Black&White Case of Fraud?

blackwhitefraud2015

Thank you everyone for your replies, I'm happily in this for the long run, I think it's disgusting that these companies operate the way they do, but just plain targeting a car and making times up leaves you feeling defiled.

I'll do a little more research and make my claim for them to drop their invoice, when that's settled I'll take it further.

Half_way

Personally i think its equally as disgusting that Companies and others think its acceptable to let the parking parasites onto their land, especially the big landowners/retail park owners and supermarkets who should know better ( and probably do )

HO87

You suggest that you only arrived at the location at 3.15pm. What time did you leave?

You have asserted that this appears to be fraud and whilst I am no fan of UKPC might this not be the result of misidentification? ANPR systems do not have a 100% success rate and misreads are relatively common. Similarly, could this have been caused by a clock error?

The_Deep

HO87, all of the above may well be possible, but UKPC rely on these cameras to raise money, they have to be accurate.


If a butcher has scales which give short measure, he can still be prosecuted, whether he is aware of it or not.

blackwhitefraud2015

Hello H087,

The ticket was issued at 16:18 there is one chap in the car park who takes the evidence pictures with a hand held camera ( I have no idea how they could ever claim anybody was in the car park for too long as that would require him to photograph every single vehicle on entry)

Guys_Dad

Personally, I would write the PPC a letter stating that you are accusing them of fraud. That you did not enter and leave at these times, that you have photographic and written evidence from two other cameras proving that you were elsewhere during these times and that unless the cancel the charge immediately, you intend to put the matter in the hands of their trade association, trading standards and the police.

You should say where thephotographic evidence you have comes from and go in hard.

blackwhitefraud2015

Thank You all for your help so far!

I've sent this on the appeal form, I don't feel there's any particular reason to be confidential about these matters.

This vehicle was not in the car park at the claimed times. The vehicle arrived at approximately 3:15pm and was ticketed at 4:18pm. Your attendant's pictures are clearly taken moments apart. I have 4 independent sources to show the vehicle's whereabouts that prove it could not possibly have been in the car park at 2:06pm. I'm concerned either your attendant or UKPC are actively trying to defraud me by editing these pictures to make false claims.
I invite you to provide me with verifiable evidence (other than the provided pictures taken on what I can only assume is a digital camera with no time lock) or to take the case to court at which point I will provide the CCTV evidence that proves this vehicle was elsewhere at the alleged entry time.

patman99

If you are confident enough to appear in front of a camera, you could do a decent video news item looking into this practice. Channel 4's 'Despatches' program loves things like these.

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

HO87, all of the above may well be possible, but UKPC rely on these cameras to raise money, they have to be accurate.

If a butcher has scales which give short measure, he can still be prosecuted, whether he is aware of it or not.

As it happens it would seem that ANPR was not in use here - although this was not immediately apparent.

Comparing the use of scales, for which there are well established standards and means of testing, with ANPR is hardly reasonable. Scales perform one function (unless they have a pricing mechanism attached). Where is the standard for ANPR? That is the issue here, there isn't one and whilst we might reasonably expect the systems to be accurate the fact is that many are not some being far worse than others.

To complicate that the issue is not necessarily with the system directly unreliability could be aggravated by poor installations, poor equipment or equipment that is badly located (both lenses, cameras and illuminators) and that doesn't even factor in the human aspect. The software at the business end also has to be reliable and used reliably. Without doubt some PPC's use one of the standard reports built into the (various) software which records unmatched entries and exits. (records that show a single entry or exit and no related exit or entry - if you know what I mean). They do so because it provides easy money. What they may choose to ignore is the misread report that shows records - hopefully with stills - of vehicles where no recognisable number was identified.

Until a standard is devised (it has been attempted) then your observation is, sadly, little more than aspirational. How many users of ANPR systems actually want it to be that accurate? The police do and even their systems are not that close to 100% reliable although they won't admit the actual figure.

That aside it seems that UKPC rely on a hand-held camera used by an operative. In which case I would ask that UKPC produce the photographs taken by that operative during his day's duties - in sequence. That should prove one way or the other whether the shots have been tampered with.

fisherjim

I would ask that UKPC produce the photographs taken by that operative during his day's duties - in sequence. That should prove one way or the other whether the shots have been tampered with.

Their reply will almost certainly be along the lines of:

We cannot supply this due to confidentiality, and believe the PCN was correctly issued.

Or they fold and use the tried and tested "admin error" excuse!