UKPC "altered" Photo Evidence - now on BBC

photome

Lock someone up, these scumbags might get the message then

Umkomaas

ManxRed wrote: »

More than one though.

So, were they talking to each other, or did it come from above?

I know what they'll say, but I wonder which was true?

Given the geographical spread of the current revelations, it's hard to imagine that there are just individual rogue wardens who have 'twigged' unilaterally to work out this fraud. There must have been a puppet master somewhere pulling the strings.

Let's see what tomorrow brings to identify how country widespread this whole debacle has radiated.

fil_cad

And i bet they are still pumping scamming tickets out every day.

Ivor_Pecheque

Corporate me thinks.

kaffenback

trisontana wrote: »

Now on ITV local news:-

(about 8 minutes into programme)

Stupid for the TV woman to say they had been parked "legally" , Of course no criminal law would have been broken even if the motorist had overstayed.

At about 1:50: "UKPC say that all potentially affected customers will now be refunded" which should surely mean all paid parking charges, everywhere, where a hand held camera was used to provide 'evidence'...

Umkomaas

kaffenback wrote: »

At about 1:50: "UKPC say that all potentially affected customers will now be refunded" which should surely mean all paid parking charges, everywhere, where a hand held camera was used to provide 'evidence'...

My view is that UKPC should be required, on every handheld camera case, to prove that the time stamps were not adjusted - if they can't, cough up.

I believe that's what's so far been unearthed is the tip of an iceberg, not the iceberg itself!

Herzlos

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Not sure that I agree 100% with that. There has been so much exposure on this case that if the BPA are not seen to be doing anything, then the flak that they would undoubtedly take is likely to make them want to be seen to have "done something" and anything less than a suspension would not tick the right boxes. Of course - expulsion would be even better.

Indeed, but they'll be putting a lot of effort into investigating ways of making it look like they've done something, whilst letting one of their bigger customers get away with it.

ManxRed

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Not sure that I agree 100% with that. There has been so much exposure on this case that if the BPA are not seen to be doing anything, then the flak that they would undoubtedly take is likely to make them want to be seen to have "done something" and anything less than a suspension would not tick the right boxes. Of course - expulsion would be even better.

Can they be seen to take no action if the Fraud mob bring any charges? They can, of course, postpone any action pending criminal investigation.

I don't disagree at all with what you've put, but I bet they're trying very hard to think of something, anything, that might help UKPC avoid disaster.

You're right though, it won't be easy, and they may well end up having to admit defeat and levy a suspension.

We'll see.

HO87

Stepping back for the moment and taking a few deep breaths we should properly acknowledge that it is entirely conceivable that what UKPC are saying is true - that these are isolated incidents.

Setting aside for the moment some of the questions this begs, like:

How thoroughly was the so-called evidence checked?
How robust was their chain of evidence?
What is the integrity of the iWarden 2 app?
Was it wise to incentivise staff?
Is it possible that the same practice has propogated across a number of geographically separated staff at the same time without some collusion?
And at what level?

There are other questions that really do need to be answered too:

Where is the BPA Ltd in all of this?

Regulator, in a truly public sense, they may not be but as I have argued consistently for the last 3 years and more (to little effect I might add) whether the DVLA/DfT/CALG like it or not the BPA Ltd (and the IPC, God help us) are the gatekeepers to the DVLA's records. As a consequence the BPA, in this instance, has a duty to the public to exercise this responsibility in a timely and effective manner.

With this public duty firmly in mind would it not be both timely and effective to temporarily suspend UKPC's DVLA access until the result of the investigation is known?

After all there is every reason to think that cases being currently processed include those that are the fruit of the allegedly poisoned tree. The BPA Ltd have comported themselves as a crypto-regulator for several years - well now is their opportunity to behave like one and at the same time live up to their claim to be driving up standards.

Regardless of how the facts of the developing situation are re-arranged to best advantage or otherwise they clearly portray wrong-doing and for the moment that wrong-doing would appear to be criminal (I can't for the moment think of an alternative interpretation but would allow for the fact that one exists).

Even allowing for the scenario painted in the PP's recent blog where photos of an overstay were concocted when the overstay was seemingly genuine - read here (last paragraph) - concocting evidence in this way is still a serious matter - especially when it might be used in a court case.

Would UKPC like to take the lead in the PPC integrity stakes?

Well here's their opportunity to do just that. Throwing open the doors to their operation by reporting the matter to the police themselves would be to publicly commit to the implied "we have nothing to hide" position. With the matter already, seemingly, subject of a formal criminal complaint to Action Fraud time could well be short. Besides, keeping their doors closed to an independent investigation would be to perpetuate in the public mind the Augean stench that ongoing speculation will only intensify.

By the same token in taking this step they could set about repairing any reputational damage the situation will have done - much as it pains me to make that recommendation.

UKPC would do well to keep in mind that they chose to operate in the field of enforcement and as far as that is concerned the only currency is their integrity. The question they really need to ask themselves is: How do we retain integrity?

So, for UKPC and the BPA Ltd the clock is ticking...

ampersand

Just throwing these into your mix, HO87 -

https://companycheck.co.uk/director/909470253/MR-RUPERT-JOHN-WILLIAMS

and
http://www.ukpcjob.co.uk/why-work-for-ukpc.aspx

from which
What´s in it for me?

As an employee of UKPC you can enjoy the following benefits:

Weekly Salary (Non commission)

• Holiday entitlement of 20 days + 8 Bank Holidays
• Pension Scheme
• KPI Bonus Scheme
• Excellence Awards

UKPC operates a Key Performance Indicator Scheme, our wardens who show commitment to the role, professionalism and dedication to the company are rewarded The majority of our wardens regularly receive a KPI Bonus as part of their weekly wage, for example:
* Retail Park: 35 hours + KPI Bonus = £355 (Before Tax)
* Residential Mobile: 35 hours + KPI Bonus = £303 (Before Tax)
#
In order to successfully gain the KPI Bonus your work is monitored in the following ways:.........
includes

Low % of cancellations
#
Country-wide vacancies, too ;-)
http://ukpcjob.co.uk/jobs/Default.aspx


Within this job description -
Appeals Officer £17,000 (Pro-rated against days worked)High Wycombe Hospital

Note bullet point 6
Role Description :

• Receive appeals by post or via appeals website
• Review and respond in writing to appeals within timeframe provided
• Ensure a consistent approach when responding to appeals
• Take calls when required and provide information when requested
• Report any system issues to System Developer
• Carry out Ad-hoc admin duties for NHS when required
• Identify areas for improvement and highlight to Team Leader
• Resolving payment queries
• Re-issuing charges when appropriate
• Preparing cases for POPLA
• Working from 9.30am - 2.30pm 3 days per week; Monday, Wednesday and Friday (flexible)

-conflict of interest and also improper, in relation to nhs data protection.