Sunday, 28 August 2016

Cautionary tale about MIL Collections. How to complain to the FCA and CSA

It is worth noting that if you do not defend a MIL Collections court case they will get a default judgment against you which they will then be able to enforce.

This facebook post details a case where MIL got judgment for £175. The motorist then paid within the time allowed, but MIL tried to add on £90 extra collection charges for bailiffs. The court was not impressed when the motorist got back in touch.

Prankster Note

It is worth noting that Alan Davies, MIL's managing director, is a morally bankrupt individual who has no problem with telling lies, inventing fictitious lawyers, deceiving the courts, charging fees which are not justified and using bullying and aggressive tactics. All of these characteristics have been detailed in previous blog posts.

MIL Collections are regulated by the FCA, and the CSA. The organisations have codes of practice. When MIL break them (as they clearly have in this case) the correct action is to first complain to MIL, and then if you get no proper apology, to escalate to their regulatory bodies.

The best way to do this is to download their codes of practice (linked above) and file complaints which clearly set out where they have transgressed. If you are satisfied with MILs answer, copy in the regulatory body to state you had a problem which was resolved in an acceptable manner. This will allow them to keep tabs on MIL and make sure MIL are not just paying lip service to the regulations.

If you are not satisfied with MIL's answer, escalate to the regulatory body.

Here is a typical complaint for a CSA transgression.

Dear MIL,

Ref: xyz

I wish to raise a complaint that you are acting outside the CSA code of practice. According to the code of practice 3a  I now require you to cease collection until the complaint is resolved. I require all communications from you to be by letter post and not by email or telephone.

My complaint is as follows.

You have broken 10k (only impose such costs as to which you are lawfully entitled) by
a) charging £90 for bailiffs fees when the time for payment had not expired
b) adding unlawful costs over and above the original £100 parking charge

You have broken 10e (pre-action conduct) by failing to provide me with the information required in the pre-action protocols outlined here

You have also unlawfully pursued me for a debt to which you are not entitled as the deed of assignment from the parking company does not list my parking charge number, and therefore there is no proof this charge was ever assigned.

The Prankster recommends complaining to both the CSA and the FCA.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

No comments:

Post a Comment