UKPC "altered" Photo Evidence - now on BBC

atilla

In light of all this, shouldn't DVLA be taking steps to safegaurd themselves?
Handing over data where more than a suspicion of fraud is involved.

fil_cad

I bet it will all be brushed quietly under the carpet and it will be buisness as usual for the PPc scammers.

Kite2010

Poor UKPC :rotfl:

Probably the blame will be placed onto a "rogue" warden who left the company prior to the news story coming out, and that if anybody wants to complain to get a refund they need to contact us.

After-all, it's not like a judge or someone else in authority will order any tickets issues at that location to be cancelled and any monies raised to be paid back in full with 8% interest within 14 days, with a large fine, and ban from the DVLA honey-pot.

enfield_freddy

they have stated that staff have now been dismissed , not staff that previously left

trisontana

It was on Radio 5 Live tonight. About 1 hour 17 mins in:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b068hhd5

ampersand

Your link works trisontana. Merci.
From book of face, it didn't for me.
#
At 1.58 in...who did they find capable of writing something for r5live to read out?
Who gripped the crayon?

We need to correct r5live and Simone's MP, Karl McCartney:these unenforceable invoices are NOT FINES.
I sincerely hope the MP did not use this incorrect term in his letter to the Secretary of State for Transport.

enfield_freddy

I like the way UKPC keep saying "to mitigate this ,,,, etc"






WE DON'T DO MITIGATION!!

fisherjim

PPC's seem to think that mitigation when used by their victims is just an excuse to wriggle out of their charges, and they reject with the "we cannot accept your explanation" stance.
It's quite ironic that this bunch of chancers keep using the same term in their defence isn't it!

TDA

Marktheshark wrote: »

The law is VERY CLEAR here, the people charged are the company directors and officers.
No doubt whatsoever about that, several criminal acts have been committed under the fraud act with one carrying ten years prison.

It is necessary to prove that the fraud took place with their consent or connivance. Certainly not a problem for the attendants involved but significantly less straightforward for any in-office staff.

fisherjim

TDA wrote: »

It is necessary to prove that the fraud took place with their consent or connivance. Certainly not a problem for the attendants involved but significantly less straightforward for any in-office staff.

Maybe the fact that they actually put it in writing that the time stamps cannot be altered, and the charges were correctly issued will go a long way to prove it!