Parking ticket fraud? (allegedly)
Discussion
Couldn't see a thread about this BBC report.
Wonder where it will go? Single employee disciplined. How could (s)he have doctored photos though? Could easily do numberplates as well in that case. No due diligence by UKPC to ensure that photo timestamps are correct? or company gets massive fine and disappears?
Wonder where it will go? Single employee disciplined. How could (s)he have doctored photos though? Could easily do numberplates as well in that case. No due diligence by UKPC to ensure that photo timestamps are correct? or company gets massive fine and disappears?
SpamDisco said:
He's just changed the time on the camera before taking the pic.
Couldn't change the shadow or the bootlid open on the adjacent car.Makes you wonder WHY an employee would do it - how would he stand to gain personally unless he was being paid a commission on the number of drivers he ticketed?
Of course, when tickets are queried here, there is often a call for drivers to simply "pay up" for overstaying or parking where they perhaps should not.
The investigation by the BPA seems to indicate they believe this dishonesty could be more widespread... than Lincoln and Newcastle under Lyme!
I have seen a parking company employee at Southport Hospital collecting money from drivers who observed a "Machine Not Working" notice on the pay machine, then overriding the barrier to let them out - yet some drivers who ignored the notice found it to be working fine.
Edited by Mill Wheel on Wednesday 9th September 13:54
Mill Wheel said:
Couldn't change the shadow or the bootlid open on the adjacent car.
Makes you wonder WHY an employee would do it - how would he stand to gain personally unless he was being paid a commission on the number of drivers he ticketed?
To even try that on with the bootlid and even the same car next door/behind still on show is shocking. Makes you wonder WHY an employee would do it - how would he stand to gain personally unless he was being paid a commission on the number of drivers he ticketed?
From that photo, every vehicle in that shot must also have gone over the allowed time.
You have already answered the question I believe. An employee wouldn't do it...unless there was targets/commission in place.
That time stamp trick is the type of stunt I used to pull in my early work days when I finished a job earlier than scheduled. Change the time stamp on the camera to make it look like I took it later on.
Mill Wheel said:
Makes you wonder WHY an employee would do it - how would he stand to gain personally unless he was being paid a commission on the number of drivers he ticketed?
Of course, when tickets are queried here, there is often a call for drivers to simply "pay up" for overstaying or parking where they perhaps should not.
The investigation by the BPA seems to indicate they believe this dishonesty could be more widespread... than Lincoln and Newcastle under Lyme!
Because the parking wardens are targeted to issue so many tickets in order to get paid.Of course, when tickets are queried here, there is often a call for drivers to simply "pay up" for overstaying or parking where they perhaps should not.
The investigation by the BPA seems to indicate they believe this dishonesty could be more widespread... than Lincoln and Newcastle under Lyme!
Edited by Mill Wheel on Wednesday 9th September 13:54
UKPC are a bunch of underhand, scheming and scamming chancers, and at risk of upsetting BV72, I have appealed in excess of 50 of their spurious tickets at 1st line appeal, and at POPLA.
They are one of many similar companies that use many underhand tricks and tactics to extort money from people - most of these companies are run by former clamping cowboys, so we know just how morally upstanding they can be.
Not in the slightest bit widely known, but many digital cameras record the time a photo was taken - as part of the files properties. Nothing to do with on-screen display at all.
So if the modified photo was not fully over-written by a new one, this would have the time of creation, and to 'prove' overstaying one of the photos will near enough tally with the screen imprint, and one will be no-where near.
Not terribly difficult to read providing one gets an electronic, not a printed jpg. Google Exif jpeg properties to read more.
So if the modified photo was not fully over-written by a new one, this would have the time of creation, and to 'prove' overstaying one of the photos will near enough tally with the screen imprint, and one will be no-where near.
Not terribly difficult to read providing one gets an electronic, not a printed jpg. Google Exif jpeg properties to read more.
I'm local, and this has been all over the local facebook pages for the last week or so.
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2015/09/parking-firm-ad...
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2015/09/parking-firm-ad...
