UKPC Left the site

geltance

Carthesis wrote: »

They are using phrases like "reasonable cause" to try and dress up their invoice as some kind of legal document. It's !!!!!!!!.

I've got reasonable cause for thinking Allison Brie from 'Community' might enjoy a night in bed with me... doesn't mean to say it ever has or ever will happen (much to my everlasting chagrin!)

As has been said, they've either got *EVIDENCE* of you (or whoever the driver was) leaving the site, in which case they can bloody well produce it, or they can FRO.

I'm not sure what 'evidence' they can have anyway. Have they got employees at every single exit of the shopping centre asking people where they've parked and what their reg number is every time the walk out of the doors? Of course not. Even if you did nip out to meet someone, as long as you went back into the centre afterwards, then you're still a customer. You could even argue you've increased their custom as you brought someone back in with you to shop there as well! Unless you were parked there and not on-site for hours at a time, then they're acting very unreasonably at best.

even if they had an employee standing at the exit, it would be his word against mine. unless they would be recording it. And at the end of the day even if they had proof of me leaving i will argue with Retail Park (owners of the land) and stores about stupidity behind such regulation. As per my receipt i did buy a product from the retail centre. And at the end of the day as far as i've read they cannot really provide evidence of how the £100 penalty is calculated.

Umkomaas

i've read they cannot really provide evidence of how the £100 penalty is calculated.

Forget that one now, the good Law Lords knocked it on the head in the Beavis ruling. But there's lots more to be going on.

beamerguy

geltance wrote: »

even if they had an employee standing at the exit, it would be his word against mine. unless they would be recording it. And at the end of the day even if they had proof of me leaving i will argue with Retail Park (owners of the land) and stores about stupidity behind such regulation. As per my receipt i did buy a product from the retail centre. And at the end of the day as far as i've read they cannot really provide evidence of how the £100 penalty is calculated.

Look, they issued the ticket, it is wholly up to them to prove what they say, the onus is not on you to prove anything in this case

Forget how the £100 is calculated, they will ignore you

You have lots of avenues open to you, they have nothing else to say.
1: The Retailer
2: Social Media
3: Local newspapers
4: Trip Advisor

Carthesis

beamerguy wrote: »

Forget how the £100 is calculated, they will ignore you

They will - but they shouldn't. Especially if they are alleging damages and not contractual fee. The IPC CoP expressly states that they have to be able to demonstrate how the figure for damages has been arrived at.

From http://www.theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf:

PART B:
8. Charges and Terms and Conditions
8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions. If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts.

beamerguy

Carthesis wrote: »

They will - but they shouldn't. Especially if they are alleging damages and not contractual fee. The IPC CoP expressly states that they have to be able to demonstrate how the figure for damages has been arrived at.

From http://www.theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf:

Carthesis ... IPC MEMBERS ignore their own rules as do the IAS

God knows how they are allowed to continue.

The operator will ignore end of

Carthesis

beamerguy wrote: »

Carthesis ... IPC MEMBERS ignore their own rules as do the IAS

God knows how they are allowed to continue.

The operator will ignore end of

I'm fully aware. It doesn't stop it being a statement of fact. Their CoP requires them to demonstrate it. Just because it isn't enforced by the puppet-sham ATA doesn't stop it from being something they state, and have stated they are compliant with.

Just something to bear in mind should a judge ever get involved perhaps?

beamerguy

Carthesis wrote: »

I'm fully aware. It doesn't stop it being a statement of fact. Their CoP requires them to demonstrate it. Just because it isn't enforced by the puppet-sham ATA doesn't stop it from being something they state, and have stated they are compliant with.

Just something to bear in mind should a judge ever get involved perhaps?

Maybe, most likely not, it certainly would NOT be a case winner

fisherjim

The old leaving site scam is an uphill struggle for a PPC, thay can't just hide and watch you without mitigating their loss.

UKPC incentivise their attendants, and that is why they have a reputation for scamming motorists by falsifying evidence to keep up their greedy cashflow.

They were banned last year from obtaining data by the DVLA for this, unfortunately not for long enough!

If keeping you a prisoner with your car is so integral to the site owner's business why didn't the Muppet stop you, and warn you that he would charge you if you left?

This court case makes amusing reading, and is why few ppc's want to try to take it further:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

The old leaving site scam is an uphill struggle for a PPC, thay can't just hide and watch you without mitigating their loss.

UKPC incentivise their attendants, and that is why they have a reputation for scamming motorists by falsifying evidence to keep up their greedy cashflow.

They were banned last year from obtaining data by the DVLA for this, unfortunately not for long enough!

If keeping you a prisoner with your car is so integral to the site owner's business why didn't the Muppet stop you, and warn you that he would charge you if you left?

This court case makes amusing reading, and is why few ppc's want to try to take it further:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

OH YES, the famous Miss Coates and her toothbrush.
One of the best cases.

Carthesis

beamerguy wrote: »

Maybe, most likely not, it certainly would NOT be a case winner

I'll bow to your experience in that regard, but you'd think that if it's something you can point to to demonstrate they haven't been following the CoP, it can only go in your favour, even if it isn't an outright slam-dunk in it's own right.