Help UK CPS ltd Parking Ticket Leeds

[ktp]

hi,

 

i got a parking fine from ukcps in leeds on friday. it was in a communal car park for the flat i was visiting and i parked against the curb (not in the way of any passing traffic) as someone had already parked in the spot allocated to the flat i was at. i even left a note for anyone asked them to knock-on/buzz the flat if there was a problem. to my amazement when i went to move my car after the person parked in the spot had moved, there was the fine ticket! i had not even been there an hour before they vultured down!

 

just wondering if people had any experiences of ukcps taking further action if i decided not to pay, as it seems that almost everyone on here hasn't paid and it has been left alone - i don't want to be the unlucky one! ha..

 

also, as i'm a student (i know tax dodger, ha) would people advise me to go to my student advise centre at uni and see what they said about the situation?

 

thanks!!

[crem]

Do not appeal (there's no such thing really)

Do not ring them

Do not reply to their junk mail

Do not pay them

 

I would suggest you don't speak to many of the other so called "experts" who you would normally expect to know their stuff (e.g. CAB, solicitor, and maybe even your student rep) none of them seem to know much about PPC scamvoices. Better "experts" on this area are always found here on CAG.

[storemanager]

I've been issued with a ticket from UK CPS Ltd today while parked on the Elk Mill Retail Park at Oldham. Having a disability and with all the disabled parking spaces taken I parked my car in front of JD Sports on a yellow box at the side of Next and popped my disabled badge on display.

As it's a retail park I assumed that parking wasn't considered under the same restrictions as parking on the roads etc.

 

I found to my horror that the charge is £100 ! with a reduction to £60 if paid within 14 days.

 

Do I have to pay this by law, and if I don't pay it will I end up with a county court judgement against my name ?

What really annoys me is that we spend money in the shops on that retail park and yet end up being fined !! I've also realised looking at the 'reasons for issue' on the ticket that people can be fined for parking "out of a marked bay" (what the hell does that mean ?).

 

The landlords of the park(savilles) have relieved UKCPS of their duties this week,all the signage has gone,hopefully you never paid them

 

Store manager

[MARTIN3030]

Updating/changes to the filter,can be routinely done,or else there can be very good reasons.

The team dont discuss these on forums.

It is against site rules to attempt to bypass any words which usual posting does not reproduce.

Any member found to be deliberately engaging in this,or encouraging others to do so,could find themselves moderated.

Anyone who needs clarification as to whether specific words are acceptable,can seek it via the site team

[crem]

I am awaiting an admin response as to why they have placed censorship on a standard dictionary word when used within it's accepted definition.

 

I don't find such censorship acceptable when no defamation of persons or businesses has taken place and therefore don't feel such action was justified. Indeed, the "s" word is frequently used in the parking forum because that is exactly what most experienced members consider PPC invoicing to be.

 

I don't feel I can continue to post on CAG if admin believe members should be silenced in such a way so regret I shall not be able to help and support members with posts in future under these censorship rules.

[esmerobbo]

I tend to agree if the word is taken out of this site then it would be difficult to report all sorts of incidents. We give them credence by even referring to them as invoices when they are in fact unwarranted demands for money for which a service was not provided. I can understand when a defamatory statement is made that it would have to be removed. Also the need for the site to protect itself. It does seem odd that CAG seems the only site that has done this?

 

I am awaiting an admin response as to why they have placed censorship on a standard dictionary word when used within it's accepted definition.

 

I don't find such censorship acceptable when no defamation of persons or businesses has taken place and therefore don't feel such action was justified. Indeed, the "s" word is frequently used in the parking forum because that is exactly what most experienced members consider PPC invoicing to be.

 

I don't feel I can continue to post on CAG if admin believe members should be silenced in such a way so regret I shall not be able to help and support members with posts in future under these censorship rules.

[sequenci]

I am awaiting an admin response as to why they have placed censorship on a standard dictionary word when used within it's accepted definition.

