Cloned Car Plates - more to this!

The BBC’s recently posted an article ‘Thousands hit by fines from cloned car plates’. The report appeared to blur CAR cloning with PLATE cloning but raises a worrying issue that appears, like other vehicle-related matters, to have been met with an Authroity head-in-sand approach.?

CAR CLONING is generally accepted to be the process of applying the identity of a legitimate vehicle onto a STOLEN one. This naturally includes popping a false VRM (PLATE) onto the vehicle.

Applying a false identification to a vehicle is not necessarily ‘CAR cloning’ though a number of instances will be.?

PLATE CLONING involves placing the VRM of a legitimate vehicle onto another.? The VRM is duplicated and appears on two or more vehicles.? The car receiving the copied plate is generally not a stolen one

The copied plates will likely be affixed to a vehicle of similar make and model.? For example, appropriately, lawfully, and correctly on a blue Ford Fiesta registered to Mr Smith of Essex, the same VRM will be affixed to a blue Ford Fiesta belonging to the offender, Mr Jones in Kent.?

Acquiring the plates may not involve utilising a vendor.?? Mr Smith may return to his car to find the front and rear plates missing. There are screws and anti-tamper plates to help prevent this.

But herein lies the rub; Mr Smith of Essex, the honest registered keeper of the car correctly displaying the plate, will be approached for payment if the Kent car displaying his VRM attracts a fine or charge.? Mr Smith will struggle to account for this, to assert and prove his innocence.

FINES & CHARGES. The dishonest Mr Jones knows applying Mr Smith’s VRM plates has benefits beyond misdirecting fines. Mr Smith is law-abiding; he INSURES and TAXES his car. This can easily be checked. Why would Mr Jones trouble to tax or insure* his car? The VRM has tax & insurance associated with the VRM thanks to Mr Smith. Doing so, duplicating payments and records for the VRM, could alert the authorities! The Kent car can ‘do a Tom Ripley’ and benefit from its near-facsimile.

• *the press is awash with articles about premium increases – also fuelling plate deception?

A rise in false marks will surely be accompanied by an increase in uninsured vehicles … which could affect claims & premiums – a vicious circle?

Mr Jones also has little regard for maintaining his vehicle. His mate will attend to it in the event of problems but an MoT … that is another cost! An MoT test can also cause anxiety; will the car pass, and what work needs to be done to make it road-legal? But again, he is spared the need for such formalities; Mr Smith’s vehicle has passed its test and therefore, displaying the same VRM, will appear MoT’d also.

COLLISIONS.? Perhaps Mr Jones will drive carefully. There is no sensible reason to attract fines/charges.? Whilst they will be directed to Mr Smith, Mr Jones does not want to be involved in a collision. ?But, the nature of ‘accidents’, a road traffic collision (RTC) could occur, Mr Jones may have to get out of the vehicle and face someone. CCTV, dashcams and mobile phones are rife; being pictured with the vehicle is a troubling ‘inconvenience’. What particulars would Mr Jones give at the scene … assuming he stopped?

Sometime later, Mr Smith will be approached about the incident, likely (assuming the police are not involved or interested) by his insurers claiming they have a third-party notification, asking why he did not report the matter.? His insurer’s engineer may assist Mr Smith, demonstrating the lack of damage/repair to his car.?

But what of the non-fault third party?? Hopefully, they have a comprehensive policy albeit with less no-claims-bonus now!

We have seen an increase in Third-Party RTC claim notifications.

ANPR. The link between a vehicle and keeper is the relatively inexpensive, on public display, plate acknowledged to be easily obtained and no more than a removable ‘label’ placed on each end of a vehicle.? Unsurprisingly, some intentionally do not display the correct descriptor VRM on their car.? This could be for all manner of reasons but, ultimately, dishonest.?

An Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera does not compare a vehicle’s alpha-numeric ‘unique’ identity with the make & model of a vehicle.? The extent of the ‘clone’ may be no more than applying a false plate.

An Authority, presented a moving traffic offence image displaying the VRM, proceeds on the basis the registered keeper is related to the event.? Mr Smith, responding ‘clone’ is unlikely to be met with sympathy; he, the keeper, is not denying knowledge of the VRM, just the opposite.?

