UKPC reject appeals stating "all photographic evidence is date and time sampled and this cannot be changed by the warden".
While this may be true of the technology the wardens use, this is certainly not true of the smartphone The Prankster uses. For instance, here is a photo of a car The Prankster took
And here is a
picture taken after correcting the time much more recent picture of the car, which miraculously has not aged much.
And here is proof that anyone with a keyboard can digitally edit those same properties.
The first motorist tells their story here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5312196
The photographs show the car at 2:06 and 4:18. However the motorist actually arrived at around 3:15, and can prove he was at a different place at 2:06 using CCTV evidence from other businesses. The photos are also apparently taken moments apart judging by the shadows and the other nearby vehicles.
The second motorist tells their story here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5313494
The photographs show the car at 07:15 and 09:27. However, the motorist arrived at 08:20. At 07:15 they were still in bed with their alarm going off (also set for 07:15)
The Prankster suggests the second motorist also carefully checks the photographs for shadows and similar vehicles.
The Prankster also suggests that both motorists contact the BPA as obviously this needs to be nipped in the bud, and if fraud is proven, sanction points awarded.
The Parking Prankster