Soeedwatch letter, cloned plate?
Discussion
What’s the best way to deal with this?
Obv wasn’t us.
No number to call, and the pnn sub-domain appears to be for public operators so either unable to act on cloned plate info, or the source of a false reading.
In either case I can’t see how emailing them would be valuable.
Without the evidence at hand it’s unclear if this is incompetence of some member of public with bad eyesight, or is a genuine case of a cloned plate and needs relating to the right place accordingly.
Does anyone know the best avenue to report suspected cloned plates?
Many thanks for any advice
Obv wasn’t us.
No number to call, and the pnn sub-domain appears to be for public operators so either unable to act on cloned plate info, or the source of a false reading.
In either case I can’t see how emailing them would be valuable.
Without the evidence at hand it’s unclear if this is incompetence of some member of public with bad eyesight, or is a genuine case of a cloned plate and needs relating to the right place accordingly.
Does anyone know the best avenue to report suspected cloned plates?
Many thanks for any advice
101?
If it's not an actual camera then you're probably right about it being some old duffer watching the speed indicator flash red and trying to note a number plate from distance.
The date of the "offence" is 3 months ago. If someone had cloned your plates, I would bet my mortgage they'd have also helped themselves to a few free tanks of fuel and driven off.
If you've not had any notice of that (or an actual NIP / parking ticket) I'd say it's an incorrect number plate reported.
If it's not an actual camera then you're probably right about it being some old duffer watching the speed indicator flash red and trying to note a number plate from distance.
The date of the "offence" is 3 months ago. If someone had cloned your plates, I would bet my mortgage they'd have also helped themselves to a few free tanks of fuel and driven off.
If you've not had any notice of that (or an actual NIP / parking ticket) I'd say it's an incorrect number plate reported.
Pixel Pusher said:
101?
If it's not an actual camera then you're probably right about it being some old duffer watching the speed indicator flash red and trying to note a number plate from distance.
The date of the "offence" is 3 months ago. If someone had cloned your plates, I would bet my mortgage they'd have also helped themselves to a few free tanks of fuel and driven off.
If you've not had any notice of that (or an actual NIP / parking ticket) I'd say it's an incorrect number plate reported.
No there has been nothing else that we know of.If it's not an actual camera then you're probably right about it being some old duffer watching the speed indicator flash red and trying to note a number plate from distance.
The date of the "offence" is 3 months ago. If someone had cloned your plates, I would bet my mortgage they'd have also helped themselves to a few free tanks of fuel and driven off.
If you've not had any notice of that (or an actual NIP / parking ticket) I'd say it's an incorrect number plate reported.
It’s pretty crap they don’t provide a photo then you can at least act accordingly.
As it stands this is just wasting my time… and I also know interfacing with people like this is likely to just waste more time.
I’ll just go with 101 on the basis I trust these people as the police trust them sufficiently to get letters like this sent out.
It is annoying though as if this was misread and it’s reported as cloned I’m likely going to be pulled lots to check all is correct.
Fine if it has been, but annoying if Mr Myopic is reading plates in Reading.
Agree, how do I prove it?
I suppose all I can say is that unless my car is Herbie, then they’d need a photo of the driver, or the car sufficiently detailed enough to show the tell-tale differences, to allow us to confirm the car and driver isn’t us to ‘prove’ innocence.
After all, the VRM isn’t the car. It’s the VRM.
And the driver isn’t the registered keeper, or the VRM.
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 12th December 16:17
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 12th December 16:23
A quick look at the Thames Valley Police website shows this form as being about the closest fit to your case.
https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/advice/advice-a...
As others have suggested, a full explanation of why it "obv wasn't us" would help.
https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/advice/advice-a...
As others have suggested, a full explanation of why it "obv wasn't us" would help.
Edited by PV7998 on Thursday 12th December 16:20
Interesting as my local village has mutterings of similar schemes now that there's an agreement in place to drop the speed limit to 20mph and also drop the approaching roads from 60mph to 40mph. However, if I was in receipt of such letters and the VRN recorded was mine however I knew I was absolutely not responsible... on principal I think I'd want it escalated and quashed and I'd want answers from whoever sanctions such schemes to explain why I was being falsely accused. Granted, it's a faff but when is enough enough when it comes to being targeted incorrectly?
