UKPC parking ticket at Screwfix customer car park

Redx

some spelling errors to sort out

and email and contact details for AOS at the BPA are in this thread in the latter posts

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5274163

The_Deep

Why not mention their past indiscretions?

http://www.driving.co.uk/news/dvla-stamps-on-parking-company-that-cheated/y

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

Such behaviour must surely bring their fine upstanding organisation into disrepute.

The_Slithy_Tove

camelcx wrote: »

...

Given UKPC's obvious abuse of your code of practice and flagrant abuse of the terms and conditions of their membership of the BPA I would like to know exactly what disciplinary procedures will be implemented to prevent such [STRIKE]unlawful and[/STRIKE][It's not unlawful] unsanctioned behavior being continued.
Such [STRIKE]behavior[/STRIKE] behaviour demonstrates UKPC's total disregard for your organization and begs the question as to whether they should be allowed to remain as members.
...

Fixed stuff. You seem to have your spellcheck on US

camelcx

Thanks for the replies. I've sent the email to AOS. Will wait for their reply.

camelcx

UPDATE: Their reply...
"I note the Operator requested further information from you in a letter dated 17th May 2016. Can you please confirm if this letter was responded to so the Operator could have made a final decision on your appeal?"

Redx

write back stating that their previous guidance has been that once a keeper has made an appeal the PPC have to deal with it and there is no obligation for a keeper to reply to anything else that the PPC requires because the keeper has discharged their responsibility by appealing in the first place and there is no obligation to disclose the driver or to accept the responsibility as keeper

UKPC should have sent a popla code after their own self-imposed deadline and this was not done

BPA guidelines

The following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied

Umkomaas

There seems to be a more stroppy git responding to complaints at the BPA nowadays. Whatever may be said about Steve Clarke, he was always professional and generally polite in the responses he made in the past.

So as you've received an arsey reply, you should respond in similar fashion and ask why they are even asking you the question when clearly their instruction to PPCs does not support their response you, which you find quite objectionable.

Two barrels!

camelcx

Regarding the address change. I've changed address of driving license and the V5C. However, I cant get through the Royal Mail redirection service... (It was a university property. But they decided to sell it this year... So I can't show utility bills as the rent includes the bill. And I did not choose to post my bank statements...)
I've told UKPC through the online appeal form.(I kept screen capture.) However, they just sent template reply to my old address...
Can anyone suggest what to do? It seems pretty bad if they send POPLA code to the old address but I can't read them...

Coupon-mad

Email the BPA to complain:

aos@britishparking.co.uk

and copy in:

appealmoreinfo@ukparkingcontrol.com

Set out what you have just said above, have a rant at how wrong this is that UKPC are trying to make you miss your POPLA code. Do not say who was driving, if that 'response' was the one begging to know!

The_Deep

I agree with PG in post number 2.

40 replies over an event where a punter deliberately parks in a shopping complex car park out of hours against the landowner's wishes. This is why some of you feel the forum is overloaded.

Should we not be concentrating of confounding dodgy solicitors rather that abetting trespassers.