Motoring Discussion > Fraudulant PCN Legal Questions
Thread Author: Fullchat Replies: 13

 Fraudulant PCN - Fullchat
Prompted by the comments regarding spurious editing of digital film images.

A friend has contacted me regarding a PCN received through the post alleging a 20 min unpaid stay in a Travelodge car park.

The entrance and exit images (taken in good daylight) have been zoomed in and are dire to the extent you cant relate the position of the vehicle to the car park entrance/public highway or even make model of the vehicle . The registrations though have been highlighted and magnified beautifully.

Normally there are two fairly clear pictures taken from a distance showing the vehicle beyond doubt entering and exiting a facility.

The vehicle was in the street at the time. It moved off from the kerb, swung across the road and reversed into the mouth of the car park entrance before driving off.

Once you know this you can start to see the manouvre in the two images. The exit image is the rear of the car turning across the road and the entry image is the car having reversed into the drop kerb entrance/pavement area.

The saving grace are the number plates. The plates have significantly different mounting screw positions so the front and rear of the vehicle can be determined. The image is so poor that otherwise with certainty you cannot tell.

Also what they purport to be the entry image has had its time stamp changed to make it appear that was the time the vehicle entered the car park.

Its a national thieving parking company and someone has spent some time manipulating the images to fit their agenda and create a fraudulent PCN.

Issue is you are obliged to produce your own defence. Guilty until you prove your innocence. And I don't trust them not to push it along their administrative bullying process hoping you'll throw the towel in.

This has just demonstrated how dishonest private parking enforcement can be.

Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 31 Aug 20 at 18:05
 Fraudulant PCN - zippy
Surely if you can show the image has been edited to show a different position from reality then it is fraud?

If presented to court as evidence then it could be an attempt to pervert the course of justice?

The colour of the plate should not be changed. White for front, yellow for back. If they have changed the colour then that is a big issue.

Last edited by: zippy on Mon 31 Aug 20 at 18:35
 Fraudulant PCN - Fullchat
Its certainly Attempted Fraud as the victim did not fall for it.

If it got to civil court then yes definitely Attempt to Pervert. These companies are not known for actually following their threats to conclusion relying attrition of the victim to just pay up to make it go away.

The pictures on the PCN were black and white.

Maybe been a bit quiet on the car parking front. They've hunted a potential victim and manipulated the circumstances hoping for a payout. No sanctions, nothing to loose and that what drives these crooks. Maybe some sort of bonus incentive to detect 'offenders'. Unless its all automatic, but there must be some human intervention?
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 31 Aug 20 at 18:51
 Fraudulant PCN - Bromptonaut
It's pretty well inconceivable that such behaviour would be sanctioned by management; this will be an employee 'freelancing' to get commission (or perhaps just keep his job).

I cannot find details now but there was something similar several years ago involving a council employee. He was rumbled by background, including clouds, being identical in pictures supposed to be 15 minutes apart.

Report it to the parking company and the hotel too.

If they persist, or your friend wants to push it, then go to the Police.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Sep 20 at 11:43
 Fraudulant PCN - Manatee
The usual thing I think is where the wardens have to snap the car with their phones and they just change the time on the phone to show a fictitious overstay rather than editing a photo. I have certainly seen reports of that.

I doubt if they would have time to do that while a car was just turning in the entrance.

If it's a picture from an automatic camera, would the warden even have access to it?If not, then the 'management' must have fiddled it.

Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I don't think I've quite grasped what's happened here. Are both pictures of the rear number plate and from the same camera?
 Fraudulant PCN - Bromptonaut
I'll wait for the OP to clarify but I thin we're talking a camera monitored private car park belonging to a hotel chain. On that basis the allegation seems to be of manipulating the camera images.
 Fraudulant PCN - Fullchat
This is ANPR. 2 cameras mounted up a pole on opposite and on the car park side of the entrance.

I don't know how it works. One camera for in and one for our? Are the images fed back to a central base along with links to the cash machines where VRM is entered and then its spits out where a fee has not been made?
If that is the case I'm presuming having highlighted said criminal, human intervention then checks the circumstances, authenticates the contravention, sends of for keeper details and then a PCN completed with images and is sent to the victim?
 Fraudulant PCN - Bromptonaut

>> I don't know how it works. One camera for in and one for our? Are
>> the images fed back to a central base along with links to the cash machines
>> where VRM is entered and then its spits out where a fee has not been
>> made?
>> If that is the case I'm presuming having highlighted said criminal, human intervention then checks
>> the circumstances, authenticates the contravention, sends of for keeper details and then a PCN completed
>> with images and is sent to the victim?
>>

I'd assume that cameras records and ANPR logs the registration numbers in/out. There may be a a de-minimis time so that taxis and droppers off are not caught. Record of vehicles over de-minimis will be cross checked for VRNs entered at check in. Cars logged in/out but not logged as guests etc will be subject to request for keeper details and Parking Charge Notice issued accordingly.

