We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Dodgy Photos?
cashman82
Posts: 65 Forumite
First, I'd like to say that I have read extensively into this. I've read on here, parking Cowboys, prankster etc etc but sometimes it's nice to get a personal opinion on the situation so I do hope someone can help.
I have to admit, I'm not too worried about this because there are certain circumstances that I think make this a stupid claim but I don't want to be too confident any maybe you should tell me if I'm counting my chickens too soon.
The story goes...
I had a baby back end of December and ventured out with my two kidlets late Jan to do some shopping. Spaces in the car park were narrow so I went to what I thought was the extension of the car park where there were lots of spaces and plonked myself next to a trolley bay. An hour later I came back, put the shopping in and my 3-year old then took the trolley to the shop (I'd let a lady put her trolley back before me in the bay next to the car and couldn't get mine into hers to get my pound back).
Returning to the car with my baby I see a ticket. I'm fairly sure it wasn't there when I initially returned. I'd have seen it surely?
Receipt from the shop says I left at 12:15. Here's where it gets interesting:
I didn't know it was a P&D because I didn't see the signs. There are no signs on the approach to the car park and road signs indicating a one-way system mean you HAVE TO enter the car park in that direction. Even on Google Maps you can see the lack of signage.
So I come back home and do some reading. While putting together my appeal I took a good long look at the photos which have a few issues.
1. There are two sets of photos that are taken at the exact same time on different sides of the car. I'm a photographer and I know a point and shoot takes time to focus. How have they managed to be on two sides of the car at the same time? I suppose there could have been two people taking the pictures but really, the exact same time? Really?
2. There are 3 photos showing the front of the car. Only one shows the ticket and if looking in chronological order, the ticket appears in the middle. It's almost as if the ticket wasn't there, was put on and then taken off again. I've added 3 images below. Take a look at the times and tell me I'm missing something?
3. In total, there are 7 photographs taken between 12:14:10 and 12:14:24
3. The photographs were apparently take 1 minute before I was handed my receipt from the shop and walked outside. The ticket was printed at 12:14. This guy did an awful lot of photo taking, ticket printing and walking away in that minute. I eyeballed him after I saw the notice and I have suspicions that my eldest was in the car when it was issued as I hadn't previously noticed it - they're kind of obvious. She later talked about a man sticking something to the car.
I left it a few weeks before sending an appeal. The appeal was done as the keeper (with my OHs knowledge) pointing out the issues with signage, the times on the photos and then I went further into mentioning that the driver was a solo female with two young children and therefore had protected characteristics. I did all of this as the keeper. Didn't mention any names and didn't give away the driver info. I also requested a POPLA code and rejected an appeal with AIS because it would be a kangaroo court (I used the wording supplied on MSE). I screen shot this and have old records of writing it (which are dated by my machine) but I have no other way of verifying that I didn't name a driver. I know I didn't though.
Low and behold they rejected the appeal with a standard response and the clock started ticking while I didn't reply.
I waited patiently for the NTK to arrive and on day 56 my husband got a letter from UCS saying "as you were the driver at the time of the event". Obviously, he wasn't the driver at the time and his colleagues at work can verify this.
Apart from the appeal rejection, this is the only correspondence we had from them at this point. Have they shot themselves in the foot with this? Should I take the UCS letter as an NTK? If so, it states he is the driver and he isn't.
I replied to this as my husband denying the debt as he was not the driver and further mentioning the signage and the issues with the photographs and then invited them to progress things to court should they wish. I also stated that I would consider it harassment should they contact me again.
A month later we received a further letter from UCS thanking us for the correspondence. I drafted a reply to this but had not as yet got round to replying when today arrives a letter from CSB Solicitors (of London don't you know!)
No name on the letter to reply to just the UCS stuff again on the reverse and a threat of court action.
So my question to you clever folk out there is...is this a slam dunk? Should I let them take me to court - if it ever got that far and where do I go with the solicitor letter? Back to UCS? Write to CSB or go back to the parking company? I have yet the threaten them with the ombudsman or similar and I can't believe if these are real solicitors that they would take something like this when I have not been able to fairly state my case. It's interesting that the print info down the side of the UCS and CSB letter is almost the same and for that matter, so is the header...
I have to admit, I'm not too worried about this because there are certain circumstances that I think make this a stupid claim but I don't want to be too confident any maybe you should tell me if I'm counting my chickens too soon.
The story goes...
I had a baby back end of December and ventured out with my two kidlets late Jan to do some shopping. Spaces in the car park were narrow so I went to what I thought was the extension of the car park where there were lots of spaces and plonked myself next to a trolley bay. An hour later I came back, put the shopping in and my 3-year old then took the trolley to the shop (I'd let a lady put her trolley back before me in the bay next to the car and couldn't get mine into hers to get my pound back).
Returning to the car with my baby I see a ticket. I'm fairly sure it wasn't there when I initially returned. I'd have seen it surely?
Receipt from the shop says I left at 12:15. Here's where it gets interesting:
I didn't know it was a P&D because I didn't see the signs. There are no signs on the approach to the car park and road signs indicating a one-way system mean you HAVE TO enter the car park in that direction. Even on Google Maps you can see the lack of signage.
So I come back home and do some reading. While putting together my appeal I took a good long look at the photos which have a few issues.
