The Opposing Side Evidence Is False...

Cottom888

So court case is in 2 weeks, just recieved Gladstones evidence after i sent mine off and the picture of the entrance and signage is incorrect and the overhead plan.

The pictures i supplied were from google maps 5 months prior to the overstay (of 11 minutes). The pictures theyve supplied which are completely different show the signs that went up last September, 10 months after the overstay.

Which evidence will be admissible in court because theres doesnt have any time stamp on them. They also have an overhead plan with marks where all the signs are located but my pictures from 5 months before the incident show theres not a single sign where they say it is...

Not sure what to do now.

Umkomaas

It would help if you got all your 4 threads (or is it 5?) about this one case merged so we can check background/context. Very few of us can remember all the details of every case we deal with, given the dozens we advise on every day.

Could you please PM Crabman or soolin (Board Guides) and ask them to merge them all - would help considerably.

Fruitcake

Hopefully the more court savvy regulars will be along soon to help. The only thing I can suggest is to contact the local planning department to see if the scammers applied for planning consent for cameras and advertising consent for signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence.

If ad consent exists for the signs after the date of the vent, this would imply that different signs existed beforehand.

If the ad consent is (significantly) before the event, then the only legally approved signs are the ones you have images of, especially if the newer signs are in different positions to the old ones.

No ad consent means the signs shouldn't be there at all.

In any case, proof is needed when the signs were installed. Digital images usually have metadata showing time and date when they originated. Someone should be able to explain how to find it on both your images and the scammers images.
You need to show "your" signs were there before the alleged event and require the scammers to prove that they changed them. If they don't have metadata showing an earlier date they won't be able to.

One parking scumpany (UKPC) doctored metadata (time stamps) on their photo's and since the whole industry is unregulated, all scammers should be tarred with the same brush.

Edit.

I didn't realise this was to do with another thread.

Cottom888

My images are google map images with the timestamp of when the picture was taken... there images are just photos of the signs

Lamilad

Umkomaas wrote: »

It would help if you got all your 4 threads (or is it 5?) about this one case merged so we can check background/context. Very few of us can remember all the details of every case we deal with, given the dozens we advise on every day.

Could you please PM Crabman or soolin (Board Guides) and ask them to merge them all - would help considerably.

+1 I haven't got time to flick through several threads to patch together the background to this case. Once your threads are merged I will have a look and advise

beamerguy

Cottom888 wrote: »

My images are google map images with the timestamp of when the picture was taken... there images are just photos of the signs

If you can show pictures that disagree with those from gladstones, you will no doubt see a judge whooping gladstones again.

There is also the fact of a grace period ??

As Gladstones run an ATA scam called the IPC/IAS, THEY WILL KNOW THIS

Gladstones are already proven to be a shabby incompetent bunch run by Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck

Get all your facts straight and you can easily beat these *?*?*?'s