Quality of photos required to prove offence
Discussion
I know we often get threads on here with people stating they can't make out who is in the provided picture(s) and that it could be anyone. This is a variation on that theme.
I've received a parking charge notice. The contravention allegedly took place between 23:53 and 00:36 a week ago at a railway station. They have provided two pictures (arrival and departure). The problem is that because of the time of day and it appears no other lighting, both pictures are black squares in which you can just about make out a number plate in the centre of each one. There is literally no other detail - the pictures could have been taken anywhere and they could just be of a number plate.
Does anyone have any experience of this kind of thing?
I've received a parking charge notice. The contravention allegedly took place between 23:53 and 00:36 a week ago at a railway station. They have provided two pictures (arrival and departure). The problem is that because of the time of day and it appears no other lighting, both pictures are black squares in which you can just about make out a number plate in the centre of each one. There is literally no other detail - the pictures could have been taken anywhere and they could just be of a number plate.
Does anyone have any experience of this kind of thing?
Are these pictures printed on the paperwork you received or online via a link?
We had issues with the Dart crossing and the paperwork pictures were almost unreadable. This was just a low resolution printing issue and the actual pictures on the computer were much better and allowed the issue to be sorted.
It may be worth calling the company involved.
We had issues with the Dart crossing and the paperwork pictures were almost unreadable. This was just a low resolution printing issue and the actual pictures on the computer were much better and allowed the issue to be sorted.
It may be worth calling the company involved.
Starfighter said:
Are these pictures printed on the paperwork you received or online via a link?
We had issues with the Dart crossing and the paperwork pictures were almost unreadable. This was just a low resolution printing issue and the actual pictures on the computer were much better and allowed the issue to be sorted.
It may be worth calling the company involved.
There is some sort of online portal and and you say there may well be better quality images there. I'll take a look later.We had issues with the Dart crossing and the paperwork pictures were almost unreadable. This was just a low resolution printing issue and the actual pictures on the computer were much better and allowed the issue to be sorted.
It may be worth calling the company involved.
The railway company know where the pictures were taken: they can identify the camera(s) and their locations.
If the number plates are clearly readable then I don't think you have a leg to stand on in challenging them (unless you are going to claim they were on another vehicle
).
If you know your car was there at the time, then simply pay the fine.
If the number plates are clearly readable then I don't think you have a leg to stand on in challenging them (unless you are going to claim they were on another vehicle
).If you know your car was there at the time, then simply pay the fine.
Miss reading the number can happen, I received a penalty notice yesterday for not paying a toll over 5hours drive away. And a few months back my wife got one for a Hospital car park further north.
In both cases and others historically, the pictures did indeed look like our number plates, but the vehicle makes were totally wrong. So, not even a cloner.
In both cases and others historically, the pictures did indeed look like our number plates, but the vehicle makes were totally wrong. So, not even a cloner.
Silverage said:
I know we often get threads on here with people stating they can't make out who is in the provided picture(s) and that it could be anyone. This is a variation on that theme.
I've received a parking charge notice. The contravention allegedly took place between 23:53 and 00:36 a week ago at a railway station. They have provided two pictures (arrival and departure). The problem is that because of the time of day and it appears no other lighting, both pictures are black squares in which you can just about make out a number plate in the centre of each one. There is literally no other detail - the pictures could have been taken anywhere and they could just be of a number plate.
Does anyone have any experience of this kind of thing?
You're guilty aren't you?I've received a parking charge notice. The contravention allegedly took place between 23:53 and 00:36 a week ago at a railway station. They have provided two pictures (arrival and departure). The problem is that because of the time of day and it appears no other lighting, both pictures are black squares in which you can just about make out a number plate in the centre of each one. There is literally no other detail - the pictures could have been taken anywhere and they could just be of a number plate.
Does anyone have any experience of this kind of thing?
If you were there, pay up.
Yes there have been a few threads like this, whats interesting is in most cases the camera and the offence that took place got it all correct. The post is less to do with questioning the technology and more around trying to wriggle out of getting caught on a technicality.
If you were there, the car in the picture is yours, and you did do what the notice alleges then its very likely the tech works fine and the print out you have is just a low resolution print, otherwise how would they have sent you the notice if they couldn't properly read your number plate?
