My car has been cloned

[jcm@gwr]

3 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

My understanding was that you are supposed to provide proof of ownership of the vehicle when getting plates made up.  Obviously that's difficult to arrange when ordering plates online but not long ago I bought a towbar mounted bike rack from a local Halfords and they didn't ask for any proof of ownership when I asked them to make the plate for it up while I waited.

 

When I had new plates made for my van (advisory, for the previous 3 years), the guys at the MOT station didn't bother asking

for proof of ownership. In their words, bearing in mind I had taken my previous van there for 6 years and my current one for

5 years (and put over 100,000 miles on it in that time), "No-one else would admit to owning that, would they!"

[jcm@gwr]

.

Edited January 20, 2020 by jcm@gwr
stupid forum software!

[steve1]

Quote

Whats more bizarre is that you are supposed to update the reg plates when you take ownership of a car!

 

Eh? 

 

Never heard that one before.

 

steve

[Worsdell forever]

Many years ago my dad had the police round, apparently following up multiple parking fines in Harrogate, the car, a maroon-ish Nova was parked just off the drive and had been for quite a few months (his was the real one), it was dead. The policeman agreed with this as the grass was growing round it, he advised getting it scrapped asap, never heard any more about it. 

[Mark Saunders]

The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition for tolls and will make the problem worse.

 

Originally the Tyne Tunnel was by smart card but is going to all ANPR, all it takes is someone to see and note which ones open the gates, then clone your plate!

[Ohmisterporter]

My daughter was in her car getting ready to drive away when a Range Rover tried to get into the parking space in front of her. It clipped the wing of her Citroen: the driver got out all apologetic and exchanged details. Turned out the number he gave was from a Fiesta. The police just said it would be a waste of time trying to follow it up, the plates would have been changed again.  Annoyingly, daughter lost part of her no claim bonus. 

[jwealleans]

I was carved up on the roundabout just outside town a couple of years ago by a car which... well, just behaved oddly.  I gave him the benefit of my horn and lights, but he didn't even look at me, nor did his passengers.  They were all young blokes, baseball hats and stubble, I'd have expected a tirade of abuse and advice on where to go and what I could do when I got there.  It was so odd that I stopped and wrote his number down then called the Police and reported it.  I'm as sure as I can be that I had the number right, given that I only had to remember it for 30 seconds, but the Police said it had never been issued.  I never heard any more, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were plenty running round like that given how easy it is to get hold of/make plates.

[Nile_Griffith]

Three points and a £380 fine.

 

As I was at home enjoying a well earned day off at the time and didn't even consider that just possibly some less than honest John was zipping around the country in a Blue Audi A4 wearing a pair of number plates with exactly the same alpha numeric characters in exactly the same order  as on my own Blue Audi A4. I didn't think to myself that maybe I should set up some kind of corroborative evidence to say that it was not my car  that had been snapped by a GATSO camera speeding around Moggerhanger in Bedfordshire.

 

Of course the magistrates in Luton where completely onside with my suggestion that any Tom, Dick and Harry could identify my car as being similar to their own (or one they want to nefariously acquire), do a quick online search to make sure that my own cars road rent and MOT were paid and up to date by looking at the DVLA's website. Then do the eBay thing and have a couple of new number plates delivered to their door next morning.

 

Instead they seemed pre-occupied by the fact that I was unable to provide two independent witnesses that could verify that I was at home within a two hour window each side of the time the speeding offence was committed. Indeed they took great care to advise me that it would be economically beneficial to me to plead guilty to the offence, as being found guilty and maintaining an innocent plea would mean receiving a larger fine.

 

Obviously I reported the matter to the Police and the DVLA. Plod seem fairly disinterested in the matter and the DVLA suggested that maybe I should invest a bit more cash in acquiring a new registration for my car to avoid any further inconvenience.

 

As you may guess I was more than a little miffed.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

6 hours ago, Nile_Griffith said:

Three points and a £380 fine.

 

As I was at home enjoying a well earned day off at the time and didn't even consider that just possibly some less than honest John was zipping around the country in a Blue Audi A4 wearing a pair of number plates with exactly the same alpha numeric characters in exactly the same order  as on my own Blue Audi A4. I didn't think to myself that maybe I should set up some kind of corroborative evidence to say that it was not my car  that had been snapped by a GATSO camera speeding around Moggerhanger in Bedfordshire.

