Interesting PCN - PE

Fruitcake

It's a shame this wasn't pursued through PoPLA as another example that an ANPR only system is not for for purpose, or that the 101 checks that PE do to ensure their data is correct, is actually a lie.

Kayne

The_Deep wrote: »

What hope is there of bringing down this industry if people are not prepared to stand up for that which is right? I despair.

Some of us are prepared to stand up for that which is right hence why I appealed my own invoice and am still waiting on the decision from POPLA.

My fathers case was very different it turned out a quick call to PE was all it took as the person on the phone told him it was in fact a case of mis-reading the number plate due to the positioning of the screw holding it on the car. Had that call not been successful then the appeals process would have begun as normal.

baldnunn

Morning Kayne. Glad this is over for your father.

Just a thought for the future. Do you have, or will you be getting, anything in writing from PE regarding the reason (ie the misread) for this matter being dropped?

I only ask as having such a missive could be of use to future 'victims' of PE (or other companies) who are prepared to state in tribunals and/or court that their ANPR systems are infallible.

Cheers

bod1467

I presume you mean fallible? (INfallible means they are beyond reproach, working correctly).

Fruitcake

bod1467 wrote: »

I presume you mean fallible? (INfallible means they are beyond reproach, working correctly).

I read it as, "PE (or other companies) who are prepared to state in tribunals and/or court that their ANPR systems are infallible" in which case infallible would be correct.


Wars have started due to interpretation of grammar in text so clarification is important.

ampersand

Agreed f/c:-) and was surprised by Bod on this slip-up, until I saw the wry ').' with which he closed. Assume this is a wink?

bod1467

It's the lack of (or bad usage of) punctuation in that post. The way it is written the meaning can be taken two ways (as is apparent from the responses).

Perhaps if it had been worded as follows there's have been no dubiety.

baldnunn wrote: »

I only ask as having such a missive could be of use to future 'victims' of PE (or other companies), where such companies are prepared to state in tribunals and/or court that their ANPR systems are infallible.

So I agree entirely with ...

Fruitcake wrote: »

Wars have started due to interpretation of grammar in text so clarification is important.

nigelbb

Are you sure that it really is an image of the car with that number plate? I don't have a PE PCN to hand at present but usually the actual registration number shown on a PCN is a fake image as it's what the ANPR system read as the number & not actually a photo of number plate that was on the car.

baldnunn

Cripes and crikey. I am grateful to both bod1467 and Fruitcake for showing that, if nothing else, my humble submission was read. :T
If nobody disagrees with my thoughts pertaining to future evidential use of PEs admission then I'm happy to be criticised for the grammar wot i rote.

For clarification, please go with the interpretation that Fruitcake proffered, i.e.

Fruitcake wrote: »

I read it as, "PE (or other companies) who are prepared to state in tribunals and/or court that their ANPR systems are infallible" in which case infallible would be correct.

I also concur with Fruitcake stating

Fruitcake wrote: »

Wars have started due to interpretation of grammar in text so clarification is important.

although I prefer "grammar is the difference between knowing 'your 5hit' and 'you're 5hit'." :eek:

Regards all.