Smart ANPR PCN - Overstay - Forged Evidence on PCN? - ***Won at POPLA***

[BankFodder]

My understanding is that you attracted a PCN and you appealed against it to POPLA and you won.

Well done – that's the end of that story.

Far more interesting is the means by which Smart Parking attempted to apply a PCN to you – apparently by some forged evidence.

I wonder if we could concentrate on that because the rest of the issues which are being raised in this discussion seem generally to me to be no longer relevant as you have won the case.

However, the forgery is interesting because we can have either the basis for action in misrepresentation – or else for unlawful data processing contrary to the data protection act.

If these ideas interest you, then maybe we can start looking at it and it would be helpful if you could begin by uploading a very clear copy of the evidence which you say was forged.

Also, can you tell us did POPLA actually accept that it was forged. Did they comment on it? Did they make any condemnation or criticism of Smart Parking?

[BankFodder]

Thanks for the photographs – but I'm afraid that I don't really understand quite what you are saying here.

On the matter of POPLA, according to their analysis, you didn't even make any allegation of forged evidence in your appeal. Why is that?

I'm struggling to see where the tampering with the images has occurred in the way that you describe. Please could you help me with this.

If it is correct that they have tampered with the images then I would say that there could be the basis of a claim for quite an interesting amount of money – either because of distress caused by unlawful data-processing or else in the way of exemplary damages awarded for the tort of deceit.

However, before we push this further, I'd like to understand it properly and also to be convinced.

[BankFodder]

I've been receiving some private messages from the OP including unredacted images.

I can now see that there is evidence of a possibility of some tampering. On a view of the registration number there would seem to be a misalignment of the first part of the registration with the second part of the registration – but it is very subtle.

Also, seeing that the image of the front of the car is partly obscured by people crossing the road, it certainly difficult to understand how they managed to obtain that clear image of the registration plate and of course this suggestion is that they cobbled the image together using part of the front image and part of the back image – and the joining of the two has resulted in the misalignment.

However it is extremely subtle and because the resolution of the images is very poor and also black-and-white from Smart Parking's own system, it's difficult to say with absolute certainty that there has been some skulduggery.

I'm not sure whether the issue of forgery was put before POPLA but anyway, it doesn't seem as if they have considered it and so they've made no comment.

I think it's going to be very difficult to move forward on this and it would require a level of forensic analysis which would probably cost too much money and with an uncertain outcome.
If there was sufficient evidence of image manipulation which would convince a judge, then I can imagine that damages could go to about £2000 or so and even more importantly serious complaints can be made to the information Commissioner, the DVLA and also the controlling body of this private parking company.
I certainly think that I would send Smart Parking an SAR in order to find out what they got. Of course you may not be able to trust the disclosure which was eventually made – but you never know.

I expect the cost of forensic analysis would cost several hundreds of pounds.

I'm afraid that without finding some nugget in a statutory disclosure or without having a very compelling report from a forensic analyst, I think that it may not be worth pursuing.

[BankFodder]

The burden of proof is with you – and the standard of proof required would be very high – even in a civil case for damages. A judge would be very chary about handing our decision that there had been fraudulent behaviour and would require a very high level of proof.
From what I've seen, I don't think that the evidence on its own will satisfy a judge even though it might raise suspicions and I think that you would need an expert report which had examined the evidence you have and confirmed that there appeared to be fraudulent activity.

As far as contacting the police is concerned – don't bother. They won't take the slightest bit of interest. They certainly won't divert resources to carry out any kind of investigation. You could only have confidence that they would take your complaint seriously if you happen to be closely related to the local police Commissioner or the local chief inspector.

As I've said, submit an SAR and see what happens – but don't hold your breath.

If you want to bring a claim on what you've got then we will help you – but I don't expect it will get very far and it would simply be a waste of money.

[BankFodder]

If you can provide evidence to show that there has been a forgery then I would say that it would result in some interesting damages for you – and yes I think it would be serious for them.

Whether or not it is worth pursuing is a matter for your own judgement.

The comments you have received from the local parking operator are extremely interesting – and if you could get those as a written commentary on the images that you have, then this would be very helpful evidence.

I think you're going to have to wait until you receive the data disclosure

[BankFodder]

Who said they are independent? We have a very strong impression here that they are the lapdog of the BPA

[BankFodder]

Of course it is a delaying tactic.

Also, you are clearly the person that they are threatening with action and they are happy to send those kinds of letters to you and have no difficulty with your identity.

To hurry things along I suggest that you give them what they want but I suggest also that you accompany it with a letter telling them that you realise that they are simply dragging their feet and being obstructive because they are happy to send you threatening letters and even threatened to issue a court claim that your address in your name.

Tell them that if there's any mucking around or any delay that you will begin an action against them on the expiry of day 31.

[BankFodder]

I do think it's going to be very tough. I have flagged it up to the site team to have a look