 

Hi there, the word in question has been deemed to be inflammatory in recent court action. Apologies for this but protecting the site from similar action is paramount. I hope you can appreciate this.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[crem]

Hi there, the word in question has been deemed to be inflammatory in recent court action. Apologies for this but protecting the site from similar action is paramount. I hope you can appreciate this.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

 

No I can't. when a word is being used within it's dictionary definition, I find it absurd that CAG chooses to ban it.

 

s cam

 

   /skæm/ Show Spelled [skam] Show IPA noun, verb, s cammed, s cam·ming.

–noun 1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle.

 

–verb (used with object) 2. to cheat or defraud with a s cam.

 

[lamma]

inflammatpry ? is that more serious than libel ? http://thefrontline.v3.co.uk/2010/05/message-board-l.html

[sequenci]

No I can't. when a word is being used within it's dictionary definition, I find it absurd that CAG chooses to ban it.

 

A legal decision far outweighs a dictionary definition. We cannot afford to take any risks, I'm very sorry. Any attempts to circumvent the filter will result in moderation.

[crem]

Don't worry sequenci, I don't intend making any posts that will require moderation. I will be moving forums.

[dx100uk]

crem, dont be silly..........

 

i feel the same as you.but

 

i think you will find the others are going this way too.

if not already.

 

even watchdog have changed their tune too.

 

dx

[GCR]

A legal decision far outweighs a dictionary definition. We cannot afford to take any risks, I'm very sorry. Any attempts to circumvent the filter will result in moderation.

 

Is the decision Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (t/a Skillstrain and/or Train2game) v Designtechnica Corporation (t/a Digital Trends) & Ors?readable here:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2411.htmlIf If so this may have been a big over-reaction. That decision is of little or no value as the defendant did not acknowledge the claim, was not represeted and apparently cannot be enforced against in the US. It is therefore aking to a judgement in default and probably of zero precedent value.The speculation over on MSE is that CAG has been spooked by this virtually meaningless judgement in default. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Could the mods please confirm which case it is that has caused them to take this action as this may help to clarify the action taken?

Edited November 15, 2010 by GCR

[sequenci]

I really appreciate the case law being posting, words cannot explain how useful it is. Warm thanks to anyone who can post up more stuff like this - especially if it is in relation to internet forums.

 

Crem: If you have to move forums, that'll be a shame but we simply cannot afford legal action (even if we have good chance of success!).

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[Al27]

Just one of those things, but I think this forum is being more reasonable in its stance than others have been.

 

Thanks Seq.

[GCR]

AIUI

 

There are three fairly 3 key cases relation to online libel:

 

The first is the "Sheffield Owlstalk" case,

Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd & Ors v Hargreaves.

Read here:http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2375.html

Parkes J decided that mere abuse, vulgar insults and what he termed saloon bar moaning were not defamatory.

If you take a look at most forums including CAG I would hazard a guess that 75% of objectionable stuff falls into these categories.

 

The second is Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors.

Read here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1797.html

The case, as well as agreeing that mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory, appeared to suggest that online defamation comitted on bulletin boards is slander and not libel.

This is a very important distinction as slander is much harder to prove as it requires proof of "actual damage".

Note particularly paragraphs 13 to 17 which are very important for online forum operators

and that Eady J ruled that references to "threatening demands" allegedly made by the claimant were not defamatory.

 

AIUI the case has come before the Court of Appeal but the court has refused to become involved until certain issues are resettled in the lower court

 

 

The final case of note is the Simon Singh case, British Chiropractic Association v Singh,

which can be viewed here:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/350.html

This is seen as important because of its effect on the "single meaning rule" in libel.

The case concered the meaning of the word "bogus".

Three Appeal Court judges overturned an earlier ruling that Singh's claims were allegations of fact – rather than comment – which would have required him to prove they were true.

