Ukcpm ignoring my appeal what to do?

Umkomaas

Nor has Umkomaas, AFAIK,

Confirmed.

They'd have to be more than on the top of their game to change that ..... and a long way from home!

bertiewhite

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Because that's all I've noticed from you, more than just once or twice.

Gosh, that many? In more than 900 posts? I'd like to know your definition of "usual" then :rotfl:

[Deleted User]

@bertiewhite FWIW grounds for issue of a ticket are one thing, but, the following are points that cause genuine concern.

1. Entitlement to ticket (there are a number of defective contracts. Even if the driver parks like a Muppet, no contract = no charge, but an invoice is always submitted with basic checks done after the event, which is quite wrong)
2. Appropriateness of £100 charge
Almost always the maximum permissible. Why?
3. Failure to engage in correspondence and inflate charges each time
When debt collectors are instructed on a no win/no fee basis these charges have simply never been incurred

I may or may not have "deserved" my last ticket - but the process and the speed with which attempted charges were added was nothing short of outrageous (and not part of any contract they claimed to have). It is right to fight them in whole or even in part.

I do wonder if it might be easier for the PPCs to just charge £30 instead if the maximum as they'd probably receive more payments and have to litigate far fewer....

bertiewhite

Johnersh wrote: »

I may or may not have "deserved" my last ticket - but the process and the speed with which attempted charges were added was nothing short of outrageous (and not part of any contract they claimed to have). It is right to fight them in whole or even in part.

I do wonder if it might be easier for the PPCs to just charge £30 instead if the maximum as they'd probably receive more payments and have to litigate far fewer....

Fair do's - good reply.

Quentin

bertiewhite wrote: »

Gosh, that many? In more than 900 posts? I'd like to know your definition of "usual" then :rotfl:

You have not made over 900 posts here.

As you well know your posts in this forum do follow a certain pattern (and don't help the worried posters whose threads you choose to post in)

The_Deep

I may or may not have "deserved" my last ticket - but the process and the speed with which attempted charges were added was nothing short of outrageous (and not part of any contract they claimed to have). It is right to fight them in whole or even in part.

Of course it is. The only way this pest will get a penny is for a judge to find for them.

Judges are not fools, they can recognize a scam when they see one, and the more you fight, the more knots they will turn themselves in.

CM is right, the industry is rotten through and through. Even cash strapped council charge less than these scammers.

bertiewhite

Quentin wrote: »

You have not made over 900 posts here.

What does the "940" next to "posts" mean then?

Quentin

Why do you ask?

You know exactly the point being made regarding your "contributions" to this forum

No wonder your agenda when posting is raised!

bertiewhite

Sorry, I don't understand. The OP has given a coherent answer to my original question and explained a bit more. That should be the end of it, surely?

nosferatu1001

bertiewhite wrote: »

What does the "940" next to "posts" mean then?

The "here" was obviously meaning the parking sub forum, not any other forum where msot of your posts were made

Stop using the wrong language.

It is not an offence. It is not a fine. By using those words you misrepsentt the authority these specualtive invoices - or pieces of trash - have.