ANPR Ltd - Assistance Needed.

enfield_freddy

no locus standi,


The right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court


however he is a PCC preferred contractor (as stated on FOI) and therefore acting on behalf of the counsil


so the claim has been wrongly brought to court with permission of the counsil


SRI time?


the op has paid for a set aside , and Mr Whitehouse or the counsil (his bosses) are going to to have to pay this or re start court action

bazster

Oh for God's sake, how is making a pointless complaint to the SRA (which is what I presume you meant) going to help the OP get this judgment set aside?

Please detach your vendetta against Preston Council from the OP's problem, you are not helping him with all these half-baked irrelevancies.

enfield_freddy

nothing is going to get HIS judgement set aside apart from £155 , which he has already paid!!


that was clearly mentioned on page one (posting 7) at 12.46 lunchtime yesterday


however if trev objects and fights this , he needs ammo to stop him , and the fact that as you put it "no locus standi" may very well be a good reason , as he is acting as an employee of PCC , and the paperwork shows the words TRESPASS
he loves his signs saying "I have broke my contract with ,,, payup" so he IS contracted by them


If you look on what do they know (preston/ANPR LTD) all his contracts are there , at no point do they give him permission to start court proceedings in his own name for trespass
unless uncle trev sat a law degree , whilst we were not watching and bought himself some new headgear


so trev coughs up , or his employers do , if they don,t THEN a claim can be brought against trevs employers

ColliesCarer

But paying the £155 doesn't get the judgement set aside - it only buys the right to have a set aside hearing.

Have to say I'm with Bazster on this - the priority for the OP IMO is winning the set aside hearing at which he has to do two things

1/ Give reasons as to why he has applied for the judgement to be set aside
2/ Explain why he believes he would have reasonable chance of success if the judgement was set aside and the case was re-heard.

What he won't have (or be able) to do at that hearing is present his full defense against the charge until and unless he wins the set aside and gets a new hearing of the case.

@gravyguy50 - suggest you have a read of Pranksters info on winning a set aside

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fparking-prankster.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F11%2Fprankster-guide-to-getting-parkingeye.html&ei=MbtmVePtH4SAUc-MgKgL&usg=AFQjCNEp_rTKtbZfB8LbB3mvf_bFPWW1jA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.bGQ

enfield_freddy

1/ Give reasons as to why he has applied for the judgement to be set aside


No paperwork



2/ Explain why he believes he would have reasonable chance of success if the judgement was set aside and the case was re-heard.


No right to bring charges

enfield_freddy

when you fire back please remember this info gleaned from pepipoo


As the parking places are provided by a traffic authority these car parks would not be relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012 thus there could be no keeper liability.

Here is the relevant section from the POFA 2012.


QUOTE
3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
© any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b):
“parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
“traffic authority” means each of the following:
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
©Transport for London;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London;
(e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f) a parish or community council;
(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.




so unless you have "outed" yourself , he is now snookered

esmerobbo

enfield_freddy wrote: »

1/ Give reasons as to why he has applied for the judgement to be set aside


No paperwork

Well that is for a District Judge to decide, they could decide it was received if the correct address was on the claim form.



2/ Explain why he believes he would have reasonable chance of success if the judgement was set aside and the case was re-heard.


No right to bring charges

Correct me if I am wrong but this was on private property were ANPR Ltd had an alleged contract which may or may not allow them to bring a claim in their name. You seem to be confusing the fact that maybe not being in a position to act for Preston council negates all their other contracts.

You are very committed to this but you seem obsessed by ANPR Ltd, and some of your postings are getting a bit repetitive.

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

as he is acting as an employee of PCC , and the paperwork shows the words TRESPASS

at no point do they give him permission to start court proceedings in his own name for trespass

He no more needs someone else's permission to start a court claim than I do.

enfield_freddy wrote: »

so trev coughs up , or his employers do , if they don,t THEN a claim can be brought against trevs employers

"Preston Council has no knowledge of or involvement with any court claim initiated by ANPR Ltd."

Just those few words from the Council would scotch your campaign to sue them.

How many times does it have to be said? It is ANPR Ltd. that has brought the claim and obtained the judgment for itself, it has not done it for the council. The mere fact that ANPR Ltd. has an agency relationship with the council over some things does not mean that everything ANPR Ltd. does is done as the Council's agent.

enfield_freddy

No right to bring charges

Correct me if I am wrong but this was on private property were ANPR Ltd had an alleged contract which may or may not allow them to bring a claim in their name. You seem to be confusing the fact that maybe not being in a position to act for Preston council negates all their other contracts.




added to a posting on pepipoo ,by manxred (note he does not have authority to act on behalf of PCC )


Any court claim in respect of trespass can only be made by the landowner/occupier or their agent - where the agent has legal privilege (i.e. is a lawyer, not some random parking company). The claim must be in respect of the landowner too, not in respect of some third party parking company. If he tries to bring a claim in his own company name then you rebut on the basis that he is not the lawful occupier of the land, if he tries as an agent of the occupier/landowner, then he is in deep trouble, as he needs to be a lawyer, and clearly he isn't.










and as posted above your post , at the time of the incident £trev" was BPA


he has claimed trespass against the owner , when in fact the land id not applicable for POFA 2012 , and the charges should have been against the driver (unknown) ,


this fact on its own should slow his actions (and any future ones) down if this ends up being challenged , or for future cases . let a judge decide on the facts , not a load of lies by this £$^%&*(*&

enfield_freddy

bazster wrote: »

He no more needs someone else's permission to start a court claim than I do
.

umm , the claim was for trespass (as shown on the threatening letters?


as per posting by manxred on pepipoo


Any court claim in respect of trespass can only be made by the landowner/occupier or their agent - where the agent has legal privilege (i.e. is a lawyer, not some random parking company). The claim must be in respect of the landowner too, not in respect of some third party parking company. If he tries to bring a claim in his own company name then you rebut on the basis that he is not the lawful occupier of the land, if he tries as an agent of the occupier/landowner, then he is in deep trouble, as he needs to be a lawyer, and clearly he isn't.



so it seems that neither you or I , or poor trev have the right to start a court claim based on trespass (unless you have the correct qualifications)


note: on the case on prankster site ACE , that was dropped , even ACE had the intelligence to use a law firm to bring the charges