Where PCN issued it will be supported by copies of the in/out pictures. If, AIUI, Fullchat's friend reversed into the car park to turn round then ANPR may have captured it as an exit but with no corresponding entry and an operator has fallen into temptation to treat two more or less co-timed snaps into those indicating a stay by, for example, falsifying the time on the 'entry' snap to one earlier.

Assuming of course the car was not snapped earlier in day while manoeuvring in the street and it's c/up rather than conspiracy.
 Fraudulant PCN - Fullchat
'Assuming of course the car was not snapped earlier in day while manoeuvring in the street and it's c/up rather than conspiracy.'

Nope. Car lives 20 miles away. Special trip for some business stock.

The exit image was the car pulling away from kerb to right of camera and then into its field of view then turning away revealing its rear.
The entry image was it reversing into mouth of car park entry before driving off. Time stamp moved backwards to indicate it was the arrival image.

The quality of the images is so poor its onle when you here what really happened can you start to decipher the image.
 Fraudulant PCN - Update - Fullchat
My friend has received a letter from SMART PARKING.

“We note the comments made on behalf of the driver stating the reasons which led to the contravention however we cannot rescind the PCN on that basis”

They go on to explain at length how the ANPR and ticket system operates and how it is fit for purpose by recording entry and exit of vehicles. Blah blah.

So they wont rescind with clear and unambiguous proof that they are making a fraudulent claim? Did they actually consider the evidence I have put to them? Probably not. Standard administrative letter - Muppets might pay up for a quiet life.

Very graciously they have extended the discount period until 23/10.

They state that the appeal process with them has concluded and now the only avenue is with POPLA.

They really have no scrupples. Law unto themselves. Shisters.

POPLA and more work it is then :/
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 14 Sep 20 at 00:42
 Fraudulant PCN - Update - No FM2R
I am no great fan of new fangled social media being, as it is, a substitute for quality.

However, various of the UK's glorious media monitor it on the look out for suitable scandal.

Consequently, twittering a complain with suitable angst and drama, to the thieving b******s may well attract the sort of attention that they'd rather not have.

The primary reason that they don't go to court is not in fact cost saving, it is that they wish to avoid acquiring a public perception that they can be beaten.

Therefore when they see a rising danger they focus on heading it off at the pass, i.e. pay to make it go away.

Of course, it depends on your goal. Avoiding a single penalty is quite achievable. Beating them in principle is considerably more difficult.
 Fraudulant PCN - Update - VxFan
>> POPLA and more work it is then :/

When I got a PCN from Smart (Shark) Parking a while ago, I found this website helpful.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets/

Annoys me that they call it a Parking Charge Notice, yet the clock starts ticking from the moment you enter the car park and stops when you leave the car park, not the duration you're actually parked there. They don't give grace for time taken unloading/loading something like a mobility scooter or pushchair and any assembly of them. Neither do they give any grace for you having to wait for a parking space to become available.

I thought the government were going to be looking very closely at these parking cowboys, but I guess they're busy with other stuff right now.
 Fraudulant PCN - Result! :) - Fullchat
POPLA have responded:

"Smart Parking - EW have told us they do not wish to contest the appeal. This means that your appeal is successful and you do not need to pt the parking charge"

So I suppose you can class that as a result.

So why did Smart Parking dismiss the appeal to them and pass us on to POPLA with the threat of the discounted time limit expiring? Just chancing their arm in the hope that we couldn't be bothered with the fight?

If that's the case then POPLA need to get to grips with them. Not that they need any help but this behaviour just supports the public loathing for the industry. Is there any wonder that they are portrayed as a bunch of thieves, they don't help themselves.

If it was me I'd be creating all sorts of problems for them particularly a civil claim for compensation for the amount of time spent putting the defence together. But its not me and my friend is just happy with the result.

Thanks to everyone for your contributions.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 21 Sep 20 at 21:23
 Fraudulant PCN - Result! :) - VxFan
>> So I suppose you can class that as a result.

Well done. Always good to win against the likes of Smart Parking, Parking Eye, etc.

>> Just chancing their arm in the hope that we couldn't be bothered with the fight?

You got it in one. They expect most people to roll over and pay it. Generally not worth the hassle for them if contested. They just target the next sucker instead.


Latest Forum Posts