 

Of course the magistrates in Luton where completely onside with my suggestion that any Tom, Dick and Harry could identify my car as being similar to their own (or one they want to nefariously acquire), do a quick online search to make sure that my own cars road rent and MOT were paid and up to date by looking at the DVLA's website. Then do the eBay thing and have a couple of new number plates delivered to their door next morning.

 

Instead they seemed pre-occupied by the fact that I was unable to provide two independent witnesses that could verify that I was at home within a two hour window each side of the time the speeding offence was committed. Indeed they took great care to advise me that it would be economically beneficial to me to plead guilty to the offence, as being found guilty and maintaining an innocent plea would mean receiving a larger fine.

 

Obviously I reported the matter to the Police and the DVLA. Plod seem fairly disinterested in the matter and the DVLA suggested that maybe I should invest a bit more cash in acquiring a new registration for my car to avoid any further inconvenience.

 

As you may guess I was more than a little miffed.

 

A ridiculous indictment of the state of the British legal system IMHO.

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

Mike.

[chris p bacon]

8 hours ago, Nile_Griffith said:

snapped by a GATSO camera speeding around Moggerhanger in Bedfordshire.

 

That's a 30mph camera, what speed were they doing for a £380 fine ?

 

I would have asked for photographic evidence as that camera is one of the newest with very hight photo resolution, having seen pictures from similar cameras and it would have been easy to identify the driver or at least prove it wasn't you.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by chris p bacon
typo's

[Mark Saunders]

10 hours ago, Nile_Griffith said:

Three points and a £380 fine.

 

As I was at home enjoying a well earned day off at the time and didn't even consider that just possibly some less than honest John was zipping around the country in a Blue Audi A4 wearing a pair of number plates with exactly the same alpha numeric characters in exactly the same order  as on my own Blue Audi A4. I didn't think to myself that maybe I should set up some kind of corroborative evidence to say that it was not my car  that had been snapped by a GATSO camera speeding around Moggerhanger in Bedfordshire.

 

Of course the magistrates in Luton where completely onside with my suggestion that any Tom, Dick and Harry could identify my car as being similar to their own (or one they want to nefariously acquire), do a quick online search to make sure that my own cars road rent and MOT were paid and up to date by looking at the DVLA's website. Then do the eBay thing and have a couple of new number plates delivered to their door next morning.

 

Instead they seemed pre-occupied by the fact that I was unable to provide two independent witnesses that could verify that I was at home within a two hour window each side of the time the speeding offence was committed. Indeed they took great care to advise me that it would be economically beneficial to me to plead guilty to the offence, as being found guilty and maintaining an innocent plea would mean receiving a larger fine.

 

Obviously I reported the matter to the Police and the DVLA. Plod seem fairly disinterested in the matter and the DVLA suggested that maybe I should invest a bit more cash in acquiring a new registration for my car to avoid any further inconvenience.

 

As you may guess I was more than a little miffed.

 

What happened to beyond reasonable doubt?

 

As everyone knows but cant prove honest motorists are a soft touch!

 

 

[Nile_Griffith]

3 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

That's a 30mph camera, what speed were they doing for a £380 fine ?

 

I would have asked for photographic evidence as that camera is one of the newest with very hight photo resolution, having seen pictures from similar cameras and it would have been easy to identify the driver or at least prove it wasn't you.

 

 

When the initial summons arrived I asked for the photographic evidence to be supplied. It wasn't until I got to court and expressed my concern that as such I had not received or been given sight of such evidence, that the prosecutor made the photograph available for me to view on their court laptop. 

 

As I wrote in my post. The vehicle in question was pretty much an identical Audi A4 to my own. The only question that I raised was that the colour of the car seemed to be a darker shade of blue to my own car. As for the driver all that could really be discerned was that it was a male driver, but no distinctive features could be picked out.

 

As the court concluded. The vehicle type and registration matched the vehicle registered to me. As I was unable to provide the name of a driver who may have had the use of my car at the time and I was unable to provide independent and verifiable witnesses to the fact that I was at home at the time of the incident or at a place and time that would have precluded me from being at the location where the offence took place. Then the court had no doubt but to conclude that I was indeed the driver of the vehicle in question

 

Job Done.