If you weren't there then go back and counter it saying where you were and to double check the imagery they have used. Usually if its a number plate misread then its likely the car in the picture (let alone the plate) isn't yours.
If you were there, the car in the picture is yours, and you did do what the notice alleges then its very likely the tech works fine and the print out you have is just a low resolution print, otherwise how would they have sent you the notice if they couldn't properly read your number plate?
If you weren't there then go back and counter it saying where you were and to double check the imagery they have used. Usually if its a number plate misread then its likely the car in the picture (let alone the plate) isn't yours.
Silverage said:
I know we often get threads on here with people stating they can't make out who is in the provided picture(s) and that it could be anyone. This is a variation on that theme.
I've received a parking charge notice. The contravention allegedly took place between 23:53 and 00:36 a week ago at a railway station. They have provided two pictures (arrival and departure). The problem is that because of the time of day and it appears no other lighting, both pictures are black squares in which you can just about make out a number plate in the centre of each one. There is literally no other detail - the pictures could have been taken anywhere and they could just be of a number plate.
Does anyone have any experience of this kind of thing?
Was your car at the Railway Station a week ago between 23:53 and 00:36 ?I've received a parking charge notice. The contravention allegedly took place between 23:53 and 00:36 a week ago at a railway station. They have provided two pictures (arrival and departure). The problem is that because of the time of day and it appears no other lighting, both pictures are black squares in which you can just about make out a number plate in the centre of each one. There is literally no other detail - the pictures could have been taken anywhere and they could just be of a number plate.
Does anyone have any experience of this kind of thing?
Silverage said:
The question I am asking really is what is the minimum standard of photographic evidence they have to provide, if any?
I would suggest what you have is the 'minimum' If you don't agree then go back to them
If you know for a fact your car was there, at that time, then clearly you are going to spend your own time chasing departments for this then end up paying the fine because they have a pic of your number plate clear enough that allowed them to identify it correctly and contact you.
Silverage said:
The question I am asking really is what is the minimum standard of photographic evidence they have to provide, if any?
I don't think the legal system works like that. Evidence is evidence. If you really end up fighting it, I guess it can be tested and challenged - along with the further records (timestamp, camera ID etc) which are probably in the system that captured the image. I did this the other day and it worked. They have gone away and not come back to me. They sent an oddly worded response and did not confirm that they had given up but there has been no follow-up. Deliberately hand written and deliberately timed so it would be difficult to follow up being over xmas. No threating or complicated language or any obvious awareness of any regs or laws. Basically the finest carefully honed skills all brought together into one superb document. I've not paid a parking fine or any other civic penalty in decades.
WrekinCrew said:
Railway property is not "relevant land" for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act so they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.
Search on "POFA railway" for more info and the standard wording to appeal.
That's interesting. Search on "POFA railway" for more info and the standard wording to appeal.
The car belongs to a company so they have sent their charge notice to "the company secretary". They have invited them to pay up or tell them who the driver was.
ANPR does not work from the photo images they supply.
It works from a video feed so it can piece together the reg from hundreds of video frames.
If the car wasn't there, say so.
If it was there, it's your choice whether you lie about it or not.
I think this is a civil matter so 'proof' might be balance of probabilities?
It's not funny Scotch law with 'not proven' on the menu.
If one was, hypothetically, to lie about the car not being there, would we be moving into the realms of 'criminal'?
It works from a video feed so it can piece together the reg from hundreds of video frames.
If the car wasn't there, say so.
If it was there, it's your choice whether you lie about it or not.
I think this is a civil matter so 'proof' might be balance of probabilities?
It's not funny Scotch law with 'not proven' on the menu.
If one was, hypothetically, to lie about the car not being there, would we be moving into the realms of 'criminal'?
Silverage said:
The question I am asking really is what is the minimum standard of photographic evidence they have to provide, if any?
The question we are asking is ‘were you there’. If no, your question is valid. If yes, then stop trying to find loopholes to get out of something you have done, and just pay up?ChevronB19 said:
Silverage said:
The question I am asking really is what is the minimum standard of photographic evidence they have to provide, if any?
The question we are asking is ‘were you there’. If no, your question is valid. If yes, then stop trying to find loopholes to get out of something you have done, and just pay up?Speed Matters | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff