court and claim damages from them?

In cases where IamEmanresu offers help, I would send him a pm.

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

MIL will just push on in the hope that you give in and pay

remind me , how many court cases (outside Cornwall) have they turned up to?

They did actually turn up to their first case with a barrister (or at least someone who was identified as a barrister. Barista?) which was in September-ish if I remember correctly but still failed dismally. The next time out they ponied up for a solicitor but completely failed to brief her and their "case" dissolved before her eyes. MIL haven't bothered since.

From their point of view - exactly like the PPC's they feed off - Moneyclaim Online (MCOL) and the small claims court is merely an extension of their debt collection process. So instead of using red ink they invest £25 and issue a cut and paste claim form instead knowing that the vast majority will simply pay up.

Given that they are rumoured to pay just £1 for each debt and each claim is in the £180-£225 range they are making a very substantial profit. When you also consider that you could read a Sunday newspaper through the legal substance of each of the cases one has to wonder how it is that they are allowed to get away with it?

The answer to that question may lie in the way in which the MCOL system operates. Northampton, which is where everything is initially collated, isn't actually a court (although "officers" there have some power) and there is no check of claims before they are sent out. By the time a case is allocated to a court the number of experiences of MIL an individual judge might have is diluted a thousand-fold.

MIL do provide a set of papers before court hearings. however, the so-called statement of truth included is simply a rambling series of groundless assertions that lacks the one thing it should include - evidence.

Then, of course, there is their Particulars of Claim which will have been signed simply "MIL Collections Ltd" despite the fact that any such claim issued by a limited company must be signed by a director or authorised company officer. And they get away with this every time.

You might think that at the last minute they would discontinue cases that are obviously going to be defended so as to reduce their expenditure but that isn't what happens. They do not appear and oblige each defendant to show that there is no case. A reasonable man might conclude that this was the vindictive action of a company intent on demonstrating that you shouldn't take them on. Then again, it might just be the product of a company staffed by part-time and understandably inexperienced youngsters. Who knows?

desres52

Thanks, just found that the original landowners have since moved on, but still trying another method of contact for them. Sorry to ask, how do I send a PM? IamEmanresu, would be grateful for your assistance with this.

Coupon-mad

You click on the person's username!

desres52

Evening all
Just picked up an e-mail relating to this case. The company at the site where the driver parked was GCS, so I contacted them to explain the situation and ask for the pcn to be cancelled. They have now informed me that they were only renting the offices, and they have advised they will contact me next week with the name of the landowner. Now, the court papers I received state that my vehicle was parked at GCS without a valid permit, as does the original NTK. So, if GCS' name is on the court claim, can I get them to cancel the charge? Or should I ask the landowner to cancel it - it may not match up with the court claim if there's a different name involved.