Tweet
Hello all,
It's my first post here and I wanted to ask for legal advice on a potential document falsification by Parking & Property Management. I'll try and keep the story brief and to bullet points, so let me know if you would like me to explain in more detail any of the points.
1. Person A was sent a PCN as the Registered Keeper
2. Person A was sent a reminder for the PCN
3. Person A informed Parking & Property Management of the drivers name (Person B) and details who live overseas
4. Parking and Property Management allege they have sent the driver a letter at the overseas address given. They state that the driver must reply within 14 days, or the Registered Keeper will be held liable
5. After 14 days, Person A receives a reminder for the PCN
6. Person B contacts Parking & Property Management to say they have not received any letter and confirms that they are the driver. Parking & Property Management say it is too late, and that Person A is now liable according to POFA (even though there is no such thing mentioned in POFA)
7. Person A submits an SAR to get a copy of the letter allegedly sent to Person B
8. Parking & Property Management reply with all the letters sent to Person A, but do not provide the letter allegedly sent to Person B, saying that it is not covered by the SAR and Person B must ask for it.
9. Person B submits an SAR asking for a copy of the letter allegedly sent to them
10. Parking & Property Management reply with a copy of the letter. The name in the letter has a typo (not a big problem). The address in the letter does not match the address provided by Person A. Therefore, even if it was sent, it could have never reached.
11. Person B and Person A tell Parking & Property Management that the address is wrong.
12. Parking & Property Management say that it doesn't matter, and that Person A had 14 days to inform Person B.
Now there is an interesting development in the story. Looking at the PDF metadata, the way that the PCN reminders sent to Person A were created is different to the way the letter to Person B was created. The PCN reminder to Person B was edited in Adobe Acrobat. The PCN reminder to Person B has a creation date of a few minutes before being emailed to Person B and a modification date of a just a minute after creation. The PCN reminders to Person A do not have any such modification or creation dates. This would suggest that this file was created just for the reply to this email and not in fact created and sent to Person B as alleged. Apart from the date, name address and title, the rest of the content of the PCNs are the same. So it appears that a PCN reminder from Person A was quickly edited in order to be sent across. Does this count as falsification of documents and if so, what's the best way to proceed here?
Should I reply to them asking if they are aware of the modification dates and if they have any proof of postage or proof that this file was not in fact created right before being emailed? Can I threaten to take them to court for falsification of documents with intend to deceive as they have used the document to pretend they have tried to transfer liability in order to force Person A to pay a fine that they are not liable for?
N.B. this is not the same modification date as the system, so does not get affected by copying a file or downloading it. it is a special field set by Adobe Acrobat when modifying a PDF.
It's my first post here and I wanted to ask for legal advice on a potential document falsification by Parking & Property Management. I'll try and keep the story brief and to bullet points, so let me know if you would like me to explain in more detail any of the points.
1. Person A was sent a PCN as the Registered Keeper
2. Person A was sent a reminder for the PCN
3. Person A informed Parking & Property Management of the drivers name (Person B) and details who live overseas
4. Parking and Property Management allege they have sent the driver a letter at the overseas address given. They state that the driver must reply within 14 days, or the Registered Keeper will be held liable
5. After 14 days, Person A receives a reminder for the PCN
6. Person B contacts Parking & Property Management to say they have not received any letter and confirms that they are the driver. Parking & Property Management say it is too late, and that Person A is now liable according to POFA (even though there is no such thing mentioned in POFA)
7. Person A submits an SAR to get a copy of the letter allegedly sent to Person B
8. Parking & Property Management reply with all the letters sent to Person A, but do not provide the letter allegedly sent to Person B, saying that it is not covered by the SAR and Person B must ask for it.
9. Person B submits an SAR asking for a copy of the letter allegedly sent to them
10. Parking & Property Management reply with a copy of the letter. The name in the letter has a typo (not a big problem). The address in the letter does not match the address provided by Person A. Therefore, even if it was sent, it could have never reached.
11. Person B and Person A tell Parking & Property Management that the address is wrong.
12. Parking & Property Management say that it doesn't matter, and that Person A had 14 days to inform Person B.
Now there is an interesting development in the story. Looking at the PDF metadata, the way that the PCN reminders sent to Person A were created is different to the way the letter to Person B was created. The PCN reminder to Person B was edited in Adobe Acrobat. The PCN reminder to Person B has a creation date of a few minutes before being emailed to Person B and a modification date of a just a minute after creation. The PCN reminders to Person A do not have any such modification or creation dates. This would suggest that this file was created just for the reply to this email and not in fact created and sent to Person B as alleged. Apart from the date, name address and title, the rest of the content of the PCNs are the same. So it appears that a PCN reminder from Person A was quickly edited in order to be sent across. Does this count as falsification of documents and if so, what's the best way to proceed here?
Should I reply to them asking if they are aware of the modification dates and if they have any proof of postage or proof that this file was not in fact created right before being emailed? Can I threaten to take them to court for falsification of documents with intend to deceive as they have used the document to pretend they have tried to transfer liability in order to force Person A to pay a fine that they are not liable for?
N.B. this is not the same modification date as the system, so does not get affected by copying a file or downloading it. it is a special field set by Adobe Acrobat when modifying a PDF.
Comment