CP Plus Limited

ManxRed

Absolutely not.

Photos are irrelevant.

anthony1

thanks for the quick response

give_them_FA

If you can't tell who the driver is (and presumably you know the person?) how on earth are they going to know who it is? No, they can't "blow up the photo" as if it's unclear now, it will get less clear as you magnify it- this isn't one of those idiotic American crime shows where they take some fuzzy picture and "enhance" it to produce a crystal clear image- that doesn't happen in reality!

So yes, treat the chancers with the contempt they deserve. Give them FA.

Nozone

Is such photographic 'evidence' even admissable? Someone may wish to respond to this as my knowledge is a little shaky but;

For CCTV/Photograph to be constituted as actual evidence it needs to be of a very high quality - and the overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are not up to this standard (and I think it's safe to assume the money grabbing gits of the PPC's will have fairly shoddy CCTV). - I believe I got this information from Crimewatch or something similar, as ever, I could do with someone with more knowledge than me to either substantiate or highlight anything that's wrong here.

THEN, it is not possible to identify someone by a picture. I myself happen to have a doppleganger that lives in the United Arab Emirates (friend of a friend), extreme example I know, but I was told by another member on here that there is no way people can be identified beyond all doubt from a photograph. Sure, someone can say "it's 99% you" but the PPC's certainly can't. Drawing conclusions here, but I imagine they send the photographic 'evidence' of the driver to you so that you think 'damn, I'm caught - I'll have to admit it was me'. Then once you've acknowledged it is you they have you by the balls - the photographic 'evidence' is then completely meaningless as you've admitted 'guilt' (I use the term very loosely).

The example provided by another member here was that the police often ask if the public recognise a face/person from CCTV footage - if someone responds and says 'yes it appears to be x, y, or z person', then the police have some leads to follow up, rather than the CCTV footage being solid evidence in itself.

I'd listen to the other advice on here and just ignore the photographs. If it is a picture of the driver in the car - I can't imagine through the windscreen and with the light contrast between the interior and outside that anyone in their right mind would think it credible as anything other than toilet paper.

If it shows you outside of the car - what the hell does that prove? Come to think of it, if it shows you in the drivers seat, what the hell does that prove? Jumping to conclusions that you were the driver with no proof at all. You could have been polishing the steering wheel. You could have jumped out of the passenger seat to rest your feet on the pedals in the drivers seat. Hell - you could have been just driving around the car park and turning around in a parking bay.

Do these excuses sound flippant and absurd? I think so, but they are just as credible as the 'evidence' or whatever that the PPC's peddle.

EDIT: I'm not talking about flouting laws here or suggesting you raid a shop and think you're invincible because CCTV is perhaps a grey area. I'm suggesting that CCTV associated with the bully boys and scammers of PPC's is a steaming pile of poop that is just another bullet for the gun they don't own.

Coupon-mad

anthony1 wrote: »

Ive had the same, now on second demand. However they have also sent photgraphic evidence. I cant tell who the driver is but they could blow it to see. does that change any of the advice given here?

The photo of a car is exactly the same sort of 'evidence' as is shown on the fake PCN held by Tim Cary, the solicitor on the Watchdog clip. It's on a youtube link in the top sticky thread 'PPC letters & threats'. The solicitor shows everyone exactly what to do with any fake PCN, pretty pic of a car and all!

esmerobbo

Regarding CCTV evidence at court, when I had my pubs a regular ask for a copy of my CCTV footage to prove he was in my pub rather then where the police said he was.
When I saw him later I asked how he got on he said not guilty, I asked if the CCTV footage helped, he said the Judge would not allow it to be shown for two reasons 1, They would have to watch the whole footage from both doors for the whole period from entry to departure of the defendant, so 6 hours in full. 2, it may have been edited!
He did offer to adjourn, so the disc could be professionally analysed at the defendants cost and could then be used.

CCTV is an aid to the police and authorities but as evidence its crap!

give_them_FA

Yes, it is pretty useless in most cases. Also most of the time the PPC doesn't have access to it, and if some time has elapsed the tapes or hard drive used for recording will have been wiped and reused. The photos sent by a PPC are their own system, which, as was pointed out in a court case one of them brought and lost, have no value as evidence as they can be altered.

jimmyjimmerson

Thank you to everyone who has posted their advice and tips on here.

So in a nutshelll, ignore and they will then move onto their next victim?

Stephen_Leak

In a nutshell, yes.

Or, you could send the car park owner and PPC a legal Letter Before Action then, when the PPC send another threatening letter, sue both of them for harassment. That way, there might not be another victim at that site for them to move on to. And one more PPC closer to insolvency.

AltheHibby

Jimmy,

they are so clueless that they can't tell the difference between "parked" and "waiting" (which the car I was in was doing to save buying and redeeming a ticket and had stopped in an area with about 50 plus spaces). Apparently "waiting" requires your wheels to be moving. Morrisons were told that as CP Plus are their agents, as such they are responsible, and that we wouldn't be back.

They also now know that their tickets are unenforcable (and that wewdon't condone abuse).