1. There are two sets of photos that are taken at the exact same time on different sides of the car. I'm a photographer and I know a point and shoot takes time to focus. How have they managed to be on two sides of the car at the same time? I suppose there could have been two people taking the pictures but really, the exact same time? Really?
2. There are 3 photos showing the front of the car. Only one shows the ticket and if looking in chronological order, the ticket appears in the middle. It's almost as if the ticket wasn't there, was put on and then taken off again. I've added 3 images below. Take a look at the times and tell me I'm missing something?
3. In total, there are 7 photographs taken between 12:14:10 and 12:14:24
3. The photographs were apparently take 1 minute before I was handed my receipt from the shop and walked outside. The ticket was printed at 12:14. This guy did an awful lot of photo taking, ticket printing and walking away in that minute. I eyeballed him after I saw the notice and I have suspicions that my eldest was in the car when it was issued as I hadn't previously noticed it - they're kind of obvious. She later talked about a man sticking something to the car.
I left it a few weeks before sending an appeal. The appeal was done as the keeper (with my OHs knowledge) pointing out the issues with signage, the times on the photos and then I went further into mentioning that the driver was a solo female with two young children and therefore had protected characteristics. I did all of this as the keeper. Didn't mention any names and didn't give away the driver info. I also requested a POPLA code and rejected an appeal with AIS because it would be a kangaroo court (I used the wording supplied on MSE). I screen shot this and have old records of writing it (which are dated by my machine) but I have no other way of verifying that I didn't name a driver. I know I didn't though.
Low and behold they rejected the appeal with a standard response and the clock started ticking while I didn't reply.
I waited patiently for the NTK to arrive and on day 56 my husband got a letter from UCS saying "as you were the driver at the time of the event". Obviously, he wasn't the driver at the time and his colleagues at work can verify this.
Apart from the appeal rejection, this is the only correspondence we had from them at this point. Have they shot themselves in the foot with this? Should I take the UCS letter as an NTK? If so, it states he is the driver and he isn't.
I replied to this as my husband denying the debt as he was not the driver and further mentioning the signage and the issues with the photographs and then invited them to progress things to court should they wish. I also stated that I would consider it harassment should they contact me again.
A month later we received a further letter from UCS thanking us for the correspondence. I drafted a reply to this but had not as yet got round to replying when today arrives a letter from CSB Solicitors (of London don't you know!)
No name on the letter to reply to just the UCS stuff again on the reverse and a threat of court action.
So my question to you clever folk out there is...is this a slam dunk? Should I let them take me to court - if it ever got that far and where do I go with the solicitor letter? Back to UCS? Write to CSB or go back to the parking company? I have yet the threaten them with the ombudsman or similar and I can't believe if these are real solicitors that they would take something like this when I have not been able to fairly state my case. It's interesting that the print info down the side of the UCS and CSB letter is almost the same and for that matter, so is the header...
0
Comments
-
I couldn't post the photos
0 -
It is becuase you are a new user.
Just paste the link then edit it to change http to httx and leave a gap between that and the rest of the address and someone will come along and re-post it as a working link.Never Knowingly Understood.
Member #1 of £1,000 challenge - £13.74/ £1000 (that's 1.374%)
3-6 month EF £0/£3600 (that's 0 days worth)0 -
httpx://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/12733994_10153255652036587_3215025723540443184_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=e02e46852924b214eac319054f65f0da&oe=57DD8F07
httpx://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/12718169_10153255652086587_8590967512736830702_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=9d862befba1b62f44904314b77f31006&oe=57DE3465
httpx://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/12705719_10153255653181587_3278776517053289452_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=0ec1310a4d381a9707899f08d3696e0f&oe=57A13E3B
EXIF data has been wiped from the photos0 -
now why should they remove the EXIF data?Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Uh hu.
But really so stupid as to (possibly/maybe) change the times to make them so obviously stand out as being dodgy??
And then when I point this out to them, they keep up with the farce?0 -
1: I cannot view the photo,s
2: name of parking Co please
3: full name and address of this solicitorSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
I think if you want others to see the photos, you need to use a site like photobucket as the links you provided when changed to http or https, do not work0
-
PS CSB seem to be a new one man band specialising in immigration laws , or "rent a letterhead" @ 15% https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09048710Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Hope these work as Photobucket has just made my browser go super slow!
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-24_zpsqyaui5ik.png
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-23_zpsqaf1jlpk.png
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-23-1_zps7nzf7pub.png
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-18-1_zpsic7c5kyt.png
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-10_zpsgndbevvr.png
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-18_zpseo0ib0wl.png
httx://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-20_zpsykfksvhb.png
The links give you the times of the photos e.g. 12-14-23 and 12-14-23-1 (taken at same time).
PC is PPC - Parking Charge Collections Ltd.0 -
NO the PPC is NOT PCS , Parking collection services is a debt collector!
who was the parking company?
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-24_zpsqyaui5ik.png
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-23_zpsqaf1jlpk.png
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-23-1_zps7nzf7pub.png
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-18-1_zpsic7c5kyt.png
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-10_zpsgndbevvr.png
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-18_zpseo0ib0wl.png
http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j369/cashman82/12-14-20_zpsykfksvhb.pngSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards