PCN from Parking Control Management using doctored photos.

soobs101

Hello,
I'm glad that a forum like this exists to help motorists fight these scammers, and my situation shows how low they are willing to go.
Four PCNs from Parking Control Management (PCM) were sent to my old address over a period of three months, but were only forwarded to me recently after PCM had already sent them to their enforcement goons TRACE Legal. Upon receiving the PCNs, I immediately noticed the time and locations given for the charges did not match my movement during those days. This made me suspicious but when I reviewed the pictures given as 'evidence', I was incensed to find that they has superimposed my registration on another vehicle of a similar model. Fortunately, enough differences are visible to make it clear that it isn't my vehicle.
What are my options for holding them account for attempting to run this scam? I am already planning on sending the evidence to Action Fraud and the City of London Fraud team. 

Coupon-mad

Report them to the DVLA:

KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

and

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

and make a 'data concerns' complaint online to the Information Commissioners' Office.

and to the IPC.

Also email PCM's Data Protection Officer and tell them what has happened and DEMAND that they 'erase' your data an apologise, and tell them who you have reported them to and ask how they are going to explain this data alteration to the ICO.  Also tell the DPO that in fact you no longer live at 'old address' and your new address will not be provided because they have no right or reasonable cause to hold your data anyway.  But they must erase what they have.

thingamaBob

Couldn't this be a case of a cloned number plate rather than doctored photos?

Coupon-mad

Possible but far less likely though, in my experience.  Usually it's a PPC 'enhancing' a VRM image wrongly.

Half_way

Do you know whose car park they state your vehicle was in?
You should get in touch with the parking company, and tell them

 that the parking charge is unfair and doesn't represent a genuine pre estimate of any loss and their cameras / systems are defective as your vehicle was not at that location at that time (you have tracking evidence to show this )

Use something like the above, make sure that you have saved/kept a copy of the tracking data.
The parking company will most likely reject that, however sending the above sets up a few useful things:
It shows you have been reasonable, and are making attempts to resolve this.
It opens up the possibility of a GDPR claim got you to claim against the parking company and the landowner were they allege your vehicle was (you should at the very least issue a very  strong complaint against the landowner)

twhitehousescat

Coupon-mad said:

Possible but far less likely though, in my experience.  Usually it's a PPC 'enhancing' a VRM image wrongly.

is "enhancing" where they delete the number plate and photoshop another in its place 

just asking for a friend 

Humdinger1

Half_way said:

Do you know whose car park they state your vehicle was in?
You should get in touch with the parking company, and tell them

 that the parking charge is unfair and doesn't represent a genuine pre estimate of any loss and their cameras / systems are defective as your vehicle was not at that location at that time (you have tracking evidence to show this )

Use something like the above, make sure that you have saved/kept a copy of the tracking data.
The parking company will most likely reject that, however sending the above sets up a few useful things:
It shows you have been reasonable, and are making attempts to resolve this.
It opens up the possibility of a GDPR claim got you to claim against the parking company and the landowner were they allege your vehicle was (you should at the very least issue a very  strong complaint against the landowner)

I may be wrong, but thought the pre estimate of loss argument was no longer used? One of this board's veterans will confirm shortly no doubt

Half_way

Following in from the Beavis case Pre estimate of loss is usually dead.
 However that is if the parking company complies with the protection of freedoms act.
 In most cases its not worth putting in, further here or world serve as a kitchen sink type approach.
The real issue at play here is not that a vehicle entered a car park, but the agents of a landowner (the parking company) are using and processing inaccurate data.
So contact the parking company, as I mentioned above, then when they reject go straight for the data rectification notice.
If the parking company was reasonable they should appologise for their mistake and outline what steps they will take to ensure it never happens again, but odds on they won't.
Its also important to copy the landowner in on all of this add they are responsible for the actions of their agents.

Is all about protecting the person who received the erroneous parking charge, and keeping a few options open

rdr

Coupon-mad said:

Possible but far less likely though, in my experience.  Usually it's a PPC 'enhancing' a VRM image wrongly.

OP: is this four PCNs for four separate "offences"? Is it somewhere you have been, but not at that time, or have you never been there. Possibly the PPC's clock is wrong.

Four separate, wrong enhancements to the same number? Not likely. Can't see why a PPC would do this delibrately either, I would guess either a clone or someone else driving the OP's car.

soobs101

Coupon-mad : I will be reporting them to the DVLA and lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner too.

Half_way : I probably don't have tracking evidence (it might be in my google history but I haven't checked it), but I do have photographic evidence that shows this isn't my car. I will complain to the parking company with your suggestions.

rdr : I've never been at the claimed locations, one of which was a car park (parked in a disabled bay) and the three others were for parking in a restricted area (blocking the exit of a residential garage) in the same location. That my number plate could have been cloned hadn't crossed my mind, and is another reasonable explanation for this.

I would like to thank everyone for their advice. 

Fruitcake

If the same computer scamware is being used each time, then any conversion errors will be repeated even if different scameras are used.
The scameras take a digital image which is them process by an optical recognition programme (OCR) to convert this to numbers and letters. This programme can easily be confused by for example O and 0, I and 1, light and shade, rusty screws, cracks etcetera to come up with a completely different set of alpha numeric characters.
This is one of the reasons why ANPR scameras have been banned by the UK Government for use in council and local authority car parks.

You would need detailed examination of the photos to determine if this is a digital image conversion error, or cloned number plates. If you think it is the latter then you should contact the police.