More Lies from ANPR Ltd

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes thats right lies, ie misleading/untruths. What ever you want to call. Trev seems to live in a world of his own when it comes to the legal process. Can you spot them?

Stroma

No what are they ? Lol

da_rule

Got to love their interpretation of court procedure.

trisontana

Hasn't it been proven that "N Martin" is not a real person?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

da_rule wrote: »

Got to love their interpretation of court procedure.

Indeed so Trev Whitehouse can just rock in court and claim these so called costs...

Yea get real Trev

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

trisontana wrote: »

Hasn't it been proven that "N Martin" is not a real person?

Indeed it has, in fact if you read that email that was sent round by Trev to his clients no mention of Mr Martin

esmerobbo

trisontana wrote: »

Hasn't it been proven that "N Martin" is not a real person?

Although Trev is a real person I do not think he is in the real world!

No wonder he was a clamper as the PPC world has got him flustered. I was going to use another word beginning with "F" but thought better of it!:D

da_rule

It would be tragic if someone was to pay up based on that assertion, realise that it was wrong and then sue ANPR Ltd for negligent misstatement or the tort of deceit.

Coupon-mad

Why can no PPC spell 'judgment' in the legal sense - is it because they have no sense of spell?

trisontana

Trev can't help himself can he? Here is another example that's just popped up on CAG :-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420725-Ticket-given-by-ANPR-Ltd.-for-parking-in-a-Wigan-MBC-Parking-Bay&p=4544781#post4544781


Today I received another letter from ANPR. This letter, from a 'N. Martin' which reads:

"Having read your letter dted xx/xx/xxxx, and taking into consideration your comment 'I am not liable for this charge and am under no obligation to name the driver of the vehicle.', along with our photographic evidence, ll goes towards confirming the incident and actually weakens any argument you may have considered you had. Please allow me to explain:- ..."

The paragraph continues to explain how the code at the bottom of the ticket is broken down into type, time and who. Another paragraph belittles me with an explanation of the definition of 'Not displaying in the windscreen a current or valid permit'.

A third paragraph outlines that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows proceedings against the registered keeper of a vehicle.

A final paragraph says, 'in light of the above, perhaps you will understand why the pcn was issued, and although I really do sympathise, I must stress that we are contracted by the landowner to enforce the terms & conditions that are stated on the signage at the location, and in these circumstances they have been breached. In conclusion we would suggest that you may wish to re-consider your claim to appeal, as this would nullify any discounts that remain and (should you lose) may incur further costs. If you still feel that you have a valid case to appeal, please write to us against and we will provide you with full details for the Independent Appeals Service POPLA

Coupon-mad

That's the letter they always used to send and I thought complaints had stopped them being allowed to delay and use that template. They were told to offer a POPLA code not use that misleading letter. Wasn't it that letter that lead to Trev's ridiculous blurb he wrote to the BPA about how difficult life was (I am paraphrasing!).