Furthermore, even if it is accepted another vehicle displayed the VRM, so what?? Arguably, either of the cars could have committed the offence, why should it be the clone? Is it more likely someone driving the vehicle displaying the false VRM will do so more guardedly? The struggle to assert innocence starts. ?

CHANGING a VRM plate can be simpler than described above.? Placing the VRM of any other vehicle onto a car, ignoring the need to match colour, make & model, could suffice.? A plate from a black Range Rover Sport may be applied to Mr Jones' blue Ford Fiesta.? ANPR cameras recognise the PLATE.? They do not associate a VRM with the make & model pictured.??

But, with such elementary plate applications, from the true owner’s perspective, challenging tickets received or allegations involving the vehicle should prove easier.?

This may provide an aspect for consideration by all vehicle owners:

• Make your vehicle acceptably unique to Authorities in a way that can be evidenced as present pre-incident, not added after to mislead:
• Apply a secondary identifiable, indelible ‘mark’ near the VRM which, in the case of Mr Jones vehicle, Mr Smith will not have replicated?

DVLA database & conduct. It does not appear the DVLA’s records can be relied upon.

That the DVLA is working to ‘improve identification and enforcement of number-plate crime’ appears trite, and cliched. The problem (as with vehicle theft) is increasing; either nothing has been done or what was tried has failed (as with vehicle theft).

Arguably, better databanks exist which could be engaged to assist victims; to prevent and detect unlawful activity.

That our vehicle identification system is described as the "wild west," with ‘compromised integrity’ is further troubling. A belief the problem has grown beyond the DVLA's current capabilities and is "out of control" is far from encouraging.

Given, the distress, inconvenience and financial hardship that can result from VRM plate abuse, is it reasonable for this elementary mark to form the basis of action against the keeper?

POLICE. Vehicle theft has been treated indifferently for 5 years.? Can overstretched police resources turn to the issue of cloned, unlawful VRMs??

TfL, which oversees Ulez correctly explains ‘VEHICLE cloning is a criminal matter, which the police enforce and prosecute’.? But the issue is PLATE cloning which, whilst a criminal matter, differs significantly.

A cloned CAR is a stolen one. This may be used by an innocent purchaser; someone unaware of the stolen status. Identifying these is arguably easier than spotting a vehicle with a false plate.

With PLATE cloning, some issues are likely perceived as ‘civil disputes’; arguments about liability and demands for payment an Authority and owners should resolve. Will the parties settle on 'cloned plates'; can they support or undermine the stance?

EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM. If knowingly displaying a false VRM, would the user attract a moving traffic violation, draw attention to themselves or their vehicle?

Whilst 1,000’s of cloned plates are believed to be in use, relatively few appear to have resulted in ‘arrest or other positive action’. ?

Just what is the true extent of the problem?

A VICTIM.? Should you wake and find your VRM plates missing, report the theft to the police, obtain new plates and keep the receipt. ?Why not pick a new design for your plates; a different colour border, add some ‘bottom line’ text and a different plate badge (not the EU one that may have been present)? An obviously different plate to that taken from your vehicle may help.? It should not make matters worse! ?

Affix the pate with tamperproof screws and take a photo of the plate affixed and include a newspaper displaying the date the image was taken – akin to a ‘proof of life’ image!?

But be mindful all this may be unacceptable evidence your plates were purloined and utilised on another vehicle … anticipate being treated with suspicion.

Just as when falsely reporting a vehicle stolen, do constabularies have the time or inclination to verify the allegation? ?With so much VRM plate cloning activity occurring, will you be challenged by the police or unquestioningly receive a crime number?? Will the police report be considered meaningful, or has unquestioning recording devalued its worth?

Some will question whether you suffered the plate loss.? Instead, suspecting that rather than altering your plates, you acquired a new pair in anticipation of needing to cry ‘clone!’

The approach appears to be guilty until you prove innocence.

I believe there is more that can be done to assist all. But again(!) does anyone care ... aside of the victims?