Fraudulent/doctored CCTV Images?? (Attached)

Zach2k

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82002361#Comment_82002361

Ok, so I have an option to not do mediation? Who do I inform that I'm not doing mediation?

Thanks again

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82002364#Comment_82002364

You are over thinking this totally

I missed loads of mediation calls last week as i was out of the country

You just ignore the call. Forget it .....!

James_Poisson

If you do have a google timeline on your phone for that day it is a bit spooky but shows a map of exactly where you went, where you stopped and exactly what the times were.

Just open Google maps on your phone click on the top right icon with your initial, then your timeline, then find the date all your journeys should be there.

Coupon-mad

You just don't take the call. I already advised you that it isn't compulsory.

I also told you NOT to use the word fraud.

I say that because the judge will stop you and might get quite angered because that word crosses a line.

Don't use that word!

But I am a million percent sure I did NOT enter the car park at the timestamp they are showing. I lucidly remember this day's events even before I found this text message, but this further confirms in no way did I enter the car park at the image timed stamp they are purporting I did.

I also advised you how to tackle that in your WS by saying you'll swear to this on oath if necessary.

Just follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread.

Zach2k

For anyone who may find this useful for future reference…

I took District Enforcement Limited all the way to court.

I refused to pay anything.

As a locum worker, I even cancelled my day of work that day, so was already making a loss. But this was on principle. I'm fortunate enough I earn enough, whilst others who may just be bewildered at 'CCTV evidence' and just pay up.

In my documents I called District Enforcement Limited for what they are - FRAUDSTERS.

I couldnt give a monkeys what some of the advice from couple of posters above was - I call a spade a spade and these guys are liars and fraudsters - I said so in my submissions and I was absolutely ready prepared to stand up in front of the judge and say so.

And guess what.

Despite their supposed 'CCTV evidence' which were clearly doctored, one week before the court hearing - these guys have abracadabra - pulled out and disappeared.

Received a letter from County Court today the claim is struck out and dismissed. I pay nothing.

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82147935#Comment_82147935

That's exactly what always happens. Hundreds of examples on this forum alone. Good job it didnt go to a hearing as calling them fraudsters would have caused you no end of bother. Good result in the end though!!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82147935#Comment_82147935

Congrats!

Not surprised as it was a Gladstones case. They are dripping the ball on evidence and discontinuing loads.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

It is a shame you didn't get to see a judge though. Your evidence would have been damning.

I agree that to a reasonable observer, it is clear from the piece of white rubbish or mark on the tarmac, and the ither points of reference, that the shadow hasn't moved. Taken together with your own knowledge that you were only in and out in minutes, it is more than likely that both those photos were taken within 7 minutes, not 67…

You could now put the final nail in District Enforcement's coffin though, if interested?!

Report them to the CMA. It's currently like pushing against an open door…

Please also report District Enforcement Ltd (run by an ex-copper, did you know?) to the CMA with your PCN photos as evidence.

This is important. This will make a difference. Read all the CMA statements first. This was on BBC News and on MSE itself:

MSE article: July 2026

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a major crackdown on the UK private parking industry, issuing an open warning over unfair appeals, and advising stricter government oversight CMA takes action on private parking practices.

Read the news about it. You'll see! Watch the CMA's video of supposed tips, which we think they got from listening too closely to the trade bodies.

I'm keen for someone robust to politely put them right:

• The CMA should never have put out a consumer message telling people to "appeal or pay" unfair private parking charge invoices. Totally wrong stance, nobody should pay unfair PCNs
• Those are not the only options and nobody should be told to pay a scam.
• Good people will not pay and would far rather - quite rightly - sit tight and easily defend a court claim to see operators discontinue, and the consumer pay nothing in the end (even if these cases went to hearings, no judges would uphold the charge in a heinous scam case like this).

CMA Contact emails (use both, the first one goes directly to their parking investigation) :

• parking@cma.gov.uk
• general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk 

NB: The CMA don't help with cases or update you. This is for the public good. You are reporting this to try to open their eyes more and get the CMA to investigate other parking firms.

😁

MrJenkinsEsq

Congrats on the discontinuance. I hadn't seen this thread until now. For fun, I wanted to work it out anyway. Maybe you could include it in any complaint if so inclined.

I worked out the sun's position for London (51.5°N, 0.1°W) and Manchester (53.5°N, 2.3°W). I used NREL's Solar Position Algorithm (Reda & Andreas, Solar Energy 76(5), 2004, pp. 577-589), and the figures can be checked against the US Naval Observatory's altitude/azimuth table at aa.usno.navy.mil/data/AltAz. Between the two timestamps the sun's bearing moves 23 to 24° at both locations, whether the camera clock was on BST or GMT. That's about 0.35° a minute. The shadow of anything vertical on level ground points directly away from the sun, so if the timestamps are right, the bollard and fence-bar shadows should have turned 23 to 24° between the two frames.

The camera looks down at an angle so the distances across the picture are roughly true, but distances away from the camera are squashed. The bollard's base plate is assumed circular but appears 0.44 times as tall as it is wide, so depth is squashed to 0.44. Stretching that back out, the shadow points about 12° off straight across at 12:10:59 and about 8° at 13:17:58. That's roughly 3° of rotation, or 2 to 4° allowing for error in the 0.44. As a check, comparing shadow length with bollard height gives a sun elevation of 45 to 50°, against a calculated 43 to 47°, so the correction is about right.

At 0.35° a minute, 3° is under 10 minutes of sun movement. Allowing for measurement error, I'd put the gap between the frames at 5 to 15 minutes.

The shadows do turn the right way, so the 12:10:59 frame was taken first, and the sun elevation fits midday in mid-April.

The boring explanation is probably a late correction from GMT to BST. If the camera was still on GMT at entry and had been corrected by exit, the real times are 13:10:59 and 13:17:58 BST. Not that that's any excuse.

James_Poisson

Just as I thought!🤯 🤣😂

Half_way

next state of to go after the landowner/car park owner to arty least recover your costs, as in time spent on this