UKPC 'Driver left site'

Coupon-mad

But we would still edit the first post, if it was us. Nothing about who parked or did what.

SamPerry

Fruitcake wrote: »

You have described the location of the alleged event with information about the retail outlets at that site, said who did what, who was with the driver and described how they travelled once they got out the car, and what they went to look at.
How many sites do you think there are where UKPC operate with those specific shops and item of interest for someone to look at? How difficult do you think it would be to work out which specific car park that is?

It is quite possible for the scammers to put all that together and work out where you were and then link it to this thread where you have told the whole internet who was driving.

We have seen posts copied direct from the internet fora and used as evidence in court.

Please do as you were advised, which was to edit the original post before you did anything else, not come back and ask people who have played this game before the reason why.

Thanks. I have taken large chunks out. I appreciate the advice but don't feel I have said anything which could go against me, and posting for advice on here isn't illegal as far as I'm aware?

Coupon-mad

SamPerry wrote: »

Thanks. I have taken large chunks out. I appreciate the advice but don't feel I have said anything which could go against me, and posting for advice on here isn't illegal as far as I'm aware?

No, it isn't (of course) but if linked to you, it blows out of the water the slam dunk winning POPLA point - no keeper liability, which is the entire point of not saying (anywhere) who was driving. And the entire point of appealing at day 26.

As explained in the NEWBIES thread, to stop UKPC serving a NTK at all. Then you WIN.

The same would not be possible for a driver...

Half_way

The usual course of action would be to make sure that words such as I drove/parked etc are not used instead the vehicle was parked is better.

As for leaving site issues, take a good read of this Ibotson vs VCS, the infamous Toothbrush case:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

You can see that keeper liability whilst important is only a small bump for the PPc when it comes to left site cases.
You should use that in any complaint to the landowner, if the landowner refuses to cancel, or is unwilling to do so then getting astatement from them stating that they would like the pakring charge issued by their agents dropped would be good protection for you.
plus you can use that against the PPC with a simple cease and desist in pursuing this, coupled with a demand that they remove your details and stop processing your personal data under the data protection act, again opening up the door for further action from you against the PPC.

SamPerry

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, it isn't (of course) but if linked to you, it blows out of the water the slam dunk winning POPLA point - no keeper liability, which is the entire point of not saying (anywhere) who was driving. And the entire point of appealing at day 26.

As explained in the NEWBIES thread, to stop UKPC serving a NTK at all. Then you WIN.

The same would not be possible for a driver...

I understand and thanks. Do the edits I have made seem better to you I now?

Fruitcake

SamPerry wrote: »

Thanks. I have taken large chunks out. I appreciate the advice but don't feel I have said anything which could go against me, and posting for advice on here isn't illegal as far as I'm aware?

You have still left in far to much personal information in my opinion. Too much use of the first person singular, but it is entirely up to you whether you want to leave that in or not. The danger is that if you don't get into the habit of referring only to The Driver or The Keeper, you will post something later that together can be used as an admission of the driver's identity.

I am not suggesting that asking for advice is illegal, but it is common sense not give away anything you don't need to, and that could mean you throw away a very valuable appeal point if you are not careful.

You should also be aware of the type of company you are dealing with. They were caught doctoring time stamps on their photo' "evidence." Twisting your own words in order to tell a judge they believe they know the identity of the driver would not be beyond the tactics of such a vile company.

SamPerry

Half_way wrote: »

The usual course of action would be to make sure that words such as I drove/parked etc are not used instead the vehicle was parked is better.

As for leaving site issues, take a good read of this Ibotson vs VCS, the infamous Toothbrush case:


You can see that keeper liability whilst important is only a small bump for the PPc when it comes to left site cases.
You should use that in any complaint to the landowner, if the landowner refuses to cancel, or is unwilling to do so then getting astatement from them stating that they would like the pakring charge issued by their agents dropped would be good protection for you.
plus you can use that against the PPC with a simple cease and desist in pursuing this, coupled with a demand that they remove your details and stop processing your personal data under the data protection act, again opening up the door for further action from you against the PPC.

Fruitcake wrote: »

You have still left in far to much personal information in my opinion. Too much use of the first person singular, but it is entirely up to you whether you want to leave that in or not. The danger is that if you don't get into the habit of referring only to The Driver or The Keeper, you will post something later that together can be used as an admission of the driver's identity.

I am not suggesting that asking for advice is illegal, but it is common sense not give away anything you don't need to, and that could mean you throw away a very valuable appeal point if you are not careful.

That makes a lot of sense and I understand now the reasons for the advice. I have re-edited the post and hope it is better now. I wanted to provide info to stop people having to dig for further information.

Fruitcake

SamPerry wrote: »

I understand and thanks. Do the edits I have made seem better to you I now?

Not in my opinion, but it is your choice whether you take my advice or not. I have only been doing this sort of thing for a few years.

We still know who didn't see any notices for example. That implies the person who wrote that was driving.

Like I said before, there is far too much use of the first person singular.

SamPerry

Fruitcake wrote: »

Not in my opinion, but it is your choice whether you take my advice or not. I have only been doing this sort of thing for a few years.

We still know who didn't see any notices for example. That implies the person who wrote that was driving.

Like I said before, there is far too much use of the first person singular.

Ok. I have re-edited it again leaving in the basic facts and no first person. I appreciate the advice and please do tell me if you feel it's still wrong.

SamPerry

Thanks for the advice and replies so far. Having read through them am I best therefore to do the following:

Contact the site owner now to explain the circumstances and ask them to have the ticket cancelled.

Send the appeal from the template in the newbies thread after 26days.

Many thanks again.