Search this site

Home Council Parking Fines Private Companies FAQs My Story Latest News Forums Legal Info Media Free Legal Advice About Contact us Recommended Council Parking Fines   Woman felt "stalked"more...

Private Companies‎ > ‎ Milne Berry Berger & Freedman Milne Berry Berger & Freedman are a Sydney based law fim.  One of the offices of Milne Berry Berger and Freedmanspecialises in so called "Debt Collectiion".  The office that specialises in debt collection is run by Mittu Gopolan, a partner in the firm.  See my main page on MBBF for more information about Milne Berry Berger Freedman and how to respond to letters of demand from them.   Companies that deal exclusively in debt collection are often known as "bottom feeders" because debt collection requires relatively little skill and the worst of the bottom feeders use intimidation and harassement to coerce money out of people who do not necessariy owe any money at all.   Milne Berry Berger & Freedman used to collect debts for Dun and Bradstreet but now have a relationsip with Australian Recoveries and collections and ANCP.  My page on MBBF lawyers (see link above) has more detail on how to respond to letters from Milne Berry Berger Freedman.   The head office for Milne Berry Berger Freedman is as follows: Ground Floor 154 Elizabeth Street Sydney, NSW 2000 Email: paymentnotices@legalmbbf.com.au   The Milne Berry Berger Freedman website also shows their mobile phone number as as 0404-887-883.  Milne Berry Berger Freedman also offer a free half hour consultation to dicuss any legal issue.  One wonders what they would say if you asked Milne Berry Berger Freedman during one of these free consultations if you had a legal obligation to pay a car park fine when you weren't the driver. Comments You do not have permission to add comments.

Disclaimer: the author of this website is not a lawyer.  The information provi

Parking Fine Appeals	Search this site

Home Council Parking Fines Private Companies FAQs My Story Latest News Forums Legal Info Media Free Legal Advice About Contact us Recommended Council Parking Fines   Woman felt "stalked"more...

My Story Brian's story.  Brian received a fine for parking in a permit zone, but there were no signs at eye level and only a faded painted sign on the ground which wasn't visible with early morning sun.  Read more ... Susie's story.  Susie wins in parking fine dispute against ANCP and debt collection company Dun and Bradstreet.  Read more ...      Joanne's story.  Joanne said she felt "stalked" when she was tracked down like a bloodhound and phoned at her workplace by Australian Recoveries and Collections.  And this was despite not owing any money at all.  Read more ...     Paul's story.  Paul received demands from Australian National Car Parks and Mittu Gopalan even though he had never parked in the claimed car park. Read more ...      Peter's story.   Peter received a fine from Traffic Monitoring Services.  When TMS didn't withdraw it, he complainted to NSW Fair Trading.  Read Peter's story to find out what happened next.  Read more ...     Michael's story.  Michael received a letter of demand from BDK lawyers on behalf of Traffic Management Services and BDK lawyers. Using similar tactics to recommended on this site, he had his fine withdrawn. Read more ...     Louise's story.  Louise is one of the remarkable few who have been successful in extracting a refund from ANCP for a fine that has already been paid.  Read more ...     Robert's story.  Last July, Robert Terrett received a letter of “intention to sue” from Australian National Cark Parks for allegedly breaching parking rules at Barkly Square Shopping Centre and driving a car he doesn't even own.  Read more ...   Andrew's story. Andrew Borodin is one of the select few people who have been taken to court by ANCP.  Read more ... Ian's story Ian received letters of demand from Care Park, Parke Lawyers and Crown Collections for an alleged infringement in September 2012.  Because he knew I hadn’t parked there, he wrote in stating this and asked for photographic evidence showing that it was his vehicle (ie, with correct registration number etc).  They sent him photos and sure enough it was the wrong car.  Ian emailed me, suggesting that this has probably happened to others, as they’ve obviously not overly diligent with how they collect information.     Steven's story   Steven received a $66.00 fine from ANCP.  That afternoon, Steven rang the company that owned the car park (ANCP operated, but didn't own the car park) and explained to a senior manager of the company that the signs were wrong, and that he wasn't parked illegally, and was in fact parking in compliance with the wording on the signs.  The company refused to ask ANCP to withdraw the fine.   Steven decided to return to the car park later that evening and took photos of the signs.  Three months later, Steven received an $88.00 reminder notice from ANCP.  Steven went back to the carpark and took new photos.  When Steven got home he compared the new photos with the photos taken three months ago.  The signs were in exactly the same place, but the wording had been changed and were now clear that Steven could no longer park in the spot he did 3 months ago.  But of course, the implication is also that 3 months ago Steven was legally parked in compliance with the signs that were there then.  But ANCP continued to persue the original fine.  ANCP must have know the signs were wrong, because they fixed them.  Steven is not paying the fine.  Steven is taking legal action against ANCP and when the action is completed he is going to publicise the result.  (Steven is not his real name).   Mary's story   Mary received a $66.00 fine from Parking Patrols (Vic) Pty Ltd in an Ace Parking car park in Box Hill.  She has a ticket which she has kept.  She also scanned and emailed the ticket to herself in case she ever loses or misplaces it. The infringement notice on her car windscreen said she wasn't parking according to directions (even though she had a valid ticket).  Mary rang Ace Parking and without giving her personal details (Mary didn't give her name) found out that this notice is issued when your car is not within the confines of the lines that mark the car park.  However, Mary knows there were no clear lines in the car park and that drivers have to figure out for themselves where to park.  Mary has taken digital photos of the car park as proof (in case they later paint lines).  She is ignoring further letters from Parking Patrols (Vic) Pty Ltd.  If they take Mary to court, she will show the photos as evidence.  Mary is also concerned about other drivers who may have received fines in this car park for not parking within the lines.  Mary is preparing to contact consumer affairs and asking them to investigate.  Mary is hoping that Consumer Affairs will direct the company to pay back all fines received in this car park in Box Hill since it was first created.  (Mary is not her real name).     Comments You do not have permission to add comments.