In the court's view, the questions were whether Singh's statement was a matter of opinion and whether there was evidence to support his opinion.

Once the court adopted this approach, it became irrelevant that Singh had expressed himself forcefully or that others might disagree with his opinion.

Rather, the issue was whether his words could constitute an opinion that a person might honestly hold.

Edited November 16, 2010 by dx100uk
clarity

[007fan]

PLEASE CAN ANYONE HELP ME??? Ive heard people on this forum saying UKCPS, but ive just been given a ticket from just plain 'CPS' in leeds, just outside the centre.

 

There was really thick snow this morning on north hill road. I looked around and there were posts with signs on facing the onto a gated car park for a college. I was in a spot outside it in kind of a lay by/parking bay. When I came back out later in the evening and someone had turned the sign around to face my car and put a ticket on it. I've never been there before and couldnt understand - iv been finned before from official government and i held my hands up and paid but from then on Ive always been really careful to not park anywhere suspicious.

Anyone got any advice?

 

Thankyou for reading

[letshelp]

Yes, DO NOT contact them and do not reply to any of the letters they will send you, ignore them and they will eventually go away.

regards

[tomradford09]

Had a parking fine from UK CPS ltd for parking in the arndale centre car park (behind wilkos, sainsburys etc)

 

Stuck a ticket on my window and a week later i wrote a letter to them refusing to pay the fine. On their website they ask things like 'your name' and 'address'

 

These things I didnt want to include so I included just these

 

Re: Parking Charge

Issue Number:

Date of issue:

Time of issue:

 

And that was it. I wrote in it that I refused to pay the fine and signed it off as 'Driver of Vehicle' rather than my name.

 

Few weeks later I heard back that they had refused my appeal. This then took me to the IAS appeal service who I appealed through (go on their website and your details will already be on there)

 

And again refused my parking fine. Few weeks later (they do take their time) I received an email to say my fine had been cleared

 

To be honest I could have just ignored it from the start but I knew that by appealing I was following the correct procedure

 

It's all a big [problem]. Seen loads of people get them and all appealed and all got off. They are a big [problem] and not a company that can take you to court

 

Just take time to write a letter cause at the end of the day you save as lot of money that you dont want going to these [problem] artists!

[armadillo71]

Had a parking fine from UK CPS ltd for parking in the arndale centre car park (behind wilkos, sainsburys etc)

 

Stuck a ticket on my window and a week later i wrote a letter to them refusing to pay the fine. On their website they ask things like 'your name' and 'address'

 

These things I didnt want to include so I included just these

 

Re: Parking Charge

Issue Number:

Date of issue:

Time of issue:

 

And that was it. I wrote in it that I refused to pay the fine and signed it off as 'Driver of Vehicle' rather than my name.

 

Few weeks later I heard back that they had refused my appeal. This then took me to the IAS appeal service who I appealed through (go on their website and your details will already be on there)

 

And again refused my parking fine. Few weeks later (they do take their time) I received an email to say my fine had been cleared

 

To be honest I could have just ignored it from the start but I knew that by appealing I was following the correct procedure

 

It's all a big [problem]. Seen loads of people get them and all appealed and all got off. They are a big [problem] and not a company that can take you to court

 

Just take time to write a letter cause at the end of the day you save as lot of money that you dont want going to these [problem] artists!

 

Thanks for the inaccurate insight. On a thread that is 7 years old....

[tomradford09]

It wasn't for you - it was for anyone searching for UK CPS fine information - THANKS

[dx100uk]

sorry where does ANY of their paperwork use the word FINE?

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

there are hundreds of more recent UKPCS threads so have a good read of say the last 3 papges of the threads on all private parking matters and then decide which approach you wish to take in your appeal.

Now that you have a response from the IAS you could post that up so we can pick holes in their reasons as to be honest they are mostly laughable and do more damage to the chances of the parking co's future court claims than the punter's appeal does.