Davie said:
Interesting as my local village has mutterings of similar schemes now that there's an agreement in place to drop the speed limit to 20mph and also drop the approaching roads from 60mph to 40mph. However, if I was in receipt of such letters and the VRN recorded was mine however I knew I was absolutely not responsible... on principal I think I'd want it escalated and quashed and I'd want answers from whoever sanctions such schemes to explain why I was being falsely accused. Granted, it's a faff but when is enough enough when it comes to being targeted incorrectly?
Agree although not sure sending one email is particularly painful and a lot less painful than ringing to be ignored. If the OP knows for a fact it wasn’t his car no can’t prove where his car was then given either the cloning situation or just the wrong number recorded he should worry about that more than proving it wasn’t him.
Mr Whippy said:
No there has been nothing else that we know of.
It’s pretty crap they don’t provide a photo then you can at least act accordingly.
As it stands this is just wasting my time… and I also know interfacing with people like this is likely to just waste more time.
I’ll just go with 101 on the basis I trust these people as the police trust them sufficiently to get letters like this sent out.
It is annoying though as if this was misread and it’s reported as cloned I’m likely going to be pulled lots to check all is correct.
Fine if it has been, but annoying if Mr Myopic is reading plates in Reading.
Agree, how do I prove it?
I suppose all I can say is that unless my car is Herbie, then they’d need a photo of the driver, or the car sufficiently detailed enough to show the tell-tale differences, to allow us to confirm the car and driver isn’t us to ‘prove’ innocence.
After all, the VRM isn’t the car. It’s the VRM.
And the driver isn’t the registered keeper, or the VRM.
Instead of insulting other people just do as others have said. It’s an official letter sent by the Police admin support, not the Speedwatch group as they have no access to your details. Just contact the coordinator and point out there may be a mistake. And just to get the facts correct, at least two people have to record the number, to try to prevent misreads. The coordinator should be able to confirm two separate voice recordings or written records….if not…the process doesn’t meet guidelines. It’s pretty crap they don’t provide a photo then you can at least act accordingly.
As it stands this is just wasting my time… and I also know interfacing with people like this is likely to just waste more time.
I’ll just go with 101 on the basis I trust these people as the police trust them sufficiently to get letters like this sent out.
It is annoying though as if this was misread and it’s reported as cloned I’m likely going to be pulled lots to check all is correct.
Fine if it has been, but annoying if Mr Myopic is reading plates in Reading.
Agree, how do I prove it?
I suppose all I can say is that unless my car is Herbie, then they’d need a photo of the driver, or the car sufficiently detailed enough to show the tell-tale differences, to allow us to confirm the car and driver isn’t us to ‘prove’ innocence.
After all, the VRM isn’t the car. It’s the VRM.
And the driver isn’t the registered keeper, or the VRM.
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 12th December 16:17
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 12th December 16:23
I’ll phone 101 and raise my concerns, and that they need to provide evidence otherwise they’re just upsetting random people.
They’ve stated correct make and model, but I assume they’re taking that from the database from the VRM.
If they’re not then it’s more likely a clone than a mis-read plate.
But the ambiguity, time wasting, and distress.
I’d prefer to have a NIP and ability to make a clear statement and act.
Instead I’m left having to basically ask for evidence, not least because they’ve caused us to now worry about our car being cloned.
They’ve stated correct make and model, but I assume they’re taking that from the database from the VRM.
If they’re not then it’s more likely a clone than a mis-read plate.
But the ambiguity, time wasting, and distress.
I’d prefer to have a NIP and ability to make a clear statement and act.
Instead I’m left having to basically ask for evidence, not least because they’ve caused us to now worry about our car being cloned.
Mr Whippy said:
I’ll phone 101 and raise my concerns, and that they need to provide evidence otherwise they’re just upsetting random people.
They’ve stated correct make and model, but I assume they’re taking that from the database from the VRM.
