UKPC - Leaving Site

The_Deep

What you told the scammer, and what you tell PoPLA is of little consequence if it gets to court, all that matters is what a judge thinks. If he/she thinks it is perfectly reasonable to leave the site to get money from an ATM, and the claim is a cynical attempt to use the law to obtain money, you will win.

If however he/she thinks you blatantly and wilfully committed a serious breach of contract and the scammer is fully entitled to be compensated for the harm they suffered, you will lose. Do not be intimidated by doonmongery.

I am of the opinion that judges are not fools and have sussd out this scam so have no fear of confounding them in court.

Have you complained to your MP yat?

[Deleted User]

A great point, yet everyone continues to attack OP, for no reason other than their own ego. Ironic.

I'm not sure they have actually, if you look up the timings of the posts.

https://youtu.be/nT1TVSTkAXg

The Deep makes a reasonable point esp if the o/p left within the allotted free time. How reasonable it was to get cash may depend on how close the ATM was, too.

Ralph-y

have you complained to the retail managers yet ... not the customer service? and this should be done up to CEO level as well


Ralph:cool:

Guys_Dad

TruthBandit wrote: »

How classic, the appellant is honest and upfront in an attempt to get justice, yet users of the forum attack and attempt to humiliate them.

Interesting. Your post was number #6 on here. 3 of the previous 5 were from OP, 1 was a question from Umkomaas leaving mathematically only 1 that raised a perfectly reasonable point that would, no doubt, cross the mind of any judge in the future.

So how do you get to the statement that "users of the forum attack and attempt to humiliate them". The plural, at that point, could not apply.

What it does suggest to me - and I am no conspiracy theorist - is that you may be not what you appear. If someone has a problem, you can offer sympathy or try to advise on how to get out of the problem. Just look at how many current threads are on here and ask "Did people come here for sympathy or help?"

We are dealing with PPCs that only make money when motorists contravene their t&c and they are in no hurry to take a sympathetic view to what you call honest appeals in order to give up their income.

So, we advise using all the avenues to fight including not volunteering information to make your appeal worse.

The_Deep

Snowflake alert? I see very little antagonism towards OP.

HornetsNest

iI believe that the actions of UKPC Ltd contravene section 18.10 of the BPA Code of practice namely:

18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that
materially affects the motorist then you must make these
terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such
changes impose liability where none previously existed then
you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the
site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.
Best practice would be the installation of additional/
temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site
making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will
ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with
the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

nosferatu1001

You have to explain why this is sosmething the court should care about - ie link compliance with CoP to the Beavis case.

HornetsNest

I have simply reported UKPC Ltd to the BPA - apparently they have taken up similar cases in the past.

Coupon-mad

They won't.

waamo

HornetsNest wrote: »

I have simply reported UKPC Ltd to the BPA - apparently they have taken up similar cases in the past.

The BPA will simply tell them to be more careful in future. If you look at the Beavis case here https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html&query=(Parkingeye)

The judges stressed the importance of compliance with the code of practice. You need to highlight that point.