 pr

Parking Fine Appeals	Search this site

Home Council Parking Fines Private Companies FAQs My Story Latest News Forums Legal Info Media Free Legal Advice About Contact us Recommended Council Parking Fines   Woman felt "stalked"more...

My Story‎ > ‎ Brian's story Brian parked his car in a supermarket car park in Melbourne.  He paid for a 2 hour ticket from the ticket machine and displayed the ticket on his dashboard.  When he returned to his car one hour later he found a fine from Australian National Car Parks on his dashboard.  The fine was for "parking in a disabled bay".  Brian looked out of his car from the driver's seat and couldn't see any signs saying it was a disabled bay.  He got out and walked right around his car and still couldn't see any signs indicating his space was a disabled bay.  On the contrary there was signs at eye height saying that he was parking in a casual parking area.  On the way out of the car park, he decided to have a drive around which is when he noticed disabled bays at the other end of the car park.  He noticed that these spaces had signs at eye level saying they were disabled bays and well painted marks on the ground on each spot with a painted wheelchair.  Now that he knew what to look for, he drove back to the spot where he had been fined.  Again he found no signs at eye level.  However, on this approach side (the opposite to how he drove into the car park earlier in the morning) and knowing what to look for on the ground he could see a very, very faded paint on the ground of a wheelchair.   Walking over to the other side of the spot (to the side he would of approached from in the morning) the paint was not visible as it was so worn, and the sun was shining in his eyes.  He also noticed on the post next to his spot that there was some faded and grubby glue spots still there at eye level, and it seemed there used to be a sign there but it must have been removed many years ago. When Brian got home he wrote to ANCP explaining the situation, how there was no sign at eye height, and the paint on the ground had faded, and asking them to withdraw the fine.  Brian received this letter back from ANCP.  It seemed that they ANCP not even bothered to read his letter.  So he wrote back again, explaining the situation again and asking them to withdraw his fine.  ANCP wrote back withthis letter.  Brian was totally distraught and upset.  He didn't know what to do next, but he decided he wouldn't pay it as he hadn't broken any rules and had paid for a ticket. About a year passed, when out of the blue, he got a demand from Australian Recoveries and Collection's solicitor Michael G Roper.  Brian immediately wrote to both ANCP and Michael Roper to remind them the matter was in dispute and to leave him alone.  A few weeks later he received a letter of demand from Australian Recoveries and Collections.  He then wrote to ARC and explained the whole thing again to them, and reminding them the matter was in dispute.   He heard nothing from ANCP and Michael Roper, but a short time later he got a further demand from ARC that said if he did not pay within 14 days, he would end up paying more, that they would take him to court, and that the debt would go against Brian's credit rating.  Brian was wondering if ARC was aware that the debt was in dispute and that ARC should not have been writing to him with these demands.  Brian contacted Australia Post to find out who had been signing for the letters he had sent to ANCP, Michael Roper and ARC.  Australia Post told Brian where to go on their website to see who was signing for the mail.  This is where he found this Australia Post document.  That document, along with two others, showed that all mail Brian had sent on this matter was signed a the post office by Paul Gyles who was, at the time, a director and owner of both ANCP and ARC.  So it was clear that ANCP and ARC knew about the matter being in dispute and that ARC were part of the scam.  This Paul Gyles was also intercepting Michael Roper's mail. By now Brian was totally exhausted by the whole thing and gave up and paid the fine, which was what ANCP and ARC had been trying to do all along - that is to exhaust and demoralize Brian until he gave up and paid.  Well, your scheme certainly

ofessional before relying on any information provided on this site.

S