ANPR in Preston,,,,, now gone!!!!!!

bazster

Incidentally Freddy you should try to get the local paper to run this. Some of Trev's private customers might boot him out if they discover he's no longer in an ATA.

Marktheshark

Quality, pint for yer if we ever meet

bod1467

Maybe he'll have to revive the ANPR-In-A-Box device to try and cover the losses from these contract cancellations?

fisherjim

I wonder if he will put this in his amateurish blog of the week?

Probably will state that the contract wasn't worth keeping and he was giving it up anyway!

enfield_freddy

bazster wrote: »

Yes, vicarious liability and all that, but it would need someone who has paid Trev to sue, and such people are by definition not the sharpest knife in the block.

there is an active case here on MSE and pepipoo regarding a default CCJ , that is in the process of being stayed, Mr whitehouse should pay those costs , if not a counter claim should be entered naming PCC , there is no POFa 2012 on this land , and no keeper liability

Umkomaas

bod1467 wrote: »

Maybe he'll have to revive the ANPR-In-A-Box device to try and cover the losses from these contract cancellations?

I'm a bit surprised that one of his in-a-box algorithms didn't see this coming!

Arise, Sir Freddy, great work. :T

enfield_freddy

and the next lucky contestant is ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

there is an active case here on MSE and pepipoo regarding a default CCJ , that is in the process of being stayed, Mr whitehouse should pay those costs , if not a counter claim should be entered naming PCC , there is no POFa 2012 on this land , and no keeper liability

If the defendant wins then Mr. Whitehouse will pay those costs, that's how it works.

In order to counter claim you need to counter claim for something. You can't counter claim for the £155 fee for the set-aside application because if you win you get it back anyway.

I've seen a lot of this on PePiPoo lately, people advising the bringing of claims without saying what for. Unless you are a PPC (according to the Court of Appeal) you can't claim for a sum of money you just plucked out of the air, you have to demonstrate a loss.

Someone who has paid ANPR Ltd. might have a claim (and yes, against the council too as the principal) but even then the mere fact of having paid is not sufficient for a claim, there has to be a basis for the claim in law e.g. that the punter was deceived into paying.

It's really not a good idea to advise people to start flinging claims about unless it's clear that they have a real case. An anti-PPC campaigner who knows more about the law than most of us recently brought a case against a PPC. It went all the way to court where the judge threw it out as being completely baseless and warned our intrepid campaigner that he'd be in big trouble if he tried a similar stunt again.

doublinedancer

I'm still getting the occasional threatogram from them. Last one was from Pat Crossley at Expedion for a ticket in Spitalfields Manchester in 2013. Legally unloading, sign has "except loading" but still chasing, bless 'em. Sent a a picture of a completely differnt sign as evidence of the "alleged offence" along with the usual mock court papers.

enfield_freddy

they were deceived , as the land was non pofa 2012 , and he takes the owners to court,


without an appeal system (now)


THE CSA about there appeal system:


Dear Mr Damian Nxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that ANPR Ltd are members of our trade association.

I must stress that we are not trade association for parking operators, more specifically, we are a trade association for companies involved in debt collection.


Kind Regards

David