If they’re not then it’s more likely a clone than a mis-read plate.
But the ambiguity, time wasting, and distress.
I’d prefer to have a NIP and ability to make a clear statement and act.
Instead I’m left having to basically ask for evidence, not least because they’ve caused us to now worry about our car being cloned.
Obviously your call entirely but not sure why you’ve posted given you are ignoring all the replies and in the time “ wasted “ you could have sent a suitable email which hopefully at the very least would be cathartic and have in writing the start of whatever process needs doing. They’ve stated correct make and model, but I assume they’re taking that from the database from the VRM.
If they’re not then it’s more likely a clone than a mis-read plate.
But the ambiguity, time wasting, and distress.
I’d prefer to have a NIP and ability to make a clear statement and act.
Instead I’m left having to basically ask for evidence, not least because they’ve caused us to now worry about our car being cloned.
Bobtherallyfan said:
Mr Whippy said:
No there has been nothing else that we know of.
It’s pretty crap they don’t provide a photo then you can at least act accordingly.
As it stands this is just wasting my time… and I also know interfacing with people like this is likely to just waste more time.
I’ll just go with 101 on the basis I trust these people as the police trust them sufficiently to get letters like this sent out.
It is annoying though as if this was misread and it’s reported as cloned I’m likely going to be pulled lots to check all is correct.
Fine if it has been, but annoying if Mr Myopic is reading plates in Reading.
Agree, how do I prove it?
I suppose all I can say is that unless my car is Herbie, then they’d need a photo of the driver, or the car sufficiently detailed enough to show the tell-tale differences, to allow us to confirm the car and driver isn’t us to ‘prove’ innocence.
After all, the VRM isn’t the car. It’s the VRM.
And the driver isn’t the registered keeper, or the VRM.
Instead of insulting other people just do as others have said. It’s an official letter sent by the Police admin support, not the Speedwatch group as they have no access to your details. Just contact the coordinator and point out there may be a mistake. And just to get the facts correct, at least two people have to record the number, to try to prevent misreads. The coordinator should be able to confirm two separate voice recordings or written records….if not…the process doesn’t meet guidelines. It’s pretty crap they don’t provide a photo then you can at least act accordingly.
As it stands this is just wasting my time… and I also know interfacing with people like this is likely to just waste more time.
I’ll just go with 101 on the basis I trust these people as the police trust them sufficiently to get letters like this sent out.
It is annoying though as if this was misread and it’s reported as cloned I’m likely going to be pulled lots to check all is correct.
Fine if it has been, but annoying if Mr Myopic is reading plates in Reading.
Agree, how do I prove it?
I suppose all I can say is that unless my car is Herbie, then they’d need a photo of the driver, or the car sufficiently detailed enough to show the tell-tale differences, to allow us to confirm the car and driver isn’t us to ‘prove’ innocence.
After all, the VRM isn’t the car. It’s the VRM.
And the driver isn’t the registered keeper, or the VRM.
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 12th December 16:17
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 12th December 16:23
They’re the ones writing letters telling my wife she’s done something she hasn’t.
Then failed to provide any means to contest, query or anything else.
We had to use Google to determine the pnn sub-domain is an official police email (lest this be a scam of some sort) because the formal website didn’t offer their email address. Again googling to find it.
The pnn is supposedly for public use, makes sense as speedwatch are s public group.
But it’s not made clear who/what/how, the website doesn’t provide any clear information on this.
So perhaps I’d be more respectful if this didn’t all just read like a scam.
Then need 30mins of us checking Google to find out it’s legitimate.
Then wondering how we’d ‘prove’ it wasn’t us… I say ‘prove’ because it’s unclear how you do this.
But your post is helpful. If that is definitely the right vrm, then it’s cloned.
I’ll ring 101 and report accordingly as cloned.
Can't imagine engaging with them is likely to help (would they even reply?).
A couple of years ago, I got 2 letters on the same day for 2 alleged speedwatch violations on the same day.
