Fake CEO Issues 150 'Parking Tickets' to Cars in Two Hours!

[Nigel W]

I said that due to the 'Self Ticketing Menace' http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1201.msg9993.html#msg9993 that it would not be long before this type of thing started to happen.

It has happend already:

"Conman slapped 150 fake parking tickets onto cars in Sale and Timperley.
 
A conman created fake parking tickets using his home computer – and slapped them on 150 cars in just two hours.

Christopher Povey, an unemployed dad-of-three, targeted cars on roads in Sale and Timperley and then photographed them. The tickets demanded motorists pay a £60 fine or £35 within 10 days and told them to send a cheque to a PO Box address.

Four drivers fell for the scam and sent cheques, but police were alerted by suspicious residents and now Povey, 41, has been found guilty of fraud."

Four people paid these obviously fake tickets that were issued to vehicles parked on the road. This tends to show that many people would pay a ticket issued by a private parking company issued in a private car park.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1487708_conman-slapped-150-fake-parking-tickets-onto-cars-in-sale-and-timperley

[The Bald Eagle]

Every day, real CEOs issue tickets they know are not enforceable (normally under duress from their bosses).

Is this not a criminal offence too?

[The Bald Eagle]

The Bald Eagle is plotting.

[blackadder]

Every day, real CEOs issue tickets they know are not enforceable (normally under duress from their bosses).

Is this not a criminal offence too?

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2110499979
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2110393060
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2110526222
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=211021740A
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2090414415
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2090390995
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100087920
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100040916
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2120034891
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100118605
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2110347915
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100416126
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100359372
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2110661308

The content of the 'Skeleton Argument suggested, and on his own admission Mr. Mehta accepted, that he was neither wholly familiar with parking law, nor au fait with the specific issues leading to the Adjournment

[Nigel W]

The list of PCN's above discloses the practice of some CEO's who don't issue PCN's. They falsely state that they have fixed them to the vehicle or even handed them to the driver but they have not done so.

This has the effect of denying the recipient the opportunity of effectively challenging the PCN. When the Notice to Owner arrives this is the first the recipient knows about the alleged contravention.

Gathering evidence in support of an appeal is also then made more difficult. This is also the case with alleged contraventions that are captured by CCTV.

There have even been cases where even though a CEO has taken a photograph of a PCN stuck to a windscreen it has not been issued. After affixing and photographing it in situ the CEO then removes it.

Some CEO's do this for the reasons above and also to avoid being confronted by the recipient further down the road.

[blackadder]

The list of PCN's above discloses the practice of some CEO's who don't issue PCN's. They falsely state that they have fixed them to the vehicle or even handed them to the driver but they have not done so.
This has the effect of denying the recipient the opportunity of effectively challenging the PCN. When the Notice to Owner arrives this is the first the recipient knows about the alleged contravention.

Gathering evidence in support of an appeal is also then made more difficult. This is also the case with alleged contraventions that are captured by CCTV.

There have even been cases where even though a CEO has taken a photograph of a PCN stuck to a windscreen it has not been issued. After affixing and photographing it in situ the CEO then removes it.

Some CEO's do this for the reasons above and also to avoid being confronted by the recipient further down the road.

Yet all NTO's states:
I confirm that the information I have given is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that making a false statement may result in prosecution and a possible fine of up to £5,000.

One rule for.........

[DastardlyDick]

I can't access any of the cases highlighted above, but I would suggest that some of the appelants may be being a little 'economical with the actualite'. I personally cannot see the point of photographing the vehicle with the PCN attached, and then removing it, however, if there is admissable evidence that this has occurred then the CEOs allegedly responsible should indeed be held to account before the Criminal Courts.

[blackadder]

I can't access any of the cases highlighted above, but I would suggest that some of the appellants may be being a little 'economical with the actualite'. I personally cannot see the point of photographing the vehicle with the PCN attached, and then removing it, however, if there is admissable evidence that this has occurred then the CEOs allegedly responsible should indeed be held to account before the Criminal Courts.

It is  well known and  ticket scam known to have been used by desperate CEOs to get around observation time issues and so issue more tickets.They do it because it is hard to disprove as with the "handed it to the driver" scam.

"Every photo is date stamped via the camera so if a PA come across any vehicle offending
they could set the camera 10 minutes or so fast - log the details in of the
vehicle, slap an empty ticket bag on the car and take photo's to look like
it's been ticketed, remove the bag and note the tax details etc before
walking away. The driver returns and assumes he's okay coz he was only gone a
few minutes and there's no ticket. About 10 minutes later somewhere out of sight, the PA prints out the ticket
and bins it !!! Because the camera time
is 10 mins fast it coincides with the PDA time and ticket - if the driver
appeals, the photos are there which show the ticket on the car."

This appeal concerns an incident in Worsopp Drive on 2 June 2010.  Mr XXXXXXX's driver was stopped to make 2 deliveries.  As the driver returned to the vehicle he noticed a Civil Enforcement Officer in the vicinity of the vehicle, but who then departed on his pushbike.  The driver found an empty Penalty Charge Notice jacket attached to the vehicle.

I therefore direct that he London Borough of Lambeth pay to Mr XXXXXXX the sum of £23.55 forthwith. 

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100416126


There is no reason for the apellant  lie about the empty pcn jacket attached to the vehcle as he already has a number of strong appeal points.

I've had a look at the  photo and video viewing website regarding this pcn:  http://parkingphotos.lambeth.gov.uk/login.asp
and it looks like a empty pcn bag to me, but it is not 100% conclusive.

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours when in Lillieshall Road on 12 February 2009 at 09.54.

The Appellant's case is that their vehicle was parked with permission of a Civil Enforcement Officer to collect an animal, and that the Officer did not put the Penalty Charge Notice in the plastic envelope that was attached to the Appellant's vehicle.
 
