Sunday, 28 August 2016

Is Alan Davies of MIL Collections faking evidence in parking cases?

The Prankster has been forwarded the following facebook post. In it, MIL Collections have been accused of faking evidence because the letter from the parking company is dated in February, but addresses to a house the keeper only moved to in May.

The dates on letters MIL sent have also been changed.

If true this would be a clear fraud on the part of either MIL Collections or the parking company.

The Prankster calls on Alan Davies to clarify the situation and if true to explain why he is submitting faked documents to court.

Prankster Note

 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 MIL's 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 FCA transgression.

Dear MIL,

I wish to raise a complaint under your FCA complaint handling procedure. In line with DISP 1.2.1 please provide me with information regarding your complaints procedure in writing. Please also suspend collection activities until the complaint is resolved.

My compliants are as follows:

CONC 7.7.2 A firm must not claim the costs of recovering a debt from a customer if it has no contractual right to claim such costs
You do not have a proper deed of assignment with the parking charge reference

CONC 7.7.3 A firm must not cause a customer to believe that the customer is legally liable to pay the costs of recovery where no such obligation exists.
You have not established there is any obligation to pay costs of recovery

CONC 7.13.2 A firm must take reasonable steps to ensure that it maintains accurate and adequate data 

You have submitted forged documents to court where the date of the document is before the date I moved to the address on the document

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. I'd be writing to the Court and to the SRA with this. no point taking this up with MIL. What a bunch of crooks.

    1. They are not solicitors so the SRA will take no notice. And the courts showed no interest when ParkingEye were faking witness statements. So I think the FCA and the CSA are sadly the best options.

  2. Fraud? Surely a police matter?

  3. The police did not care even for widespread fraud when UKPC were faking photographs

  4. They are all in it together.

  5. Under small claims rule 32.1 applies

    Power of court to control evidence
    (1) The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to –
    (a) the issues on which it requires evidence;
    (b) the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues; and
    (c) the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court.
    (2) The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.
    (3) The court may limit cross-examination(GL).

    the court can issue a direction that the letter in question be verified by statement of truth?