UKPC LTD - Overstay !!!!!! Appreciated

Umkomaas

Don't try to gild the lily. You need to plot your knockout blows carefully and surgically. 

Fruitcake

The scammers have failed to prove they have
a landowner contract
standing to issue charges
entrance signs
etcetera
etcetera


The appeal must therefore be allowed

If you used bullet point titles and or numbers you could say
1 Landowner authority - No proof shown
2 Standing to issue charges in their own name - No proof shown.

Or, The scammers failed to provide proof of the following points of my appeal
1 Landowner authority
2 Standing to issue charges in their own name

Umkomaas

·       Valid planning permission from  Barnet Council (submitted is missing dates and validation)

·       Justified use of ANPR cameras (no evidence of service history or monitoring )

Waste of the characters you have available!  POPLA will not, nor have they ever judged on these.

They have a documented history which allows for a reasonable request for further transparency. They have failed to achieve this. 

Ditto. 

TheHennyQ

***** have failed to prove that they have:

·       Clear and concise entrance signs (they have submitted the same sign post with two seperate messages evidenced by items in the background) & submitted items confirming signage blocked by foliage and incorrectly marked bays

·       Any images of the vehicle to be near any signage with any terms & conditions. Only an entry and leaving time. A serious BPA CoP breach

·       Valid landowner contract (submitted doc. Is incomplete, non numerical. May not be authentic) or Standing to issue charges in their own name

·       evidence of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice

They have failed to provide any irrefutable evidence that this PCN was issued correctly ****** have a documented history which allows for a reasonable request for further transparency.They have failed to achieve this. Therefore this appeal must be allowed.

 

Fruitcake

Therefore this appeal must be allowed ... on all points not addressed/refuted.

TheHennyQ

**** have failed to prove that they have:

·       Clear and concise entrance signs (they have submitted the same sign post with two seperate messages evidenced by items in the background) & submitted items confirming signage blocked by foliage and incorrectly marked bays

·       Any images of the vehicle to be near any signage with any terms & conditions. Only an entry and leaving time. A serious BPA CoP breach

·       Valid landowner contract (submitted doc. Is incomplete, non numerical. May not be authentic) or Standing to issue charges in their own name

·       evidence of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice

On two seperate occasions **** have been given the opportunity to provide credible evidence to support their claim. They have failed to provide any irrefutable evidence. **** have a documented history which allows for a reasonable request for further transparency.They have failed to achieve this. Therefore this appeal must be allowed on all points not addressed nor refuted.

TheHennyQ

submitted. lets see hpw the chips fall

TheHennyQ

Appeal denied . .

Anyone want to have a read?

Umkomaas

TheHennyQ said:

Appeal denied . .

Anyone want to have a read?

Post it up, but please don't just copy and paste the horrific wall of uninterrupted text. Please place some paragraphs in it if you want it to be read on the forum. 

TheHennyQ

feel free to peruse.