I find the Appellant's evidence to be credible and convincing. I have considered the evidence in this case I find, on the balance of probabilities, as a fact, that the Penalty Charge Notice was not placed in the plastic envelope that the Civil Enforcement Officer attached to the Appellant's vehicle.
The Civil Enforcement Officer has noted that the driver of the vehicle was seen and I find it highly unlikely that the Penalty Charge Notice could have been removed or lost due to the weather.
 
Further, I am satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was parked for the purpose of collecting an animal with a Civil Enforcement Officer permission.
 
The appeal is allowed.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2090414415

Again there is no reason for the appellant to lie regarding the empty pcn envelope as the appellant's
vehicle had a valid exemption to park where it was, as pointed out by the
adjudicator.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Again there is no reason for the appellant to lie regarding the empty pcn envelope as the appellant's
vehicle had a valid exemption to park where it was, as pointed out by the
adjudicator.

That much should be obvious. An appellant found to be lying faces a criminal conviction. A weasel found to be lying faces, worst case scenario, a judgement of 'appeal allowed.'

 

[DastardlyDick]

Again there is no reason for the appellant to lie regarding the empty pcn envelope as the appellant's
vehicle had a valid exemption to park where it was, as pointed out by the
adjudicator.

That much should be obvious. An appellant found to be lying faces a criminal conviction. A weasel found to be lying faces, worst case scenario, a judgement of 'appeal allowed.'

 

People will lie to get a PCN cancelled.

Let me give you an example -
I had to deal with a gentleman who had been given a PCN for parking in a loading bay and was (understandably) upset and having a fairly heated argument with the CEO regarding observation time, he'd been continuously loading etc. etc. I checked the CEOs computer, which showed 6 minutes observation (the machines are set so that a PCN cannot be issued unless 5 minutes has elapsed). I told the gentleman that as far as I could see, he'd been given the PCN correctly, and advised him to use the Appeal process to which he replied "oh well, I'll just get the bloke in there to say I was". I went inside the shop and asked the owner who told me that they'd been "sitting down having a cuppa for about 20 minutes".

Unfortunately, I've found that the prospect of a £65 'fine' makes lying a bit more palatable to some people, and what makes this example more reprehensible (IMO) is that not only was the chap who'd committed the contravention clearly willing to perjure himself, he was also going to ask another person to do the same.

By no means am I saying that all CEOs (or indeed their bosses) are totally honest, just that they are not the only ones who might tell the odd porky.

Out of curiosity, was it the same CEO who 'gave permission' who issued the PCN?

[blackadder]

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in an on-street parking bay during controlled hours whilst displaying an invalid permit or voucher.
 
There is no dispute that Miss XXXXXX's vehicle was at this bay in Chillingworth Road, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
 
Miss XXXXXX says that she bought a pay and display voucher from the machine, put it in the vehicle widescreen before she then went to her doctor's surgery across the road. Miss XXXXXX continues that, only when she was approached by two men on her return to the vehicle did she then realise that the pay and display voucher she had obtained appeared to be timed some seventeen hours earlier, which meant it showed the previous day. Miss XXXXXX and her mother also say that there was no Penalty Charge Notice on the vehicle.
 
Regulation 9 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 provides that where a civil enforcement officer has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle which is stationary in a civil enforcement area, he may serve a penalty charge notice by fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.
 
In this case, the civil enforcement officer records that the Penalty Charge Notice was fixed to the vehicle. Some of the images produced appear to show an envelope, of a type in which Penalty Charge Notices are typically placed, on the windscreen of the vehicle.
 
Miss XXXXXX is adamant that when she returned to her vehicle there was no Penalty Charge Notice on. This would not of itself mean that it was not properly issued. However, Miss XXXXXX explains that she was approached by a taxi driver and his passenger and was told that they had seen the civil enforcement officer put 'a ticket' on the windscreen, take pictures, and then remove it. This is a not unknown occurrence.
Miss XXXXXX has produced a witness statement from Mr X XXXXXX, whom she did not know, confirming all this.
 
I have had the opportunity of hearing Miss XXXXXX and her mother personally and find them each to be a credible and convincing witness. I accept what they tell me. I also accept the witness statement from Mr XXXXXX.
 
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that, on this particular occasion, the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
 
 Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2120055315

[Nigel W]

"Miss XXXXXX explains that she was approached by a taxi driver and his passenger and was told that they had seen the civil enforcement officer put 'a ticket' on the windscreen, take pictures, and then remove it. This is a not unknown occurrence.
Miss XXXXXX has produced a witness statement from Mr X XXXXXX, whom she did not know, confirming all this."

I think that this confirms which side was lying in this case and in others.

[blackadder]

At least they,(adjudicators)  appear to be aware of this particular nasty scam.

[DastardlyDick]

"Miss XXXXXX explains that she was approached by a taxi driver and his passenger and was told that they had seen the civil enforcement officer put 'a ticket' on the windscreen, take pictures, and then remove it. This is a not unknown occurrence.
Miss XXXXXX has produced a witness statement from Mr X XXXXXX, whom she did not know, confirming all this."

I think that this confirms which side was lying in this case and in others.

Yes, it proves that one case because of independent witnesses being willing to give statements. It does not, however, prove that not one single appellant has told lies before PATAS.
My example is but one of dozens.

Again there is no reason for the appellant to lie regarding the empty pcn envelope as the appellant's
vehicle had a valid exemption to park where it was, as pointed out by the
adjudicator.

That much should be obvious. An appellant found to be lying faces a criminal conviction. A weasel found to be lying faces, worst case scenario, a judgement of 'appeal allowed.'

 

I don't see any reason why this should be so - I'm sure the Adjudicators could have them charged if they wanted to.