[NSC] Photoshopped / Digitally altered PCN to fraudulently obtain funds by A Borough of London

[Triggaaar]

They aren't allowed to do that. What they can do is present it to a court and say "We believe this image shows the registration number xxx123" and let the court decide whether they agree. If they present, as evidence, what appears to be an altered photo the defence will have it thrown out.

But you're talking about them presenting an image in court - they haven't done that.

All seems quite strange.

 

[mickybha]

I'm just speculating on what may have happened. Them just making up a plate sounds unlikely. It's possible that software could be determining the plate number, and then they re-write that in an easier to read format, which has overwritten the original plate.

Seems like a weird thing to do, but then so does completely making up a number plate. If they did that, everyone would challenge their ticket, as they'd know they weren't in London that day.

Yes they would know they wernt in london that day but the burden of proof is on the motorist, in this case proof was undisputable, but if you cant prove it wasnt you then you have no option but to pay, a £60 PCN is issued in london every 2.5 seconds,what persentage of those are issued in the same way as the mentioned case

 

[Husty]

Yes they would know they wernt in london that day but the burden of proof is on the motorist, in this case proof was undisputable, but if you cant prove it wasnt you then you have no option but to pay, a £60 PCN is issued in london every 2.5 seconds,what persentage of those are issued in the same way as the mentioned case

Do you not think if councils were just inventing parking tickets willy-nilly and forcing people to pay £60 for a crime they didn't commit that it might already be quite big national news? Or do you seriously believe you're the very first person they're trying it on? You clearly have no proof that this is a more widespread occurrence than this single incident so why not just accept that it is likely a false-positive generated by their number plate recognition software and move on with your life? You're at risk of making yourself look a bit stupid here.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Do you not think if councils were just inventing parking tickets willy-nilly and forcing people to pay £60 for a crime they didn't commit that it might already be quite big national news? Or do you seriously believe you're the very first person they're trying it on? You clearly have no proof that this is a more widespread occurrence than this single incident so why not just accept that it is likely a false-positive generated by their number plate recognition software and move on with your life? You're at risk of making yourself look a bit stupid here.

I don't think you're quite following this....

 

[happypig]

But you're talking about them presenting an image in court - they haven't done that.

All seems quite strange.

What I meant was, if the person who gets the ticket disputes it then it will go to a court (or tribunal). It is then that the photos will be presented as evidence.

Agreed though, it is very strange that a council would do something so obvious.

 

[Husty]

I don't think you're quite following this....

Please do fill me in on what I've missed?

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes they would know they wernt in london that day but the burden of proof is on the motorist, in this case proof was undisputable, but if you cant prove it wasnt you then you have no option but to pay, a £60 PCN is issued in london every 2.5 seconds

Where do you get the idea that the burden of proof is with the motorist? If that was the case, they wouldn't need to show you a photo at all, they'd just issue the PCN. The fact that they're giving you a photo is clearly shows at least some burden of proof lies with them. You may then have to show some proof that it's not your car, but if a council was simply sending these out to all and sundry, hundreds of thousands of people would be disputing the claims.

As you say, a national paper would be very interested if the council were deliberately doing this to thousands of people, it would be a major national story. But it's not a major national story. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because there's a logical explanation.

 

[Triggaaar]

What I meant was, if the person who gets the ticket disputes it then it will go to a court (or tribunal). It is then that the photos will be presented as evidence.

Ah yes, but we're not at that stage yet. They have simply provided the defendant with an image, and they haven't said how that image was created. I said it may have been created by software and you replied that they aren't allowed to do that, but they are. They just wouldn't present it like that if it went to court.

Agreed though, it is very strange that a council would do something so obvious.

It seems incredibly unlikely that the OP's opinion is correct.

 

[Triggaaar]

Most likely:

Cloned numberplate, which has been slightly enhanced by the council.

No great story, no blockbuster film.

 

[mickybha]

Is it possible that councils use software to identify difficult to read plates, and then provide and automatically edited image to show what number plate the car was displaying? That would mean they haven't fraudulently added your license number.

If that could be the case, I'd consider writing to the council and asking if that's what has happened. If they say it has, you could then ask them for a copy of the image before it was manipulated. If they say that hasn't happened, and that you have the original, then something fishy is going on.

He has been trying to obtain the original digital still from the council for weeks,and as you point out, that original still would contain metadata that would show that it has been digitally altered, he has met a brick wall on all requests because they say they do NOT provide that information to members of the public, he has complained to the information commissioners office but they are notoriously slow,and this matter is time critical because it coucil procedure to destroy all pcn case data after 56 days (how convenient)

 

[beorhthelm]

Where do you get the idea that the burden of proof is with the motorist? I

the letter comes through demanding payment of fine, reduced if you pay up now. thats shifting the burden of proof to you as you have to defend yourself and provide evidence its not you in the first instance. only if it goes to court does the burden of proof switch to the council. its an abuse of systems put in place to streamline process. in any other situation you go through the police and CPS to court, and if there is insufficient evidence it doesnt get that far.

 

[Springal]

, he has met a brick wall on all requests because they say they do NOT provide that information to members of the public, he has complained to the information commissioners office but they are notoriously slow,and this matter is time critical because it coucil procedure to destroy all pcn case data after 56 days (how convenient)

Is that true? How do they provide any evidence in court if they delete it ?

 

[Triggaaar]

He has been trying to obtain the original digital still from the council for weeks,and as you point out, that original still would contain metadata that would show that it has been digitally altered, he has met a brick wall on all requests because they say they do NOT provide that information to members of the public

If you just wanted to avoid the fine, I think you have that covered already. I get the feeling you want to show that they are doing wrong, and if that's the case, you should have just asked for a hearing, and asked for the images in preparation for that. If you've already got off the fine, I don't see why they'd want to waste taxpayers money dealing with a case that is now closed.

 

[Triggaaar]

the letter comes through demanding payment of fine, reduced if you pay up now. thats shifting the burden of proof to you as you have to defend yourself and provide evidence its not you in the first instance.

No it isn't. Burden of proof is a legal term. The fact that you can get a reduced fine by paying quickly doesn't change your rights in a court of law. If you are disputing the claim, the increase in fine doesn't usually occur, it's put on hold while you dispute it.

only if it goes to court does the burden of proof switch to the council.

That's the only time that 'burden of proof' actually means anything.

its an abuse of systems put in place to streamline process. in any other situation you go through the police and CPS to court, and if there is insufficient evidence it doesnt get that far.

I've got off parking fines before because they haven't had enough proof that I've done something wrong. They send me the fine and the odd image, I dispute it (not without reason) and they say 'on this occasion we've decided to drop the case' etc, because they're not confident they can sufficiently prove I've done wrong.

 

[Triggaaar]

Is that true? How do they provide any evidence in court if they delete it ?

I imagine they just delete the files of cases they've dropped or that have been paid. Otherwise obviously they can't.

 

[mickybha]

Quote Originally Posted by Husty View Post
Do you not think if councils were just inventing parking tickets willy-nilly and forcing people to pay £60 for a crime they didn't commit that it might already be quite big national news? Or do you seriously believe you're the very first person they're trying it on? You clearly have no proof that this is a more widespread occurrence than this single incident so why not just accept that it is likely a false-positive generated by their number plate recognition software and move on with your life? You're at risk of making yourself look a bit stupid here.

I don't think you're quite following this....

In this matter there are two kinds of people those that get it straight away and understand the enormity of it and those that dont simple as that
no he dosn't seriously believe he is the first person they are trying it on, because on average there is a pcn notice issued in London every 2.5 seconds thats 24,000 a week, where he is in the minority is he has idesputable evidence that its not his car, on that subject its not where you were at the time, you could have a cast iron alibi,its where your car was at the time

 

[mickybha]

definatly looks like a police matter. not trivial implications, because you wouldnt do this for a one off.

London boroughs have been turning a blind eye to fraudlent parking tickets for years, despite something ridiculous like 90% of cases taken to court thrown out. but thats civil law, pretty sure this is criminal, improper access to computer systems to obtain the number plate and the forgery itself.

You've got it

 

[mickybha]

No it isn't. Burden of proof is a legal term. The fact that you can get a reduced fine by paying quickly doesn't change your rights in a court of law. If you are disputing the claim, the increase in fine doesn't usually occur, it's put on hold while you dispute it.

That's the only time that 'burden of proof' actually means anything.

I've got off parking fines before because they haven't had enough proof that I've done something wrong. They send me the fine and the odd image, I dispute it (not without reason) and they say 'on this occasion we've decided to drop the case' etc, because they're not confident they can sufficiently prove I've done wrong.

Yes PCN drops through your door 60 quid please, pay in 14 days reduced to 30 quid or appeal, but in this case idesputable evidence was provide that it wasnt his car,(lucky boy) and also the accusation that the said council had digitly altered the the number plate, from that point on NO comunication from the council what so ever, and heres the thing he finds out in subsiquent phone calls that the council dont have to respond at all, no they can just ignor the whole thing and they give themselves 56 days before destorying all evedence dont even have to inform you the PCN has been dismissed

 

[Goldstone1976]

You've got it

While it's possible that the Council are engaged in wholesale fraud, utilising obviously enhanced/manipulated images to generate income, it's also possible that someone has cloned his number plate and the Council have captured and enhanced an image of a number plate that was on a similar car on the day in question.

Occam's razor would suggest that the latter explanation is more likely.

Why are you so sure that the Council are engaged in wholesale fraud?

 

[Fungus]

Quote Originally Posted by Husty View Post
Do you not think if councils were just inventing parking tickets willy-nilly and forcing people to pay £60 for a crime they didn't commit that it might already be quite big national news? Or do you seriously believe you're the very first person they're trying it on? You clearly have no proof that this is a more widespread occurrence than this single incident so why not just accept that it is likely a false-positive generated by their number plate recognition software and move on with your life? You're at risk of making yourself look a bit stupid here.




In this matter there are two kinds of people those that get it straight away and understand the enormity of it and those that dont simple as that
no he dosn't seriously believe he is the first person they are trying it on, because on average there is a pcn notice issued in London every 2.5 seconds thats 24,000 a week, where he is in the minority is he has idesputable evidence that its not his car, on that subject its not where you were at the time, you could have a cast iron alibi,its where your car was at the time

I think we understand the enormity of what you're suggesting, but we disagree on whether yours is the most likely explanation.