Parking ticket from ANPR / Lidl

John464

I'm not talking about what they 'state'
I'm talking about what they do.
And Parking Eye v Beavis shows a landowners agent extracting a financial penalty. (fine)
Over and above commercial damages or compensation.

nosferatu1001

No it doesnt. Its shows that the commercial justification was sufficient, amongst other reasons, to DISENGAGE the penalty rule. Meaning it wasnt a penalty, as the term is known in UK law not whatever meaning you have ascribed to it, and of course it is not a fine, given "fine" also has a specific meaning in UK law, regardless of the meanin gyou acribe
Maybe do some more reading on this topic, because currently your posts arent hugely helpful or accurate. 

John464

nosferatu1001 said:

 DISENGAGE the penalty rule. Meaning it wasnt a penalty,  

Disengaging the penalty rule effectively means it IS a penalty.

John464

nosferatu1001 said:

 hugely helpful or accurate. 

It isn't hugely helpful or accurate to encourage novices to go to court under the illusion they can't be charged a penalty.

Umkomaas

John464 said:

England was the last country to outlaw rogue wheelclampers.

Check out Northern Ireland. 

nosferatu1001

John464 said:

nosferatu1001 said:

 DISENGAGE the penalty rule. Meaning it wasnt a penalty,  

Disengaging the penalty rule effectively means it IS a penalty.

Wrong. It means it was *not* a penalty.
My advice to you remains the same. Youve managed to post a dozen comments which dont help the OP at all. Depart. 

Redx

John464 said:

Redx said:

Which he was told in my first reply , the rest is all semantics

Correct.
Which puzzles me why you thanked D_P_Dance for starting it by stating 'It is not a fine, it is an invoice from an ex clamper claiming monetary compensation for the damage they claim
a

I thank deepy for his post in every thread he posts in , due to the nature and truth of the content in his posts like what MP s and the new CoP we are expecting from the Mhclg , nothing to do with the topic being discussed in this thread

He has posted the info hundreds or thousands of times , irrespective of the individual thread topic, have you admonished the hundreds of members who have thanked his post in other threads on here over the last 3 or more years that he has posted a similar offering ? Or just me ?

If I agree with his post , I am allowed under the rules to do so , nothing to do with you why I do so , you are targeting people who you do not agree with you and you are muddying the waters like an amateur way out of his  depth

You are in a deep hole here and the rule when the sides are falling in , stop digging !!!

I suggest you stick to your own thread because you have nothing to offer the op in this thread and i would suggest that the OP ignores your posts as misguided and irrelevant , the info they needed was provided by me long before you posted in this thread

D_P_Dance

Try again

Please don't.

John464

I'm not going to make this personal, I am going to stick to the facts
I have the same right to post here as anyone else.

Redx

but you are making it personal when you complain with my name about me adding thanks to a post and you made incorrect assumptions (not facts) about my motive for doing so

you said the OP wanted to know what to do, well I told them what to do long before your posts in this thread, right back at the start I told them what to do

in another thread you made it personal when you made derogatory remarks about coupon_mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6107084/athena-anpr/p1

yes stick to facts, keep your personal opinions and name calling out of it, as per the rules , we all have the right to reply, but not to be derogatory or complain about other members, especially not just because you do not like their opinions or motives

so yes, please stick to the facts or else you will end up being PPR,d due to derogatory or inflammatory remarks about other members