Printfriendly

Friday, 22 April 2016

MIL Collections lose in Bristol

MIL Collections v RC

MIL Collections lost in court in Bristol County Court on 19th April. MIL decided not to turn up and informed the court and defendant they would be relying on the paperwork. They suggested the defendant might prefer not to turn up too, but the invitation was politely declined.

The judge read through the case, which took about 15 minutes, and asked how the value of the alleged debt was arrived at. The defendant confirmed this appeared to be by adding random amounts to letters from Parking Debt Collectors, Dara Debt Recovery and MIL Collections, as no other explanation had ever been advanced.

The defence points disputing the claim were:
  • Champerty and maintenance (per MIL v Bowker)
  • JAS provided no evidence that the car wasn't parked in accordance with their rules
  • JAS didn't follow the POPLA process properly.
The judge took the point about champerty and maintenance but decided that point failed. He decided that the claim failed because no evidence was provided that the parking terms had been contravened. The photographs simply showed a well-parked car. The judge stated that JAS Parking would therefore also have failed had they brought the claim.

Prankster Note

The Prankster is not aware of any contested hearing which MIL Collections have won. It appears then that MIL rely on bullying and intimidation to make their profits, rather than any substance to their cases. It also appears that MIL do not believe that the concept of debt applies to them - The Prankster has heard of several cases where costs were awarded against MIL, but which MIL have not paid.

Have you won a case against MIL which MIL have not paid? If so, please contact the Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



3 comments:

  1. Has no one sent the bailiffs in yet for these unpaid costs?

    ReplyDelete