 

My assumption is that some numpty had both the time and patience to keep an eagle eye out for a car whose details matched their own. Did a bit of online checking and for the cost of twenty quid or so for a couple of new number plates, saved themselves a few hundred quid in road tax, insurance and MOT, by driving around on set of cloned plates.

 

I have since made sure that both my car's have non-standard manufacturers wheels fitted (My A4 now has wheels that would only be found on the A6 and my SL has Brabus ones) and that on the rear windscreen is a sticker. I have then taken time verifiable photographs of the modifications. So that if some scumbag drops me in the "Clarts" once more. I've at least got something to work with.

 

Oh the £380 fine. The fine was based on my earning plus court costs as I had initially pleaded guilty, so a court hearing was held. The only bright spot was that the measured speed was 48mph in a 30mph zone. Strictly speaking that should have attracted a four point penalty apparently, but the senior magistrate decided to impose only three points.............. Bless.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Nile_Griffith

[Reorte]

15 hours ago, Nile_Griffith said:

Instead they seemed pre-occupied by the fact that I was unable to provide two independent witnesses that could verify that I was at home within a two hour window each side of the time the speeding offence was committed. Indeed they took great care to advise me that it would be economically beneficial to me to plead guilty to the offence, as being found guilty and maintaining an innocent plea would mean receiving a larger fine.

 

I can see why that happens but it really does come across as trying to force confessions under duress. A mild version of it perhaps, but still.

[Nile_Griffith]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

I can see why that happens but it really does come across as trying to force confessions under duress. A mild version of it perhaps, but still.

 

I've learned to my cost that the Magistrate Court system in England is a conveyor belt. Hopefully optimised too process as predictable a number of cases per week as possible. With outcomes that meet and fit in with government set guidelines and performance criteria. Particularly when it comes to motoring law.

 

I can see the courts position. If they offered any weight to my argument how would a police investigation proceed? The real offender has long gone by some months and the only identifiable evidence is the point in question. 

 

The problem is with the UK's legally approved system of vehicle identification. It is far too open to abuse and with todays electronic market place, there is next to no safeguarding against continued fraud.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Nile_Griffith said:

 

I've learned to my cost that the Magistrate Court system in England is a conveyor belt. Hopefully optimised too process as predictable a number of cases per week as possible. With outcomes that meet and fit in with government set guidelines and performance criteria. Particularly when it comes to motoring law.

 

I can see the courts position. If they offered any weight to my argument how would a police investigation proceed? The real offender has long gone by some months and the only identifiable evidence is the point in question. 

 

The problem is with the UK's legally approved system of vehicle identification. It is far too open to abuse and with todays electronic market place, there is next to no safeguarding against continued fraud.

From what I read of the above, the problem seems to be that the system of 'making plates' is open to abuse. From earlier posts, it is a case of going 'somewhere' and getting plates made for 20 quid.

 

In Australia, the only places that provide plates is the various state governments, so it is centralised. Standard plates are consecutive and customised ones are made to order. No attempt is made to localise them, like Britain with various prefixes. 

 

Of course, we do still have plate related crime. They steal plates off genuine vehicles or make easily identifiable fakes by using stick on letters/numbers from the hardware shop.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Whatever the system involved, it only seems to make it difficult for the law abiding citizens, crims always find a workaround.

 

Mike.

[russ p]

I haven't heard a thing about this, I filled in an online form to dispute it but no one have got back to me and there is no number that actually connects to a live person.

Bedfordshire council... absolute shower of $hit 

[polybear]

Mate of mine got a summons for jumping a red light - he was adamant he didn't, so asked for a copy of the photo.  Was told that it was on hard drives and in order to get it he would have to (a) initially plead guilty by post, and then (b)  apply for a copy of the photo.  If he was correct the fine and points would be overturned.  (We advised him that this sounded like complete bo11ox, but he wouldn't listen....)

Guess what?  After pleading guilty he was then told that he couldn't have a copy of the photo cos' he'd pleaded guilty to the offence.  Totally shafted.

[polybear]

On 23/01/2020 at 00:59, Nile_Griffith said:

Three points and a £380 fine.

