Smart Parking ANPR

Coupon-mad

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

Yes but the smart money says, they were sent them...maliciously...by some waste of space idiot.

I was told that, I believe it, and I highly doubt that Excel stumbled across his thread, lamilad is aware of that too and some other background, but it's history. He won!

takman

Redx wrote: »

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

I understand the need to not admit who was driving the car but I still maintain there is no way they could have used the OP's post as evidence in any court so the reaction OTT in my opinion in regards to removing/editing the post.

Even when they tried to use posts as evidence in the case of lamilad you forgot to mention it wasn't successful!.

takman

Quentin wrote: »

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???

I subscribed to the thread before it had any replies then when I read it again the story had seemed to change from them being within the time allowed to park there to them overstaying the time allowed.

So I was interested to know why. I also quoted the original OP as I checked it to make sure I remembered correctly. I usually check the history of threads that I noticed to have been majority edited since I last read, it takes literally 5 seconds.

Redx

there is a lot I may have "forgot to mention" , including that lamilad extricated himself from that whammy , but it does not change the fact that the PPC found out about it and tried to obfuscate the judge

if you had read the posts on here and on pepipoo , and on parking pranksters blogs , we wouldnt have to educate you on these matters, its your lack of research that caused this argument , its not MY job to inform you of every little thing

if you wish to get involved , do the research first

one thing I do know is the OP asked for help and so far you havent given any , which is the basis of any forum reply to an OP

leave it to the regulars who know what to ask, and what NOT to ask , because its clear you have no idea about this topic whatsoever and are muddying the waters on some quest to dig yourself out of the hole you found yourself in with probing questions that dont need a written answer on a forum

I am sure that by now this OP will have read the advice and the info in the links and come to the correct conclusion on what to do and why , what not to say and why , what questions not to answer and why

you appear to have stumbled into this particular forum by accident and are trying to justify what you have done so far, yet the people who know what they are talking about have given this OP the correct advice despite you sidetracking the thread

stick to advising the OP, instead of criticising everyone else involved

come back when you have spent a long time studying the posts and replies, so you dont have to extract foot from mouth when found out

Redx

takman wrote: »

the story had seemed to change from them being within the time allowed to park there to them overstaying the time allowed.

the OP has no idea about this topic and may have used incorrect wording , but they did ask for help about an alleged overstay

if you read my post #17 you will see that I have explained the dilemma and how parking companies obfuscate over this dilemma by trying to indicate that the KEEPER is liable for what a driver has done plus fail the BPA CoP they signed up to as well

yet there are many popla decisions and court decisions (like the ivor pechecque success in Altrincham court) that show that time on site is not "parking time" and also that signage is very unclear on this question in many cases, meaning the OP has no idea what the truth actually is

even the BPA CoP is unclear on the first part of any alleged overstay , but councils use a 10 minute rule

so 10 minutes to park up and read the signage and comply , plus OVER 10 minutes minimum time to leave, means an OP has parking time PLUS arriving and departing time , which I typically write as 21 minutes in my many posts on this subject because that is my mantra and my guide is anything UNDER 21 minutes alleged overstay is fair game for a clause #13 appeal no matter what the circumstances

like this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5694872

but you wont see it on any signs so a driver wont know and a keeper wont have any idea because at this stage no evidence has been produced by the PPC (just an invoice for an alleged breach of rules)

when my son parked for 47 minutes on an EXCEL site the signs said a ticket must be obtained after 30 minutes , the signs said that time had to be paid for if over an hour , but at POPLA the landholder statement said the first 60 minutes was free

Excel said it was an overstay of 17 minutes based on their 30 minute "rule" , yet he was within the first 60 minutes FREE parking time (they also monitored time on site) and had left 13 minutes EARLY !!

popla decided that the contract overruled the signage , so my son won , and recently the same case was won due to the contract still being the same and the signage unchanged , 4 years later (this contract is not actually produced until the second appeal stage or in court)

so when you asked "How long are you allowed you park in the car park for?" , there is no simple answer without all the facts and the OP wont have those facts , so a pointless question to ask at this time

go to ASHTON RETAIL PARK and try it if you dont believe me , you will get confused by it all because the facts are not apparent as you park up or leave

takman

Redx wrote: »

there is a lot I may have "forgot to mention" , including that lamilad extricated himself from that whammy , but it does not change the fact that the PPC found out about it and tried to obfuscate the judge

if you had read the posts on here and on pepipoo , and on parking pranksters blogs , we wouldnt have to educate you on these matters, its your lack of research that caused this argument , its not MY job to inform you of every little thing

I still maintain that it's very OTT by getting the OP to edit their post considering what it contained. Your the one who maintains that is isn't OTT so the onus is on you to show that.

Show me one case where a post on a forum caused someone to loose a case and I will concede that I am wrong to say it is OTT.

Redx wrote: »

so when you asked "How long are you allowed you park in the car park for?" , there is no simple answer without all the facts and the OP wont have those facts , so a pointless question to ask at this time

I just wanted to know what was stated on the sign because the OP changed their first post to say the complete opposite of what it originally said. I'm free to post on this forum and ask whatever question I like.

Redx wrote: »

you appear to have stumbled into this particular forum by accident and are trying to justify what you have done so far, yet the people who know what they are talking about have given this OP the correct advice despite you sidetracking the thread

stick to advising the OP, instead of criticising everyone else involved

come back when you have spent a long time studying the posts and replies, so you dont have to extract foot from mouth when found out

I may not be an "expert" in parking charge notices but I never claimed to be. But just because I don't know everything doesn't mean I can't see when someone is being OTT by advising the OP to edit their post and then advise them to message the mods and message me to remove it when it's quoted.

If anything that will just cause new people stress thinking they have ruined their chance of any "appeal" winning because of their post on here, which isn't the case at all.

Quentin

You posted the op:s original post that was edited long before you joined the thread.

Thus you chose to pointlessly quote something that the op had chosen to remove from public view.

That's what was OTT, and breaks all forum conventions

What is your real reason for doing that?

(If you have no real axe to grind, then please consider removing your subsequent posts reporting what the op originally had mistakenly posted)

DoaM

I actually got a PM warning for quoting the original version an edited post (elsewhere on MSE forums). I can only imagine this was because said person reported the thread in which I had replied.

takman

Quentin wrote: »

You posted the op:s original post that was edited long before you joined the thread.

Thus you chose to pointlessly quote something that the op had chosen to remove from public view.

That's what was OTT, and breaks all forum conventions

What is your real reason for doing that?

(If you have no real axe to grind, then please consider removing your subsequent posts reporting what the op originally had mistakenly posted)

I've already explained that I read the thread when it had no replies then subscribed to it when I returned the OP had significantly changed to say the opposite of what they originally said.

So therefore I quoted both posts to provide context to my question.

I then removed the quote post only because the OP personally requested me to do it after you and others on this forum convinced them they had posted incriminating evidence.

But I'm not going to censor my other posts which do not contain any of the information the OP posted just because there is a belief on this forum that the almighty parking companies can strike you down if you use the wrong word when posting anonymously online.

Your second post gives just as much information as what I have said but you don't seem to have removed that...

Quentin wrote: »

You need to edit your thread title and post to remove details of who was driving