VITAL photographic evidence was altered after angry Bury motorist Kevin McGuire challenged a £60 parking fine writes David Thomson

The scam was uncovered at an appeals hearing at which parking adjudicator Sarah Breach strongly criticised the council and NCP for their part in the deception.

She concluded that two photographs, said to be taken on different days, were actually the same -- but that the date of one of them had been changed to destroy Mr McGuire's defence.

Her ruling has widespread implications for parking enforcement in Bury and calls into question the reliability of all digital photographic evidence. Bury Council may now face hundreds of claims from other drivers.

Bury Council and NCP have launched an internal investigation after receiving a scathing written report from the independent National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS).

Mr McGuire's appeal hearing went in his favour after he produced a "trump card" -- a separate photograph he was sent by NCP which had not formed part of their evidence.

He had been booked after parking in Market Place, Bury, at 7.15am on Sunday, August 31 -- the day of Bury's annual Gallipoli Day parade. He maintains there were no parking restriction signs.

But NCP said wardens had put up suspended parking bay signs at 6.45 the previous evening and they sent him a photograph of the sign.

Before the hearing, Mr McGuire was sent two further photographs -- one of them in colour -- with one also marked Saturday, August 30, showing temporary parking restrictions about to come into effect. He noticed the parking sign was clearly different from the one in the earlier photograph which bore the same date.

Said the 51-year-old: "When I showed the adjudicator the first picture, which she didn't have, she couldn't believe it. She was gobsmacked". Bury Council had submitted the two photos to the hearing as evidence to fight Mr McGuire's appeal.

In her written decision, Ms Breach states: "A careful comparison of these photographs . . . reveals they are the same. The cloud formation in both, together with the angle of the photograph, leaves me in no doubt. The only conclusions I can draw are that someone has altered the date on the black and white appeal photograph from 31.8.03 to 30.08.03."

She said she was satisfied that the reason for submitting a colour photograph and a black and white one was to give the impression that they were taken at different times.

"I consider the council's conduct in resisting this appeal to be wholly unreasonable," she added, and took the unusual step of directing the council to pay Mr McGuire costs of £156.

Delighted at his victory over the council and NCP, Mr McGuire commented: "How many other photographs may have been altered in this sort of case? Heads should roll. The council should rescind any fines which were issued against motorists after using digital photographs as evidence."

A Bury Council spokesman said yesterday: "The parking adjudicator allowed Mr McGuire's appeal, but in doing so has questioned the evidence submitted by the council.

"As a result, the council and NCP have initiated an internal investigation to establish the facts surrounding this case and, where appropriate, action will be taken to address any issues of concern.

"Both organisations are jointly committed to maintaining the highest levels of integrity in the enforcement of parking regulations".