Edited by CoolC on Friday 11th September 14:26
Slidingpillar said:
Not in the slightest bit widely known, but many digital cameras record the time a photo was taken - as part of the files properties. Nothing to do with on-screen display at all.
So if the modified photo was not fully over-written by a new one, this would have the time of creation, and to 'prove' overstaying one of the photos will near enough tally with the screen imprint, and one will be no-where near.
Not terribly difficult to read providing one gets an electronic, not a printed jpg. Google Exif jpeg properties to read more.
If the warden has changed the time in the camera properties - this won't help.So if the modified photo was not fully over-written by a new one, this would have the time of creation, and to 'prove' overstaying one of the photos will near enough tally with the screen imprint, and one will be no-where near.
Not terribly difficult to read providing one gets an electronic, not a printed jpg. Google Exif jpeg properties to read more.
By the looks of it - they took one picture - went into the menu and changed the time - then took another photo. The time recorded in the EXIF will be the time set on the camera - which is easy to change. I haven't come across a digital camera that allows you to set the onboard time and the screen display time separately.
The give-away that the images were taken close together in time is that the shadow in the first sets of pics is the same, whereas two hours difference in sun position would have altered the shadow dramatically. In the second set of pics the boot of a car behind is open in both pics and all of the surrounding cars appear to be the same (i.e. not one person moved their car in ~2 hours?) - which is highly unlikely.
Moonhawk said:
Slidingpillar said:
Not in the slightest bit widely known, but many digital cameras record the time a photo was taken - as part of the files properties. Nothing to do with on-screen display at all.
So if the modified photo was not fully over-written by a new one, this would have the time of creation, and to 'prove' overstaying one of the photos will near enough tally with the screen imprint, and one will be no-where near.
Not terribly difficult to read providing one gets an electronic, not a printed jpg. Google Exif jpeg properties to read more.
If the warden has changed the time in the camera properties - this won't help.So if the modified photo was not fully over-written by a new one, this would have the time of creation, and to 'prove' overstaying one of the photos will near enough tally with the screen imprint, and one will be no-where near.
Not terribly difficult to read providing one gets an electronic, not a printed jpg. Google Exif jpeg properties to read more.
By the looks of it - they took one picture - went into the menu and changed the time - then took another photo. The time recorded in the EXIF will be the time set on the camera - which is easy to change. I haven't come across a digital camera that allows you to set the onboard time and the screen display time separately.
The give-away that the images were taken close together in time is that the shadow in the first sets of pics is the same, whereas two hours difference in sun position would have altered the shadow dramatically. In the second set of pics the boot of a car behind is open in both pics and all of the surrounding cars appear to be the same (i.e. not one person moved their car in ~2 hours?) - which is highly unlikely.
WinstonWolf said:
Sundials are actually pretty accurate, it's how I tell the time on holiday
I hope it doesn't rain! 
The thing is, it is so blatant, the parking firm should have spotted it sooner. Either they don't check the pictures, or don't care.
So who becomes responsible for reimbursing the driver... including the time it takes to write letters etc., and follow up the paperwork?
The Parking Companies charge for admin - Parking Eye would charge £80 to £115 depending on which of their client's car parks you transgress in (yeah.. go figure!), so wouldn't it be reasonable to claim back a similar fee plus the charge?
After all a novice is bound to have higher costs than the professionals!
Moonhawk said:
If the warden has changed the time in the camera properties - this won't help.
By the looks of it - they took one picture - went into the menu and changed the time - then took another photo. The time recorded in the EXIF will be the time set on the camera - which is easy to change. I haven't come across a digital camera that allows you to set the onboard time and the screen display time separately.
True, it depends how the fiddle was done, either by altering the onboard time of the camera, or by a bit of photoshoppery in which case, yes, sundials! By the looks of it - they took one picture - went into the menu and changed the time - then took another photo. The time recorded in the EXIF will be the time set on the camera - which is easy to change. I haven't come across a digital camera that allows you to set the onboard time and the screen display time separately.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff