UKPC - POPLA comments advice needed

Fruitcake

digitfrly said:

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 The contract provided by the operator is outdated with no expiration date, as well as displaying an incorrect postcode for the registered office of Intu Metrocentre Property Management Limited which was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. 

In 2, I would mention that the letter purporting to be a contract has not been signed by the scammers, and the actual contract referred to in the letter has not been produced. There is no proof therefore that the scammers had a contract with the landowner at the time of the alleged vent.
My comment about pants was a dig at the industry, and is of less import than comments about the lack of contract. Much as I would like my comment included, do not do it at the expense of a possibly winning point.

digitfrly

Hopefully the final draft, character count sadly won't allow for the "upskirting" reference. Thanks again for everyones input. 

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. 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.

The letter purporting to be a contract has not been signed by the operator and the actual contract referred to in the letter has not been produced. As such there is no proof UKPC had a contract with the landowner at the time of the alleged event. The letter is also 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.

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 have been breached and the operator has failed to provide any feasible evidence to the contrary.