ANPR Ltd.

atilla

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I like this photo (from his website), clearly showing the way that an ANPR system looks after car park management.

I bet he doesn't have copyright for that either.
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuuLhIXv6Sogcsd-MaP12zqxlr1zFuYmFtJNzrQGonkVoNqJXqBem3G4cHihdJQcBkiTNZGGHhjVZ0PACcpbEx5eZSFL140sXrnkMqA9K3A76NuTUXWrl6-vE31r3pmIaoRR4tbqsAkVarBbz4o6tB1qKPLyACunVz7Uz8I_11-y5pzXaPAzb6QoukH24jua2HPg-29l0qUSIVht9PwEdZFzRhppkMMhENQcb5bDgxUf3-o4WSrsee6ZuMoU4ISweNXjja2z2HqG1eMZFn4WYJ48GWl8RXsCclMbpqap7cq0dE3JsenaTULE5-klZFJ9zfBflDSht6Ukj4Q9kwNQoRwtHMwfLAznvzOMY1XkqEFPWsmE8bsrV8R6Hawtq1sZqGhssOiaibv9d7ic_1gf05DoQiNtiioQmHYSLEmosIMy9TaAnO-tCk2TqD4ef5NQ1cpc0edzi9CM_1SMf_1FEjC75HWitoyzU2RyEI85s-V1A3dWf6cKoDXxuoWfXd0z5fDciXBLMqSqJsuuCiQX_1lhV0B9RHezxLml2wU58JJ_1xpvKXdLiqe4LBztE1Ygm0PWyPeCfi-_1zIrJBw-m-lRRTnU8hx42Jy2aYQ9KAVG83N2WG-eL0-DO7J858MdYxJj9vDog4mquGGX6tFgFOdzKM-A-sJs2FI7T1WwjyYNLbrwIlMCy5idJ2HPtGLFlVywGXKgcsoMa0lS57QbqLgb8jzTtQ-VUwnze_1946N-YCU4SHM9Zq1APVkLAAbMC0BLDleEC3RCbbWulo-MI9kiRq2IxZdouzN5GBoyGzmQcakiwvNpiSzXnZlIXEGbcD5cG_1nKuavSRXHFHVDgZ8Z_1zWyYUn8401Ac8FGsq67ex3juyjbfASe0rs3t2C2cf866vxxU3xvSzXzIDADdxVZDVXw94AVttpCf7ACf4qwvPT1khSWKvJTkDXjZNdtFcjLyQuvmD8jOr7jlNJsAIxz2lkvP1q4I9jSj6ItLmvQXt59PHjFCjWOaQl-yNp7q057c7pwgNevD3hbxb_1tJP76-Qsf0x0QCqNR6sKfjYJfjc0kNKCy9ZLgDgdl8MVzKMdGa7SDGsFzGNMXsMhicLzfjE_1clUWn6nZALMHS8WhrcencLG49R0oFHmW4bbi7jXzJqP9AmIDXY-QIlJ1cB2oWChZpOee-eZkKMRx-zhCzfnV43Z4zQUQtXkvZKOfdrVMIev2kIwylehn1iyPu0HVWbK17TryBh6dHV3r6b8ZmLgqSYlM2Ps8Gr7JGhO-r64f0YKbk1kEi_1Cvgo9xnFa1iVWeNjNXNJ1XbBnPf1wuQzn_1xpz2U5f98x6B9eX6Nua9xj_1mkdRLzNTN-9bPaDPB1Kiz27L8fjDQT2VpfyUuVRshBQAeatfa58rzmzxDtUO8uM5aWUu6oX56Atf0Uh2S4XWjluCkmah2KGnLIyIFvLuHW-aElHJP_19mPn6ZoSe2JbFnZfjAa8qi9-OdEq_1k9b6cvQcZXXrSku2g

Double_V

Thanks for sharing this with us.

enfield_freddy

since the introduction of POFA2012 , this company has blatantly defied the laws of the government , the BPA and the DVLA , and yet it wasn't until march this year that anything was done.


all government departments and the BPA have just stood back and allowed "this" company to extract money from citizens of the UK.


the owner (or staff/sales team) N Martin perhaps? have been caught out lying to at least on council (CSA is accredited to the DLVA for parking) and stopped. It seems that they have also been caught out in Kirby.


there website is full of untruths


and as such , this company should be closed down




if anyone else spots more blatant disregards of the laws , IE signs on public land etc , please add there locations to this thread

NWSteve

Northlakes wrote: »

Yes that's right. Top end (North) of Bath Street where only land on the left (west side) turning appears to be housing association land and yet there are ANPR signs all the way along and is a public road according to the planning map.

My, what is this change on Bath St. in Lancaster...new signs nailed on the trees in place of the original ANPR Ltd signs...the new cowboys have arrived in town...:rotfl:

The_Deep

I am somewhat confused by that sign it seems to indicate breach, but the PPC is an IPC member.

The wording in some places appears to be very small, and what do they mean by "an indemnity basis"?

hoohoo

The IPC allow signs to be ambiguous. This means the assessor can rule the signs are for a contractual charge, while the operator can tell the VATman they are for breach, so no VAT is due.

The IPC employ assessors who have never heard of UTCCR 1999

Written contracts

7.—(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.

(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.

This means that when the consumer argues the most favorable interpretation should apply, Skippy can state that his interpretation is the one that counts.

The_Slithy_Tove

The signs can only really be interpreted (IMO) that parking without a permit is trespass. Any parking charge can therefore only be with respect to damages for trespass, and only the landowner can pursue this. The PPC have no case. It even says that ES only "manage" the land, so no interest in it at all.