Help! Ukpc have 'photographic evidence' which isn't real

iconoclus

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Because the PPC will see that they have been rumbled, cancel and then continue as before with some other innocents......

What would your response be, in terms of claiming costs, if the PPC does not cancel but pursues the claim until it eventually fails.

Guys_Dad

iconoclus wrote: »

What would your response be, in terms of claiming costs, if the PPC does not cancel but pursues the claim until it eventually fails.

Not an expert on this, but they would not welcome a costly solicitor on motorist's side, albeit SCC limits would apply. They would be more scared of the judge finding that a potential crime/scam was employed and it being referrd to HM Constabulary .

On the matter of winding back the time on the camera raised in other posts - has anyone considered the possibility of TWO CAMERAS, set some time apart being used? Looking at the times shown, it looks like it is some particular camera model/system in operation. If two were being used, then this is a real further nail in the corporate complicity theory, rather than individual, coffin.

May I suggest that regulars keep an eye out for wardens with 2 camera in use just in case and then leaving a note for drivers under windscreen to get on this forum or contact Parking Prankster (with his permission, of course!)

Marktheshark

As your phone camera does not have a bright red date and time stamp facility I think we can assume they are adding the date and time stamps at the office.
The app asks for the arrival and exit time when the commission greedy "mobile warden" or trolley boy or who ever snaps the car, it asks them to take at least 4 pictures from different angles, complete the times on the app and press upload.

It works on any smart phone and is a simple download app.

They know they can and will do as they like, what is anybody going to do about it ?
Nothing and they know it, if they complain to the BPA, they get carpeted over.
The police dont give two ****, it big bussines making money vs the public.

The solution is what I posted, a fighting fund, some test cases and joint private summonses against all involved including the officers of the supermarkets involved.
section 6 of the prosecution of offences act 1985 gives a victim of an offender the same rights to issue a prosecution summons as the police or CPS, the magistrates have to hear the application and then issue a summons if the evidence is of a standard likely to result in conviction.


Until this is done, they simply do not give a ****.

Minnie87

I have contacted trading standards and BPA, awaiting a reply.

I have just realised that I can view frequent locations on my phone and it show that I was at my home from 11 pm the night before until 8:13 the morning I got my parking ticket. How reliable would this stand as evidence?

Umkomaas

Minnie87 wrote: »

I have contacted trading standards and BPA, awaiting a reply.

I have just realised that I can view frequent locations on my phone and it show that I was at my home from 11 pm the night before until 8:13 the morning I got my parking ticket. How reliable would this stand as evidence?

I know Parking Prankster is on your case. Perhaps it would be wise to update him with this latest information.

I rather suspect that now the s**t has hit the fan cases are more likely to be cancelled well before they get anywhere near POPLA (or beyond). No doubt technical/administrative/new staff/rogue self ticketers (or any other mealy mouth) excuse to squirm away from this will be proffered.

Keep going - resilience will pay off!

nigelbb

Minnie87 wrote: »

I have contacted trading standards and BPA, awaiting a reply.

I have just realised that I can view frequent locations on my phone and it show that I was at my home from 11 pm the night before until 8:13 the morning I got my parking ticket. How reliable would this stand as evidence?

Not at all as even if accepted as evidence only proves your phone was at home & says nothing about where you or your car were at the time. It's not like having a tracker in the car.

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

As your phone camera does not have a bright red date and time stamp facility I think we can assume they are adding the date and time stamps at the office.
The app asks for the arrival and exit time when the commission greedy "mobile warden" or trolley boy or who ever snaps the car, it asks them to take at least 4 pictures from different angles, complete the times on the app and press upload.

Regardless of what your 'phone is or is not capable of doing natively, it's perfectly possible to write a 'phone app that adds a timestamp to a photo in any colour you like (I have one on my 'phone). Presumably, then, their app adds the timestamps.

Marktheshark wrote: »

The solution is what I posted, a fighting fund, some test cases and joint private summonses against all involved including the officers of the supermarkets involved.
section 6 of the prosecution of offences act 1985 gives a victim of an offender the same rights to issue a prosecution summons as the police or CPS, the magistrates have to hear the application and then issue a summons if the evidence is of a standard likely to result in conviction.

Off you go then, set the ball rolling. Once you've come up with a plausible proposition for raising the money, explained who is going to do the donkey work, and explained how you will prevent the CPS taking over the case and dropping it, I will be happy to contribute.

hoohoo

Minnie87 wrote: »

I have contacted trading standards and BPA, awaiting a reply.

I have just realised that I can view frequent locations on my phone and it show that I was at my home from 11 pm the night before until 8:13 the morning I got my parking ticket. How reliable would this stand as evidence?

This is excellent evidence and can be sent to POPLA to help with your case. It doesn't PROVE that the car was not in the car park, but it all helps. If, for instance, you also sent texts or used the phone during that time, that helps show the phone was with you, and not for instance, left at home.

MothballsWallet

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Because the PPC will see that they have been rumbled, cancel and then continue as before with some other innocents.

This is a perfect case for Watchdog and also, as said, for Trading Standards. As well as that, the cases on Parking Prankster's blog need to be formally presented to the BPA demanding they investigate and that, if they do not, then a large stink will be raised in relation to their right to be an accredited trade association. They have rules and it is their explicit duty to yphold these.

You can see the reason why this has occurred. The warden is incentivised to either get a set number of victims per week , probably with bonuses, and is being thoroughly dishonest and, by the pictures, stupid as well. The PPC should be suspended for a long time and they, in turn, need to root out and fire everyone who is party to this fraud - managing director down, if they are ever to re-gain BPA accreditation.

Wouldn't the PPC just jump ship to the IAS in that case?

enfield_freddy

looks like ukpc have removed access to online photos https://www.ukpcappeals.co.uk/Photos/Default.aspx


I have entered 2 valid tickets and reg numbers


"this service is temporary unavailable"*****






*** whilst we burn the evidence