PCN - number plate absent in daylight CCTV, but poor UV image - appeal accepted - not my car

blovers

The vehicle imaged was the same model as mine but an XL - different light cluster, silver not grey
My appeal was accepted. Is such a discrepency in images likely?

above - screenshot from the CCTV evidence
below - UV rear number plate image - I've blurred the central area

This just seems odd to me - a car in good flat daylight appears to show no rear number plate, but the UV camera picks up a very poor image of what appears to be my number plate.
The UV number plate is placed higher than it would originally have been.
It just seems highly unlikely that absolutely no number plate is visible - such a car would attract police attention. Yet the UV camera picks up what may be a cloned number plate, which isn't visible to the daylight camera. Why would a criminal make a hidden number plate visible to UV?
The PCN appeal acceptance states the number plate couldn't be captured because of the daylight conditions.
I feel this is open to abuse by the PCN contracting company - why couldn't/wouldn't they just blur out the daylight image of a similar car (maybe with a resident's access permit) and stick my number plate on the UV image. I'm rarely in that area, but on this particular occasion I was nearby that day. For some reason, the PCN lacked the (rather stupid) images - the attached images from the online 'evidence'. 
Does anyone have any experience or comments to confirm that, yes, CCTV often fails to image a slow-mowing car's number plate in excellent daylight conditions at 10-20m, yet picks up a very poor image with the UV? Fast car, high sunlight over-exposure, night-time incident yes. But this seems exceptionally odd to me.
It am interested as to any comments - Thanks

Coupon-mad

blovers said:

The vehicle imaged was the same model as mine but an XL - different light cluster, silver not grey
My appeal was accepted. Is such a discrepency in images likely?

above - screenshot from the CCTV evidence
below - UV rear number plate image - I've blurred the central area

This just seems odd to me - a car in good flat daylight appears to show no rear number plate, but the UV camera picks up a very poor image of what appears to be my number plate.
The UV number plate is placed higher than it would originally have been.
It just seems highly unlikely that absolutely no number plate is visible - such a car would attract police attention. Yet the UV camera picks up what may be a cloned number plate, which isn't visible to the daylight camera. Why would a criminal make a hidden number plate visible to UV?
The PCN appeal acceptance states the number plate couldn't be captured because of the daylight conditions.
I feel this is open to abuse by the PCN contracting company - why couldn't/wouldn't they just blur out the daylight image of a similar car (maybe with a resident's access permit) and stick my number plate on the UV image. I'm rarely in that area, but on this particular occasion I was nearby that day. For some reason, the PCN lacked the (rather stupid) images - the attached images from the online 'evidence'. 
Does anyone have any experience or comments to confirm that, yes, CCTV often fails to image a slow-mowing car's number plate in excellent daylight conditions at 10-20m, yet picks up a very poor image with the UV? Fast car, high sunlight over-exposure, night-time incident yes. But this seems exceptionally odd to me.
It am interested as to any comments - Thanks

Wow, interesting. No plate is seen!

It's not a cloned numberplate but it looks like a possible 'ghost plate' on that vehicle was misread. Smacks of poor processes and desperation on the part of the Council or TFL.

Appeal to the adjudicator with evidence that is not your car. Photos of the differences. You'll win or the Council will fold.

Post in FTLA forum for expert advice on how to word the next appeal stage & what evidence to show.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

blovers said:

The vehicle imaged was the same model as mine but an XL - different light cluster, silver not grey
My appeal was accepted. Is such a discrepency in images likely?

above - screenshot from the CCTV evidence
below - UV rear number plate image - I've blurred the central area

This just seems odd to me - a car in good flat daylight appears to show no rear number plate, but the UV camera picks up a very poor image of what appears to be my number plate.
The UV number plate is placed higher than it would originally have been.
It just seems highly unlikely that absolutely no number plate is visible - such a car would attract police attention. Yet the UV camera picks up what may be a cloned number plate, which isn't visible to the daylight camera. Why would a criminal make a hidden number plate visible to UV?
The PCN appeal acceptance states the number plate couldn't be captured because of the daylight conditions.
I feel this is open to abuse by the PCN contracting company - why couldn't/wouldn't they just blur out the daylight image of a similar car (maybe with a resident's access permit) and stick my number plate on the UV image. I'm rarely in that area, but on this particular occasion I was nearby that day. For some reason, the PCN lacked the (rather stupid) images - the attached images from the online 'evidence'. 
Does anyone have any experience or comments to confirm that, yes, CCTV often fails to image a slow-mowing car's number plate in excellent daylight conditions at 10-20m, yet picks up a very poor image with the UV? Fast car, high sunlight over-exposure, night-time incident yes. But this seems exceptionally odd to me.
It am interested as to any comments - Thanks

Wow, interesting. No plate is seen!

It's not a cloned numberplate but it looks like a possible 'ghost plate' on that vehicle was misread. Smacks of poor processes and desperation on the part of the Council or TFL.

Appeal to the adjudicator with evidence that is not your car. Photos of the differences. You'll win or the Council will fold.

Post in FTLA forum for expert advice on how to word the next appeal stage & what evidence to show.

Already accepted:)

blovers

Wow, interesting. No plate is seen!

It's not a cloned numberplate but it looks like a possible 'ghost plate' on that vehicle was misread. Smacks of poor processes and desperation on the part of the Council or TFL.

Appeal to the adjudicator with evidence that is not your car. Photos of the differences. You'll win or the Council will fold.

Post in FTLA forum for expert advice on how to word the next appeal stage & what evidence to show.

Thanks - the appeal was accepted - I'm interested to know whether this discrepency is reasonable, or could the issuer have committed fraud and miss-use of persona data (my number plate). I guess most people will say it's simply a cloned plate of some kind. Thanks again

Gr1pr

The FTLA parking forum website should be able to advise you on that aspect 

Coupon-mad

And you could escalate the data concern complaint with the council or TFL - who is it?

Then when you've exhausted their complaints policy, complain to the ICO about these significant data concerns which look like your numberplate has been fabricated in the dark image.

blovers

Gr1pr said:

The FTLA parking forum website should be able to advise you on that aspect 

Thankyou - will do

blovers

Coupon-mad
Thanks - I have made a formal complaint to Enfield Council
I have requested the original and full details of the CCTV footage, and the UV image/footage, because if it's my car, it's my data.
I think I have to wait until I get a response or my data from Enfield, then I can contact ICO.
I've spent 40 hrs on it so far. But I think they have a massive grey area here, and they can try to defraud whenever it pleases them, with plausible excuses.
The acceptance of the appeal letter I received states that a blank car plate and a positive UV image is possible.
I don't believe it presently - the parked cars show their number plates.
I am mystified by ghost plates and reflectives- why would a criminal bother putting  a UV plate on there that can't be seen in daylight, whilst lacking a normal number plate. Unless the normal plate in the lower correct position has some kind of reflective so it can't be seen or imaged. 
Incidentally, the car looks quite familiar with driving into this LTN - my suspicions are the company could match up any permit holder's car with one in the neighbourhod, blank out the permitted car and fabricate the rest. That's why I believe that they didn't put the images in the PCN - because they are ridiculous.  The council/company has such plausible deniability when it comes to the confusion of daylight/UV imaging - wide open to fraud. 

Car1980

You can also perform a Subject Access Request on the council.

kryten3000

One small point of pedantry - the images are visible light and infrared, not ultraviolet.