UKPC - POPLA comments advice needed

Le_Kirk

MistyZ said:

digitfrly said:

"women seen by warden went into abc yard then into back fire dore of ----- black court combat pants black bag white shoes" 

This is just too good.  Black bag + white shoes?  Surely not!  UKPC have truly excelled themselves here.  Go get 'em.  

You need the fashion police not a parking Schicklgruber (ask Auntie Google!)

digitfrly

Below are the points drafted to add to the popla comments, open to any feedback and suggestions. This is the first time I've commented on a popla appeal so some of the points may be irrelevant or too long winded...

1. By the operators own logic, the witness statement provided would be considered new evidence which I have “not been afforded the opportunity to consider”

I also don’t recognise the description of these 'women' (plural) from the misspelt purported notes and that this hardly seems evidence of someone being a staff member, which is denied. No family members are staff here. No photos to show where the driver went or that the women (plural) they describe came from the vehicle the PCN was issued to, and 'women' can't have been 'the driver' of a single car.  No photos of the fire door mentioned other than a birds eye view of the site with various areas circled and connected with lines.  

2. The contract provided by the operator is outdated with no expiration date, as well as displaying an incorrect postcode for the registered office of Intu Metrocentre Property Management Limited which was updated in 2017 to SW1H 0BT as shown on Companies House.

3. The only legible images of the signs provided by the operator are stock images and do not reflect accurately how the signs would appear under normal circumstances in person. In the image named ‘Signage and vehicle location(1)’ they’ve shown a sign facing away from the vehicle location, at a considerable distance, with no additional real life images of what this sign actually says or looks like. I’m unsure why the operator has provided the image named ‘Entrance signage 2’ as this shows a sign at the entrance to a different carpark at the opposite end of the Metrocentre - top right of the site boundary as shown in their site plan where the bus terminal can be seen in the background.

I urge the assessor to see this very garbled compilation of evidence for what it is. No terms and conditions have been breached and the operator has failed to provide any feasible evidence to the contrary.

Umkomaas

You need to do a bit of tidying up surgery. You only have 2,000 characters to play with, you need to trim near to 300 characters off. 

digitfrly

Umkomaas said:

You need to do a bit of tidying up surgery. You only have 2,000 characters to play with, you need to trim near to 300 characters off. 

Edited the post, now seems to fit in their 2000 characters box. 

Fruitcake

digitfrly said:

Below are the points drafted to add to the popla comments, open to any feedback and suggestions. This is the first time I've commented on a popla appeal so some of the points may be irrelevant or too long winded...

1. By the operators own logic, the witness statement provided would be considered new evidence which I have “not been afforded the opportunity to consider”

I also don’t recognise the description of these 'women' (plural) from the misspelt purported attendant's notes and that this hardly seems evidence of someone being a staff member, which is denied. No family members are staff here. No photos to show where the driver went or that the women (plural) they describe came from the vehicle the PCN was issued to, and 'women' can't have been 'the driver' of a single car.  No photos of the fire door mentioned other than a birds eye view of the site with various areas circled and connected with lines.  

I urge the assessor to see this very garbled compilation of evidence for what it is. No terms and conditions have been breached and the operator has failed to provide any feasible evidence to the contrary.

I would delete the comments I have struck though as I don't think they help, but add in the word "attendant's" to clarify which notes are being referenced.

The letter dated 3rd December 2013 is not signed by an authorised signatory of UKPC so cannot be considered as being a contract. Whilst it refers to a contract, no contract between an authorised signatory of the Metrocentre and UKPC has been produced. The Companies Act 2006 defines authorised signatories as either a director or company secretary, and there must be two authorised signatures from both parties for a contract to be executed in accordance with the above Act.

If character count permits, I would also comment on the suggestion of "upskirting" by the parking weasel where they describe the women's (plural) underwear (pants). Patrick Troy, the previous head of the BPA was convicted for upskirting (taking indecent photos of ladies in their underwear) and his name is now on the Sex Offenders Register.

digitfrly

Thanks Fruitcake, I've followed your suggestions and amended the comments below, hopefully this should suffice and seems to fit the character count. Open to further advice as always. 

1. By the operators own logic, the witness statement provided would be considered new evidence which I have “not been afforded the opportunity to consider”

I don’t recognise the description of these 'women' (plural) from the purported attendant’s notes and that this hardly seems evidence of someone being a staff member, which is denied. No family members are staff here. I also consider the attendant’s description of the women’s (plural) underwear (pants) to be “upskirting” - the same offence BPA member Patrick Troy was convicted for. There are also no photos to show where the driver went or that the women (plural) they describe came from the vehicle the PCN was issued to, and 'women' can't have been 'the driver' of a single car.  No photos included of the fire door mentioned other than a birds eye view of the site with various areas circled and connected with lines.  

2. The contract provided by the operator is outdated with no expiration date, as well as displaying an incorrect postcode for the registered office of Intu Metrocentre Property Management Limited which was updated in 2017 to SW1H 0BT as shown on Companies House.

3. The only legible images of the signs provided by the operator are stock images and do not reflect accurately how the signs would appear under normal circumstances in person. In the image named ‘Signage and vehicle location(1)’ they’ve shown a sign facing away from the vehicle location, at a considerable distance, with no additional real life images of what this sign actually says or looks like. I’m unsure why the operator has provided the image named ‘Entrance signage 2’ as this shows a sign at the entrance to a different carpark at the opposite end of the Metrocentre - top right of the site boundary as shown in their site plan where the bus terminal can be seen in the background.

To conclude, no terms and conditions have been breached and the operator has failed to provide any feasible evidence to the contrary. 

MistyZ

Creepy as the description of the (possibly imaginary) women was, mentioning 'combat pants' is not a reference to underwear. I think you might be stretching it a bit there.  
I'd probably go for something like: 'detailed description of women: 'combat pants', shoe & bag colour etc. is sinister & brings to mind BPA member Patrick Troy's conviction for 'upskirting'.'   

Umkomaas

brings to mind BPA member Tony Troy's conviction for 'upskirting'.'   

Upskirting Patrick. 

MistyZ

Umkomaas said:

brings to mind BPA member Tony Troy's conviction for 'upskirting'.'   

Upskirting Patrick. 

Thanks - agree it's important to be accurate.  I've edited my post now.

Fruitcake

MistyZ said:

Creepy as the description of the (possibly imaginary) women was, mentioning 'combat pants' is not a reference to underwear. I think you might be stretching it a bit there.  
I'd probably go for something like: 'detailed description of women: 'combat pants', shoe & bag colour etc. is sinister & brings to mind BPA member Tony Troy's conviction for 'upskirting'.'   

Yes, I like that. I was having a dig at the scammers, their reliance on dodgy parking weasel notes, and a reminder of the disgusting behaviour of a senior member of the parking scamdustry.
If the assessor is not aware of this criminal behaviour it might spark discussion amongst their colleagues.