The Prankster would like to take this opportunity to correct a few of the lies Alan Davies told the publication. This may be useful to defendants. Following the revelations that MIL's 'legal eagle' Matt Muroch/k does not exist apart from in comic books, MIL's witness statements are now signed by Alan Davies. As Alan Davies never turns up in court, evidence that he is a habitual liar may be useful to get his witness statement thrown out as unreliable.
Porky #1 MIL always send an advocate to hearings
Porky #2 MIL treat consumers fairly and with respect
MIL's modus operanti is to issue a claim as soon as possible. Their first letter is a letter before action, and a claim follows barely 14 days later.
As MIL have won no known cases which have gone to hearings, it appears they are trying to rattle consumers into paying up by using the courts as a scare tactic. By now it must be plainly apparent to MIL that they have no valid claim in their parking cases.
MIL have also discontinued large numbers of claims where a robust defence is filed.
MIL have also lied to the court repeatedly, presenting witness statements signed by 'Matt Murdoch/k' when no such person has been shown to exist.
Additionally, The Prankster has had a number of reports where MIL are rude, aggressive and unhelpful on the phone.
This is hardly treating consumers fairly.
Outrageous claim #1 Parking companies benefit from MIL's court record
As anyone with Google can easily find out, MIL's court record for parking cases is less than stellar. As of the date of writing, no cases of wins at hearings have been recorded. Any operator with a record of selling to MIL is therefore not likely to gain a benefit from this.
ParkingEye are well known to be one of the most unsuccessful parking operators of all time, with a reputation of being unable to manage car parks properly. Their number of parking charges issued increases year on year. they are also the most litigious, issuing over 30,000 claims a year.
The claim that issuing charges results in an improvement in compliance is therefore laughable. Better compliance comes through better management, not selling off the charges you cannot enforce.
True but irrelevant claim #1 Charges must be processed in line with FCA guidelines
The DVLA have been asked multiple times if MIL are complying with the KADOE requirements, but have failed to answer. MIL themselves are clearly in violation of many of the FCA guidelines they refer to.
True but irrelevant claim #2 Reasonable Justification
A Google search finds no reports of contested hearing which MIL have won. This claim therefore appears to be MIL arguing that they should be shut down by the FCA.
The Prankster therefore wonders at what point the FCA will step in to end this sorry debacle.
The Parking Prankster