Cannot understand sentence in newbie thread

Whatismyname

Rover_Driver wrote: »

If the hirer has identified the driver, then the parking company can claim from that driver, if they don't know who the driver was, then they can claim from the keeper - if they comply with the relevant legislation. And one reason why the parking companies try hard to obtain the details of the driver.

I understand this, however it doesn't particularly help. How much more difficult does it make it? It is one less hoop for the PPC to jump through, but someone still has to prove a contract was entered into surely? If the driver is seen on CCTV not noticing signage, presumably this could be argued as not being able to enter into a contract? No measures are implemented to make signage visible after sunset hours.


The time in question according to their printed times was within the 10 minutes.

waamo

If you haven't made contact with the ppc you should be fine. I doubt there is any cctv as they use anpr instead.

Besides which I don't think their facial recognition software is any good.

nosferatu1001

There will not be any CCTV
Not sure why you think there will be. ANPR is NOT CCTV.

It does help, as much as it can do when youre giivng us 1/10th of a story.
No PPC gets the HIRER requirements correct meaning a hirer has basically 100% confidence, a driver much less.

Whatismyname

The NTK contains 2 photos with time stamps (could be freeze frame of CCTV, or ANPR single shot cameras [it is a small carpark and a small PPC so I doubt an automated ANPR system]) But one of these photos, the numberplate is not readable, so could it be argued that there is no way of telling it could be the same car?

waamo wrote: »

If you haven't made contact with the ppc you should be fine. I doubt there is any cctv as they use anpr instead.

Besides which I don't think their facial recognition software is any good.

There is a possibility that my boss may have completed the aforementioned form (my work relationship is worth more than a parking ticket, but I still don't want to pay), or the hire company may have given the PPC all the names of the authorised users of the vehicle, accounting for why I got a letter as well as my boss.

waamo

Let's start from the beginning. Exactly what paperwork have you had in your own name?

Have you responded to any of this paperwork?

Umkomaas

This is like Cluedo MkII.

Whatismyname

My boss received the letters, replied via letter and used the word driver, and as a result I received a letter so my thinking is to go forward portraying myself as the temporary keeper of the vehicle using the default template.

Coupon-mad

Are you the hirer (but not the driver)?

Or, are you that second person you talk about?

Are the letters coming to you personally even though you are not the hirer? If so that is not as good as a hirer appealing and you should NOT let this happen.

The hirer needs to be the appellant unless that is your boss and he's named you.

waamo

Whatismyname wrote: »

My boss received the letters, replied via letter and used the word driver, and as a result I received a letter so my thinking is to go forward portraying myself as the temporary keeper of the vehicle using the default template.

Let's not worry about what your boss may or may not have done. What exactly is this letter you have had and from whom?

The whole story in a coherent post would be nice as I'm getting a bit bored of 20 questions.

Whatismyname

I do not want to take up anymore of your time until my situation has advanced. My original question was answered so this should be enough to send off the recommended first message in the newbie thread.


Thank you for your help so far and I may come back if/when my 'appeal' is replied to.