Smart Parking ANPR

takman

Quentin wrote: »

Seems a little OTT of takman to quote the OP's original post, (did he get it out of a cache?), which he has subsequently edited after being advised to do so!


@pasta85 - pm takman or the board guide and ask him to edit the quote of your original post (which you subsequently edited) he has put in #7


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your thread against you, which is why you were advised to edit the post in the first place!

That's abit OTT isn't it.

From the OP all that the parking company would know is that someone by the name of "pasta85" parked a car in the car park of a shop (of which there are hundreds across the country). They didn't even say who was driving or if it was even their own car and didn't even say exactly how long they stayed.

How exactly could they link that to a real person in any reasonable way?

Redx

It didnt stop EXCEL trying to use the LAMILAD posts in court against him

they clearly had screenshots of his posts on here and on pepipoo and had identified him

hence the need for anonymity

takman

Redx wrote: »

It didnt stop EXCEL trying to use the LAMILAD posts in court against him

they clearly had screenshots of his posts on here and on pepipoo and had identified him

hence the need for anonymity

Well first they would need to link the OP's post to a specific case which would be difficult to prove in the first place. Then they would need to find out who the OP is and prove that (which is even harder).

Also if they do read this forum then when they click on this thread they will see an edited post and the second post directly below it telling the OP to edit out certain details. The first thing they will do is go and look at what the post originally said...

Redx

you were the only one who quoted the OP and then pulled them up on the details

the regulars here dont care a jot about those details

you dont seem to realise the underhanded tactics and lengths these firms will go to in order to bully people

if you feel it is not possible, then go get yourself a pcn, post the gory details on here, I will quote your post and not edit it and then see if you win or lose your appeal or subsequent court case

never say never

if you were involved in criminal activity, your solicitor would tell you not to post on social media and to give a "no comment" interview

the regulars here in this parking forum know all about these matters after years and years of dealing with them

Fruitcake

Posters often state location and date of alleged event. If only one PCN was issued at that location on that date means the scammers can link them to a NTK and thus know the identity of the vehicle keeper.

Sometimes a poster quotes information from a PCN/NTK such as exact times from which means the scammers can also link a poster to a single NTK, even if multiple PCNs were issued that day. One single statement of, I parked, I drove, or other information mentioning what the OP did means the scammers know that the keeper was also the driver.

It has happened. Lamilad wasn't the only victim to have this happen to them, that's why you were asked to remove your quote of the OP.
Just because you don't understand how a parking scammer can use seemingly innocuous and supposedly anonymous information on the internet doesn't make the regulars here paranoid. We know that it is possible to identify a driver on here if they are careless, that's why we tell people to be careful what they post, and what they quote.

Redx

and SMART parking do NOT measure the parking time , they measure TIME ON SITE , like nearly all these ANPR systems do

they SHOULD set their systems to deduct maybe 21 minutes FROM the time on site , to allow for the BPA CoP grace periods in clause #13 (please read it , I have) that they signed up to and have to abide by in order to use their KADOE system under DVLA contractual terms

guess what ? they dont

they try to get away with less , sometimes a lot less , and hope that people like you and this OP dont realise that grace periods apply , yet I have been banging on about it on here for years (sine 2013 precisely , so for 4 years since EXCEL tried to sc@m my son , and failed)

if the time allowed starts as you enter and finishes when you leave (clocking in/clocking out like when my MRS worked for a large sewing organisation) then the signage should make it CRYSTAL CLEAR in large font , so people know they have to have vacated the premises by a certain time , perhaps the ticket should actually tell them , warn them ?

but there is less profit in actually helping people to avoid a pcn

and good profit in not advising them of their rights under the laws and under the BPA CoP

and not advising them to keep it anonymous and not reveal who the driver was

which is where WE come in

takman

Fruitcake wrote: »

Posters often state location and date of alleged event. If only one PCN was issued at that location on that date means the scammers can link them to a NTK and thus know the identity of the vehicle keeper.

Sometimes a poster quotes information from a PCN/NTK such as exact times from which means the scammers can also link a poster to a single NTK, even if multiple PCNs were issued that day. One single statement of, I parked, I drove, or other information mentioning what the OP did means the scammers know that the keeper was also the driver.

It has happened. Lamilad wasn't the only victim to have this happen to them, that's why you were asked to remove your quote of the OP.
Just because you don't understand how a parking scammer can use seemingly innocuous and supposedly anonymous information on the internet doesn't make the regulars here paranoid. We know that it is possible to identify a driver on here if they are careless, that's why we tell people to be careful what they post, and what they quote.

The OP stated neither the location, date or time of the event, yet you still asked them to edit the post just because it has happened to other posters who quoted this information.

There was hardly any information to go on in the OP and even if they could somehow link it up to a specific case, they still wouldn't know who the OP is and they haven't even stated they are the keeper of the car.
No court would even consider that as any kind of evidence.

So if posters think that every that uses the word "I" in it could lead to it being used against the OP then that is at least a small amount of paranoia.

So which one of you on here will be contacting the well known online company asking them to remove their copy of the OP's post :rotfl:

Guys_Dad

takman wrote: »

The OP stated neither the location, date or time of the event, yet you still asked them to edit the post just because it has happened to other posters who quoted this information.

There was hardly any information to go on in the OP and even if they could somehow link it up to a specific case, they still wouldn't know who the OP is and they haven't even stated they are the keeper of the car.
No court would even consider that as any kind of evidence.

So if posters think that every that uses the word "I" in it could lead to it being used against the OP then that is at least a small amount of paranoia.

So which one of you on here will be contacting the well known online company asking them to remove their copy of the OP's post :rotfl:

What you overlook is it is not just what the OP has written but what they might add in a subsequent post that could identify them.

Maybe the regulars are a bit belt and braces, but rather than than being cavalier about things.

And it seems that you have not fully grasped the relevance of POFA and keeper liability which has come in very useful when the driver has not been identified and the PPC has failed to follow POFA to the letter.

Redx

the proof of the pudding is in the eating

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5668301

start to finish textbook stuff (although it was a leased vehicle)

read the details and you will see why the "real" regulars here say what they say, and why

this thread also gave the same caveats and advice on appealing, so this OP has no reason to think theirs should be any different (it comes up daily on here)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5694060

until parliament and the DCLG change the rules, we will carry on being "paranoid" , but at least we understand the topic

Quentin

takman wrote: »

That's abit OTT isn't it.....
?

You never explained why you chose to dig the original OP out of a cache to quote it????


The OP was edited at 12.59 pm.Yet 8 hours later you quoted the original post prior to its editing???