I had seen the locals/pensioners with the speedgun and had noted that I was under the (30mph) limit but that didn't stop them reporting me for speeding twice with the second letter accusing me of the same offence just a few minutes later. Now, whether anyone believes I was speeding or not, I definitely only drove through that village once so the second 'offence' was bogus, bringing into doubt the competence of the 'speedwatchers'.
I did consider taking it up with the Police that had sent the letter, at least on the accusation of the repeat incident which, though I couldn't prove was bogus, would have seemed unlikely under the circumstances but I can't imagine it would have been of any benefit as I'm sure they would backup the SW team rather than a random motorist and as there was no sanction, it didn't seem worth the bother or possibility of any escalation.
I guess there's a reason that enforcement is only done by someone 'competent'.
A couple of years ago, I got 2 letters on the same day for 2 alleged speedwatch violations on the same day.
I had seen the locals/pensioners with the speedgun and had noted that I was under the (30mph) limit but that didn't stop them reporting me for speeding twice with the second letter accusing me of the same offence just a few minutes later. Now, whether anyone believes I was speeding or not, I definitely only drove through that village once so the second 'offence' was bogus, bringing into doubt the competence of the 'speedwatchers'.
I did consider taking it up with the Police that had sent the letter, at least on the accusation of the repeat incident which, though I couldn't prove was bogus, would have seemed unlikely under the circumstances but I can't imagine it would have been of any benefit as I'm sure they would backup the SW team rather than a random motorist and as there was no sanction, it didn't seem worth the bother or possibility of any escalation.
I guess there's a reason that enforcement is only done by someone 'competent'.
alscar said:
Mr Whippy said:
I’ll phone 101 and raise my concerns, and that they need to provide evidence otherwise they’re just upsetting random people.
They’ve stated correct make and model, but I assume they’re taking that from the database from the VRM.
If they’re not then it’s more likely a clone than a mis-read plate.
But the ambiguity, time wasting, and distress.
I’d prefer to have a NIP and ability to make a clear statement and act.
Instead I’m left having to basically ask for evidence, not least because they’ve caused us to now worry about our car being cloned.
Obviously your call entirely but not sure why you’ve posted given you are ignoring all the replies and in the time “ wasted “ you could have sent a suitable email which hopefully at the very least would be cathartic and have in writing the start of whatever process needs doing. They’ve stated correct make and model, but I assume they’re taking that from the database from the VRM.
If they’re not then it’s more likely a clone than a mis-read plate.
But the ambiguity, time wasting, and distress.
I’d prefer to have a NIP and ability to make a clear statement and act.
Instead I’m left having to basically ask for evidence, not least because they’ve caused us to now worry about our car being cloned.
It’s the speedwatchers.
My concern is the cloned car. But I can’t determine that if they have no rigorous process for recording vrm.
Bob thermally fan has stated they do have a robust vrm recording process so assuming he knows his stuff, I have all the info I need from speedwatch.
They’ve spotted a car with my vrm on it.
It wasn’t us.
Thus I can just ring 101 and inform plod we suspect it’s cloned as it wasn’t us.
BertBert said:
If it was me, I'd bin it and move on
Main concern was is if the car has been cloned.I won’t pretend they’ve not been useful in that.
It seems there is a case in their operating procedures for the speedwatchers being reliable, but also suggestions they make stuff up.
But in any case, 101 can take my concern about cloned plate based on them saying my car was in Reading on said date when it clearly wasn’t.
Bobtherallyfan said:
Instead of insulting other people just do as others have said. It’s an official letter sent by the Police admin support, not the Speedwatch group as they have no access to your details. Just contact the coordinator and point out there may be a mistake. And just to get the facts correct, at least two people have to record the number, to try to prevent misreads. The coordinator should be able to confirm two separate voice recordings or written records….if not…the process doesn’t meet guidelines.
You seem to be familiar with how speedwatch record data.Do you know if they just record vrm, or vrm and car make/model/colour?
They state on the letter the make/model. Is this recorded at the time, or just inferred from the vrm/dvla records?
Again I’m trying to genuinely figure out if this is a clone or a misread.
I’d prefer not to register my VRM as cloned if it’s not as it’s going to cause headaches with police stopping us going about our day to day lives in North Yorkshire… not London.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff