G24 cpcn

The-Bigfella

Thank you. for your advise, didnt mean to hijack anyones threads.

I didnt clearly agree, didnt know what i was doing.

Its ok for you computer experts, I am still using my slide rule.

I find these systems difficult to use.

My apologies

xx Paul

The-Bigfella

When click on newbie threads or templates etc,
Spamm websites and advertising appears..
What am i doing wrong ?

enfield_freddy

bod1467 wrote: »

But it wasn't the same driver each time - each separate driver gets their own "no return...." term.

however it was the same vehicle that returned , until the RK details are obtained, the PPC works on a clearly defined bit of white and yellow plastic , called a number plate


those are normally individually issued by the DVLA and relate to the vehicle , and the information on the V5




devils advocate time ,,,,,,,,,

pogofish

The-Bigfella wrote: »

I didnt clearly agree, didnt know what i was doing.

You did - You wouldn't be posting here if you didn't - it really is that clear and simple.

pogofish

The-Bigfella wrote: »

When click on newbie threads or templates etc,
Spamm websites and advertising appears..
What am i doing wrong ?

That's not MSE and you are not doing anything wrong - I'd hazzard a guess that your machine has picked-up a browser hijack or some other unpleasantness.

Your next stop might be the Tecchie Forum, where you will find plenty good advice on how to identify and get shot of it for free.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29

The_Deep

enfield_freddy wrote: »

however it was the same vehicle that returned , until the RK details are obtained, the PPC works on a clearly defined bit of white and yellow plastic , called a number plate


those are normally individually issued by the DVLA and relate to the vehicle , and the information on the V5




devils advocate time ,,,,,,,,,

Freddie, you really must get a grip, Bod was referring to the driver, not the car. A double-dipping defence claiming two different drivers is a slam dunk win in court.

The_Deep

OP, this is called double dipping and, by asking you to pay them money based on failings in their ANPR cameras they may well be breaking any number of consumer protection laws. You should therefore WRITE to your local Council Trading Standards Department, (have nothing to do with CAB), telling them what happened, and ask them to visit the site and inspect the cameras and the certification.

There is also some interesting reading here

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/parking-poker-highview-parking-take-on.html

Google "double dipping" and "radio active spiders" Should you be inclined you can have great sport with this, and cost the PPC a lot of time and money.

caskale180

G24 have declined letter of objection ( as expected they would) and are now stating the if want to carry on with the appeal to contact IAS...is this service worth the visit or do I go straight for asking for POPLA number...It is still annoying to receive this invoice due to "inaccurate recordings & failings of ANPR cameras".As it has been mentioned there is proof of x2 separate visits on the alleged day in question on the store's CCTV....

bod1467

IAS is the alternative to POPLA - you get offered one or the other (depending on who the PPC belong to); you get no choice in the matter.

If you search this forum for Skippy you'll find lots of info about IAS to let you make your own mind up.

The_Deep

As we know that this is a slam dunk win in court, and at Popla, and that the IAS adjudicators are anonymous and not independent it really does not matter whether they uphold or decline your appeal.

So, why not appeal to IAS on the single issue they the ANPR equipment is not fit for purpose, They will want proof of this, which you have. If they then uphold the PPC's ticket they will have shot themselves in the foot and, if PE do not cancel, any further action (court) which PE take, could cost them dearly.

Just give them sufficient rope.