Sunday, 25 October 2015

UK Parking Control continue to issue fraudulent tickets

Three drivers, all strangers to the area received £100 UKPC parking charge notices in July for parking in a Hampshire road named Damson Drive which leads to a housing estate like many others in the area. The distorted UKPC “evidence” photograph showed no evidence whatsoever of wrongful parking or that it was any business of UKPC. It showed the road and houses in the distance, but no houses where the cars were parked and no UKPC signs in this road (there aren’t any).

Damson drive is signed as a local authority public highway the same as all the other roads nearby. There is no entry sign to show that Damson Drive is private land (and UKPC has produced no evidence to show that it is).

There are no UKPC signs or any parking restrictions signs whatsoever in Damson Drive where the cars were parked.

The parking charge notices impertinently and dishonestly alleged that these drivers agreed to the imaginary terms and conditions of parking ‘clearly and prominently displayed’.

Purporting to be evidence of the imaginary parking violation the Parking Attendant provided a photograph which he later took of a hardly-readable UKPC sign located somewhere else near some houses – so therefore not where the cars were parked.

UKPC knows they have not installed signs of any kind in Damson Drive where the cars were parked and the Parking Attendant knows that otherwise he wouldn’t have issued a fallacious parking charge notice and then provided bogus evidence of signs he alleged to have been contravened by the drivers.

UKPC refused to cancel their parking charge notices and repeated the false allegations and their demands for money so two of the affected drivers have now filed Crime Reports for investigation by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. UKPC and the Parking Attendant are both cited as the perpetrators.

Prankster Note

UK Parking Control are well known for issuing tickets on land which they later fail to prove they have authority for. Large numbers of POPLA appeals are won because UK PC fail to prove they had authority to issue tickets.

However issuing tickets where there is obviously no signage, and then failing to cancel on appeal is clearly the kind of fraudulent activity which sends the parking industry into disrepute.and gives all parking companies a bad name.

The Prankster suggests that UK PC should join the IPC, where a generally lower standard of operator behaviour is required for charges to be regarded as enforceable - the IPC appeals system does not require parking companies to prove they have authority, and does not require entrance signage or signage to be in the proximity of the parked vehicle. However they will need to join before they get any more sanction points as banned operators remain banned even if they change ATA.

[Update 26/10/2015] This newspaper article clearly shows other drivers have also been ticketed, and that POPLA have ruled UK PC have not shown they have authority to issue tickets in that location.
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. more fodder , complete with crime numbers for the BPA to think about

  2. Of course, the DVLA stance on this is probably going to be that they are investigating the matter.
    Ha someone made them aware of this? Perhaps one of the people who got a ticket presumably stuck on their windscreens.

  3. How can that UKPC sign possibly be legitimate when there is a proper 'No waiting' sign below it? It's obviously a public highway with double yellow lines so what are UKPC doing putting up their private parking signs?

    1. Actually the UKPC sign looks very much like a photoshop insertion.
      The perspective is all wrong in comparison to the other signs.
      The others do reduce in size, top to bottom, for the upward view but not as much as the UKPC one.

      That's a really clear case of fraud. Hope the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau is made aware of this. Slam dunk jail sentence.

    2. If you open the picture in Photoshop or Microsoft Publisher (or any other graphics programme you can place a line down each side of the signs. The ones on the UKP sign show a definite inconsistency with the other ones. They narrow more towards the top, ie the angle of narrowing is greater.

      Right click on the picture, select copy file location. Open the file location in Photoshop and away you go.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Sorry to burst your bubble but I know this area and the signs are there. Not a photoshop job.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. But not in the road where the cars were parked. Why is there a council "no parking" sign on the same post?

    7. Would Mick be kind enough to replicate the picture then? perhaps a Google Streetview location would assist in giving authenticity

    8. DBC, I have no idea.

      Sandy, its an estate in Hartley Witney. Postcode is RG27 8EQ - feel free to go check it out on your own time.

    9. The actual post code for Damson Drive is RG27 8WR

    10. Ok. The estate that the road leads to is RG27 8EQ, but obviously either postcode will take you to where you need to be!

    11. As you are local Mick, why don't you take some photos of these signs and post them up here? I live miles away.

    12. Streetview isn't up top date on this location. It seems the estate is private but that gives doubt to the council signs on the lampost.

    13. No need DBC - you can see the sign in the article prankster has linked to in the update.

    14. But that sign is not in Damson Drive (where the cars were parked) is it. It's in a different location. As you are local perhaps you can con firm the actual location of that sign.

    15. I am not local. I used to have family that were.

      The debate was about whether the signs were photoshopped. I merely confirmed that they weren't.

      That particular sign is just off the end of Damson Drive. Off the top of my head I've got no idea whether there are signs on the road itself.

    16. That newspaper article on the update says it all:-

      "“There is no such mandatory notice and Damson Drive is actually signed with Hart District Council street nameplates, which clearly indicates it is a public highway where private company enforcement isn’t possible,” said Mr Ashford."

    17. Would be more interested if the comment came from the Council. No idea who Mr Ashford is. He's wrong about the entrance sign as I'm pretty sure the site falls into the exemption in the code for sites where general parking is not permitted.

      If this dates back to May you would have thought someone would have spoken to the council by now?

    18. Whether it's a private estate or not, the road must be covered by the Road Traffic Enactments so isn't within the requirements of PoFA for relevant land to lay a charge against a registered keeper.

      Not that that matters much anyway since they can't find out who the keeper is.

      It makes me shudder thinking about the plebs who employ these people. Surely they must be aware of the unscrupulous and fraudulent operation they carry out.

      It reminds me of the time I went to have a new key cut for my back door. The booth operator was the biggest bloody crook in the town with a list of convictions for burglary.

      Common-sense played its part and I went elsewhere.

  4. You say banned operators remain banned, but they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.

  5. I suppose this is all down to UKPC's bonus scheme.

  6. The other issue to be considered is the inclusion of a UKPC alongside a statutory "No Waiting" one is clear evidence of ticketing on a highway. If it is photoshopped, it's an idiotic one.

  7. To me the sign in the picture at 18:15:18 may be just visible in the picture at 18:14:37 - there is a white square just to the left of the bay-fronted house and the other buildings just about fit in both pictures.

    If there is one there, it is in a different road to the one where the black Golf is.