 

 

More than one way to skin a cat.  My uncle was nicked for no TV licence - he had strange ways and thought he'd use what was left of his recently deceased mum's licence, even though she lived several miles away.  Doing it the proper way and getting a refund on that licence and then putting the money towards his own just wasn't on the cards in his book.  He wasn't going to pay the fine, so his wife did behind his back - he wasn't happy (and some) and even phoned the court for a refund - no chance, matey.

So he fare dodged on the trains for a few months, and got the money back that way...

As for the points, not easily fixed.  One view would be to think of how many times you've beat them by not getting caught speeding.  But I'm sure you never do that, do you.... 

Edited January 29, 2020 by polybear

[johnofwessex]

The general principal of law is that it he who asserts proves.

 

The prosecution must disclose all relevant evidence.

 

No photo no go

 

[Nile_Griffith]

4 hours ago, God's Wonderful Railway 1835 said:

|I don't know how long ago this happened but is there any way you can get hold of all the local cctv cameras near where you live for the time slot they were thinking you could have been driving to get to the speeding scene and back starting with the nearest ones to where you live and any major junctions to show your car didn't pass these places to prove they are wrong about you doing this. 

 

My problem was that I had a day off at home, the only occasion I left the house was to walk into the village to buy a bottle of milk. Annoyingly I was having a rare day enjoying the fact that I didn't have to drive anywhere (I rack up about thirty thousand miles a year just commuting to and from work). So my car never left our forecourt on the day in question. My own CCTV wouldn't have been accepted because the date stamp couldn't be independently verified (I could have reset the CCTV system time/date and sent a later recording of my car just sitting there).

[letterspider]

Contact Audi. If your car has GPS they can pull out the data to verify location.  You will probably need a court order.  They might also have a record of the other car visiting a dealership. 

You could also use your mobile phone data to verify your location at the time if cross referenced with times of phone calls. 

But I have no idea how you would reopen this case

Edited January 29, 2020 by letterspider

[russ p]

2 minutes ago, letterspider said:

Contact Audi. If your car has GPS they can pull out the data to verify location.  You will probably need a court order.  They might also have a record of the other car visiting a dealership. 

You could also use your mobile phone data to verify your location at the time if cross referenced with times of phone calls. 

But I have no idea how you would reopen this case

 

Getting it featured in local press might help, if I get messed with about that is my plan 

[Tim V]

14 minutes ago, Nile_Griffith said:

 

My problem was that I had a day off at home, the only occasion I left the house was to walk into the village to buy a bottle of milk. Annoyingly I was having a rare day enjoying the fact that I didn't have to drive anywhere (I rack up about thirty thousand miles a year just commuting to and from work). So my car never left our forecourt on the day in question. My own CCTV wouldn't have been accepted because the date stamp couldn't be independently verified (I could have reset the CCTV system time/date and sent a later recording of my car just sitting there).

Receipt for the pint of milk?

[Nile_Griffith]

14 minutes ago, letterspider said:

Contact Audi. If your car has GPS they can pull out the data to verify location.  You will probably need a court order.  They might also have a record of the other car visiting a dealership. 

You could also use your mobile phone data to verify your location at the time if cross referenced with times of phone calls. 

But I have no idea how you would reopen this case

 

To be honest the car GPS data was my only real piece of potential leverage for an appeal and you are correct in your assumption in that it would have required a court order and the involvement of independent authorities to effectively provide a guarantee that I hadn't tipped the Audi tech who carried out the download a couple of quid to falsify the data. The biggest problem was that with the mileage I drive and by the time I was made aware of the impending court hearing. It would have been likely that the data stored by the GPS from the date of the offence might have been overwritten. So it was kind of a choice between lodging an appeal, spending a shed load of cash on legal representation and all that would have gone with accessing the GPS data to only find that it was no longer there.

 

As for the mobile phone angle, that wouldn't have stood up because I would be asking the court to agree to the assumption that my phone was with me, or I was with the phone all of the time (argument against is that I could have left my phone at home while I went tare arsing around the highways and byways of deepest darkest Bedfordshire).

 

Sometimes you just got to take the hit. Doesn't mean I like it or that it doesn't make me angry, but you just have to take it. Hopefully it might make a few forum members more aware and take measures to make sure that their own cars have some element of "personalisation" no matter how small, but enough to be identifiable if the same thing should happen to them.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Nile_Griffith