Dodgy Photos?

cashman82

I have previously denied the debt but not to the solicitor outfit. Does that matter?

What about the practice direction on pre-action conduct and protocols

beamerguy

cashman82 wrote: »

I have previously denied the debt but not to the solicitor outfit. Does that matter?

What about the practice direction on pre-action conduct and protocols

Then do it to the solicitor, they are the ones who proceed further

You have not even received a court claim yet just a threat so forget about practice direction until the time comes, if it ever does

cashman82

Ok, will draft the letter asap.

cashman82

Hi there!

Just gathering my bits together to finish my letter and thought I would log in to the PCN site to see if they have altered the times on the photographs (after I pointed out to them that there had to be an error with them) but nothing has changed.

I then thought I would skip on over to the debt recovery site to see what they had and login to see their photographic evidence.

Magically these photos have no time stamp. Now how is that possible? If the photographs have been time stamped in camera (as they should be), they would surely not go to the effort of Photoshopping the times out of these images.

If you didn't guess already...I figured the times were put on in post

beamerguy

cashman82 wrote: »

Hi there!

Just gathering my bits together to finish my letter and thought I would log in to the PCN site to see if they have altered the times on the photographs (after I pointed out to them that there had to be an error with them) but nothing has changed.

I then thought I would skip on over to the debt recovery site to see what they had and login to see their photographic evidence.

Magically these photos have no time stamp. Now how is that possible? If the photographs have been time stamped in camera (as they should be), they would surely not go to the effort of Photoshopping the times out of these images.

If you didn't guess already...I figured the times were put on in post

If you think the pics have been doctored then download them to your computer. Once on your computer, right click and select properties. This will show when the picture was created and the date it could have been modified.

YES, the famous faker of pictures is UKPC

cashman82

Unfortunately there is no info in the photos, it's been wiped. I downloaded all of them as evidence and screen grabbed a zoomed in version of the page to show I didn't shop them.

beamerguy

cashman82 wrote: »

Unfortunately there is no info in the photos, it's been wiped. I downloaded all of them as evidence and screen grabbed a zoomed in version of the page to show I didn't shop them.

OK, well that can be done in photoshop
However if it has been wiped, that would be cause to question the validity of the pics

Fruitcake

cashman82 wrote: »

I am not scared by their threats as I truly believe that I was not in the wrong. I would have avoided all this hassle and paid the 20p fee to park if I'd known it was a P&D.

I've also studied law and worked within a licensing environment so I know when things don't appear to be quite legitimate and none of their letters have looked even half official. No names to reply to, photocopied letterheads and signatures. It angers me that others will pay regardless.

What I do not want is a default against the keeper as I had to convince them not to pay the fine. I have never been in a situation where someone has continued to chase to such an extent after an event over a poxy £60 fine. The time and effort and surely payout on their part would have amounted to more than that by now?

I assume that should it get that far (not saying it will as I have been made aware that they do not seem to proceed that far) I am able to argue the case and show that I have done all that was necessary not to seem like I was just shirking it.

Does it matter that so far the keeper is still presumed to be the driver? We can prove that they were not as they were elsewhere sending emails.

There can be no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver, and no one, not even a judge, can force you to reveal the driver's identity. If you have proof the keeper was not the driver, even better. That's what you put in front of a judge.

One other thing, looking at your timeline I can't see the keeper ever having received a NTK. Can you confirm that this is in fact the case. My apologies if you have already mentioned it, but my mind is mainly on other things at the mo, like the internet storm brewing over Mary Berry's use of cream and wine in Bolognese sauce. :cool:

cashman82

I'll have to check but fairly sure the first letter from anyone was titled as a notice to keeper.

I'm trying to find legislation or similar pertaining to the requirement of time stamps on photographs. Surely this is their main evidence for tickets issued when people haven't returned to a vehicle in the allotted time. If they are just putting times on when they want it's a licence to print money.

Coupon-mad

There is no legislation nor regulation of this nasty industry except the POFA re keeper liability.