MSE News: Bogus photo used to slap motorist with parking fine

vikingaero

Sarah-Louise wrote: »

I've just been asked to email my V5 in to prove the make and model of the car and I'm hoping that will be the end of it. I haven't got £80 to give them for something I haven't done! :mad:

This is what really aggravates me about Councils. You have take time and effort to prove your innocence. I think you should be compensated for your time and resources to do so - yet there is no mechanism in place for you to get recompense over a false allegation due to an error on THEIR part.

Councils should nominate a Parking Services Manager who should be the point of contact for the Police to charge him or her personally with fraud/blackmail/theft.

Mark_Hewitt

Sarah-Louise wrote: »

I've just been asked to email my V5 in to prove the make and model of the car and I'm hoping that will be the end of it. I haven't got £80 to give them for something I haven't done! :mad:

You shouldn't need to do that! They got your address from the DVLA in the first place, with that they will also have received other information such as the make, model and colour.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

"Human error" my backside. This just proves that councils are no better than PPCs.
There is no limit to the depths to which they will sink in their quest to screw more money out of innocent hard working taxpayers, to fund their own obscene salaries, expenses, bonuses and pensions.
The "Civil Enforcement" monkey who took the photo and the head of whichever department it works for should both be facing criminal charges for fraud.

pixwix

Sarah-Louise wrote: »

Going through a similar thing, the penalty notice dropped through my letter box this morning funnily enough... I've just been asked to email my V5 in to prove the make and model of the car and I'm hoping that will be the end of it. I haven't got £80 to give them for something I haven't done! :mad:

They're yanking your chain - you shouldn't need to email them anything. They can access those details on the DVLC database in 10 seconds.

"A Camden Council spokeswoman denies any unscrupulous intent, insisting: 'It was human error rather than dishonesty. We apologise for what happened in this instance.'"
Rubbish, Ms Spokesperson -it was pure dishonesty, and you're part and parcel of it. There are enough dishonest people in this world without those who sell their principles for a salary.

Not that long ago since Edinburgh traffic wardens tried a similar trick with me, claiming my car was parked two street away from its fully legal parking place. Again - no 'mistakes' involved, just crass dishonesty, but it took the very real threat of a legal response to cancel the ticket. Though it didn't stop them reminding me it was unpaid a month after the cancellation.

GraceCourt

Had the parking scheme not been de-criminalised (i.e. enforceable by criminal prosecution in a Magistrates' Court, rather than by debt enforcement proceedings or unpaid penalty charge registration, both in the civil County Court, the former using the Small Claims Track) then the person to whom the proceedings were directed would be at risk of wrongful conviction.

The significance? Sending the photograph would then be an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is the criminal offence that covers those particular circumstances.

In all honesty, in these difficult financial times it will be very difficult even to get your local police involved, but if you have the determination, you should pursue this. Clearly, for all the reasons that you have already outlined, this looks very suspicious - the fact that the photo was taken from so far away, the fact that your Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) was used to obtain your name and address yet it was not your VRM shown in the photograph, "human error" claimed but no further explanation given, etc., etc.

By the way, you should write to the Council and point out that your personal data (the VRM) was not processed lawfully in accordance with the eight statutory Data Protection Principles (Schedule 1, Data Protection Act 1998). Therefore, as you have incurred expenses in dealing with the matter, you are claiming "nominal damages" under Section 13 of the Act. The Court of Appeal has determined such "nominal damages" to be £50, in its ruling in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786.

Therefore, you will be happy to settle the matter without recourse to legal proceedings if they send you their cheque for £50 in full and final settlement of the matter, failing which you will commence proceedings using the Small Claims Track in the County Court (you can do this yourself online for £25, which gets added to the claim, at http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk).

Good luck!

anewman

There have been the odd posts of PPC's apparently randomly making up a charge notice after someone had paid one that was actually issued. Maybe councils are now just making some of them up as they go along. It would be great if MSE could act as Watchdog and people could report similar instances.

skintdragon

CHEEKY SODS!

:mad: