Thursday, 19 May 2016

UKPC caught apparently doctoring photographs again

Mr Wilkie scores a hat trick for the week - all three on the same basic argument.

Today's case was UKPC v Dr M, at Worcester County Court. Yes, I know he was in Taunton on Monday and Scarborough on Wednesday - Mr Wilkie likes his mileage allowance a little too much, methinks.

Dr M parked his car on the estate he lived on, and managed to acquire 23 tickets. All of these were for parking without permit or not in a place. The signage said "No unauthorised parking" similarly to the previously reported High Wycombe Three and UKPC v Mr M in Edmonton last week.

Mr Wilkie got sight of the Claimants bundle on Sunday, and immediately spotted issues with it, as there seemed to be fake photographs, where the shadow for a picture taken one day at 8am was IDENTICAL to the shadow taken the next day at 8pm. Two photos of the ticket in situ were taken 6
days and 4 hours apart, yet the car had apparently not moved, and nor had the shadow of the overhanging building.

As a result Mr Wilkie prepared a preliminary application citing UKPC and Mr M, and the DVLA ban for three months, and noting the likely non-attendance of the witness.

On arrival at court, this was handed to the usher and served on UKPC's agent, an SCS/LPC rep, Ms B. Ms B was surprised by this, as she was simply intending to argue points of contract law and Beavis. As the preliminary application detailed issues with the witness statement, it was made clear that non-attendance of the UKPC witness would mean as a minimum an application to adjourn, and ideally to dismiss.

The witness, Mr Elliot of UKPC, wasn't attending, nor was he going to, as he was on holiday for two weeks.

As a result, when the case was called, the judge asked about the Adjournment, which Mr Wilkie submitted, and he then asked for the hearsay application for the witness statement. Ms B pointed to a letter which suggested this, but wasn't explicit. The judge was less than impressed, and struck out the case with the Defendants costs for the day.

Needless to say that Dr M, the client, was absolutely delighted with the result.

Mr Wilkie points out that this has been the primary reason for all three of his wins this week, and makes the reasonable observation that if he can drag his own sorry ass about the country to fight these cases for defendants, the least the Parking Companies could do is show him the same
respect, especially as he has spent over 12 hours travelling this week, and less than 25 minutes actually before judges.

Prankster Note

It is rumoured that Mr Wilkie will be appearing in Berwick tomorrow morning at 10am and Truro tomorrow afternoon at 2, having breakfasted in Paris and luncheoned in Dublin.

Something is obviously going wrong with a system when a parking company is ticketing someone for parking at their own residence, and is then refusing to cancel the charges and taking them to court. No reasonable person would agree that this is responsible parking management.

Managing residents parking is all about allowing residents and visitors to park, while keeping away unwanted motorists. It is clear the system operated by UKPC is not fit for purpose if they are victimising the residents instead of providing proper management.

More worrying is the re-emergence of fresh cases where UKPC have apparently doctored photographs.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. and I hope the photos are going to the BPA with a formal complaint. they were on their final notice last time. will the BPA act?

  2. I would imagine that the photos were taken/parking event was around the time, if not well before the previous doctoring came to light.

  3. but the BPA said "if any more cases come to light" heads will roll

    more have now come to light in a completely different location

  4. maybe UKPC are

  5. His Trouserfireness told the BBC that a repeat of any kind of misbehaviour would almost certainly result in expulsion or further suspension. Now give him a chance as he is still investigating whether UKPC told victims they would still be pursued, despite the ban. I'm sure once they have eventually been cleared of that awful allegation, then any further technical errors will be escalated from almost certainly to jolly well likely.

    Say what you like about Trouserfire but he does like to raise standards.

  6. Long may Mr Wilkie's extensive travels continue, especially so if the mileage allowance is being funded by the PPC claimants...

    1. Although I suggest that he update his humble ass to a noble steed.

    2. I hear the weasels are now referring to him as a Lay-Z-Boy Litigator, which is the armchair lawyer equivalent of a Silk.

  7. Is it possible to see a copy of this "preliminary application"? I'm defending against UKPC in a couple of weeks and my photos are similar - shadows don't move, other vehicles still there supposedly 2 hours later.