appeal to anpr

Hovite_2

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Yes the appeal was based on GPEOL as are all my appealsl

Trevs reply does not address it at all

So you need do nothing further!!!

If you loose ill run round Trevors offices naked!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

zzzLazyDaisy

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

If you loose ill run round Trevors offices naked!

Trev - don't get over excited now, as you'll be just working up to an anti-climax

Umkomaas

Looks like my tenner's safe - phew.

lenordy

its not won yet guys

lenordy

sorry guys I missed some out it was on another page didn't see it
cont
failure to provide a 100% deterrent rate with our signage provides a breach in contract between ourselves and our client. therefore enabling us to seek liquidated damages from the driver keeper of the vehicle who caused such a breach .our contracts are evergreen and we charge £30 per sign per year. we have held this particular contract since 2005 (8years) it is safe to assume we could hold it for another 8 years ,therefore making a cumulative total contract worth approx. £3360- therefore the charges of damages £100 are punitive in comparison.

to summarise ANPR believe the pnc was issued correctly, photographic evidence confirms signage was in place and adequate at the time in order to advice the site is a permit holder only. Additionally the appellant keeper of the vehicle has not provided ANPR with the drivers information though they advised they know the driver at the time (I DID NOT ADVISE THEM I NO THE DRIVER) therefore accepting responsibility of the PNC.

lenordy

they have sent some pictures of the car the original picture an one they claim to have blown up. in the original pic there's a large box van parked on the offside of the car in the blown up picture on the offside of the car which can be seen clearly the box van has vanished. should I inform popla.

trisontana

Poor old Trev and his strange use of English. "therefore the charges of damages £100 are punitive in comparison.". I think he means "puny", but by using "punitive" he is admitting that he imposing a penalty because the definition of that word is "inflicting or intended as punishment".

lenordy

this man makes it up as he goes I said and I quote The car was being used by a disabled person and was displaying a blue badge. I did not say the disabled person was driving the car or that I new who was.

Hovite_2

lenordy wrote: »

sour contracts are evergreen

Ignoring the rest of Trev's incoherent drivel ( he clearly was bottom of the class in English Language, law and common intelligence ) what in God's name does this mean ?????

The man is deranged, unhinged and should sue the NHS for his failed lobotomy !!!!

A challenge to Trev and his knuckle dragging, hairy ape like colleagues - tell me where in Sussex you and your equally vile vermin inhabit and I'll purposely pick up a "ticket" from you to see you in court ....... if you DARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hovite_2

lenordy wrote: »

they have sent some pictures of the car the original picture of one they claim to have blown up.

They blow up cars ????? Now that's a move on from clamping !