Black&White Case of Fraud?

hoohoo

HO87 wrote: »

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.

BPA CoP v 5

20.5a When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered

22.3 If the motorist asks for it, you should make available any photographic evidence you have.

ManxRed

On 22.3 they'll argue that this would only apply to photos relating to this PCN, which the other photos won't. Doubtless the BPA would back them up on that too.

Just being Devil's Advocate...

fisherjim

A date and time stamp from a domestic pocket camera is a pretty poor piece of evidence.

ManxRed

Just putting this link in here as it may be of interest.

I wonder if this was the same car park/warden?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5313494

DCodd

fisherjim wrote: »

A date and time stamp from a domestic pocket camera is a pretty poor piece of evidence.

No but the EXIF data isn't. So if the OP can demand a copy of the original file.. happy days.

Grimble

You can set up a camera for different time zones, i.e I can set the time for a second time zone, Greece two hours ahead, just as easy to set camera for two hours behind, press of a couple of buttons.

ampersand

op - I see a number of us following your Thread and that of Minnie87.

Again, I highlight herzlos' advice. #10 and strongly advise you to obtain a police crime ref.no asap.

HO87

Moral arguments aside getting the police involved in any allegation of fraud these days is an up hill battle. However, arguing the tort of deceit is far easier to prove - in theory - given that it is judged on the balance of probabilities.

Report it to the police and the best you might achieve is a log number (Cad number in the Met).

Herzlos

Getting a log number is all I'm advocating. Enough of them and action might help, and it certainly won't hurt you to quote the number in any correspondence.

The_Slithy_Tove

DCodd wrote: »

No but the EXIF data isn't [pretty poor piece of evidence]. So if the OP can demand a copy of the original file.. happy days.

EXIF data is easily amended, so cannot possibly be deemed to be solid evidence. Who is to say what the "original file" is, and how would you prove it's the exact file that was written to the camera's memory?