- Who runs it
- Department for Transport
- Can it affect people?
- Possibly. It may shape what people see, are recommended, flagged, or prioritised for.
- Possible rights impact: Indirect public effect
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- DfT: EV Chargepoint Grant Photos Fraud Tool / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 30 July 2026
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - official inventory / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
A deep-learning image tool that flags duplicate or web-sourced installation photos submitted to electric-vehicle chargepoint grant schemes.
the story
Two grant claims may contain almost the same installation photo. The model brings that pair to an administrator's attention instead of treating similarity as proof of fraud.
Human decides every flagged image is checked by a grant administrator
Facts to check
- 01
The system uses image recognition and Google Vision API.
- 02
It looks for duplicate installations and images taken from the web.
- 03
It cannot approve or reject a grant on its own.
If this affects someone
A flag can lead to closer checking of evidence in an EV chargepoint grant application.
Grant administrators inspect every flagged image and make the final decision. The record explicitly says the tool has no decision-making capacity.
The existing grant appeal mechanisms still apply because administrators, not the model, decide the outcome.
Photos submitted as evidence to EV chargepoint grant schemes and image-similarity signals used to compare them.
Sources and further reading
Based on GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records. This page separates facts in the source from questions the source leaves open.
Plain-language text was checked against the linked sources. Older editorial records do not retain model or prompt logs, so this is explanation, never evidence.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Department for Transport
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 3 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported2 months agoSubstantialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
- Public register record3 months agoSubstantialAdded from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.