PCN for Contravention Code 62 from TFL |
PCN for Contravention Code 62 from TFL |
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 14:25
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 21 May 2016 Member No.: 84,483 |
Hi everyone, I've been following the forum for a while. My father received a penalty charge notice from Transport for London for "Contravention code 62: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any other part of a road other than a carriageway". He is a private hire driver and had a pre-booked journey. The client lives a building with a parking. To go in the parking you need to stop at the barrier, go in and ask the security to let you in. There is not enough space to stop perpendicular to the barrier (as the back of the car would stick out over the bus lane on the road. For that reason my dad stopped the car parallel to the barrier. Anyhow the security refused to let him in and in total, my dad was parked there for 30 seconds! You can see the two pictures are taken 15 seconds apart: at 08:32:29 and 08:32:44 I can't see any video evidence or additional pictures without paying £10 and they would be sent by post! I need your help please. On what ground should I make my representations - "contravention did not occur" or "mitigating circumstances" . Can I use the de minimis rule. I am concerned that this is not even a footpath, but part of a "driveway" leading to the barrier of a building parking. I recently won a council fine for a prohibited left turn on grounds of procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. I appealed to an external adjudicator and the council withdrew their penalty charge. In this case however I do not see any procedural impropriety. Please help guys! Thank you. PCN images below: http://postimg.org/gallery/i7j5zgv6/ |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 14:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 14:53
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
TfL have stated at PaTAS/London Tribunals that they do not charge for evidential DVDs, so you need to hold them to this.
On the face of it, your best/only defence is - as you say - de minimis, but I strongly suspect you'll end up at adjudication with the full £130 at stake. This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sun, 22 May 2016 - 14:54 |
|
|
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 15:16
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4818654,-...3312!8i6656
Have a look at my last post in the sticky thread--ask where you can go to view the video. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 22 May 2016 - 15:28 |
|
|
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 16:50
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4818654,-...3312!8i6656 Have a look at my last post in the sticky thread--ask where you can go to view the video. Mick Plus one. Better yet, put a request to view, preferably at an office close to you, otherwise wherever suitable, in writing. Uhm,while this is on a red route, what are TFL doing serving CCTV PCNs for footway parking ? Contravention did not occur as Dad was seeking to gain entry via the gate. Attached copy of call/pick up log showing location and time. But see video first. If 15 seconds and move on, easy win, even a minute or two can be seen as necessary. |
|
|
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 21:51
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4818654,-...3312!8i6656 Have a look at my last post in the sticky thread--ask where you can go to view the video. Mick Uhm,while this is on a red route, what are TFL doing serving CCTV PCNs for footway parking? Why can't they? Red Routes are exempt from the ban on CCTV enforcement. Totally agree with your (and MMVs) other points. |
|
|
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 22:03
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 17 May 2016 Member No.: 84,399 |
I know that place, I parked in the exact same spot before to get to concierge office to gain access to under ground car park and did not have any problems.
|
|
|
Sun, 22 May 2016 - 22:04
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4818654,-...3312!8i6656 Have a look at my last post in the sticky thread--ask where you can go to view the video. Mick Uhm,while this is on a red route, what are TFL doing serving CCTV PCNs for footway parking? Why can't they? Red Routes are exempt from the ban on CCTV enforcement. Totally agree with your (and MMVs) other points. Not saying they can't. But never seen anything from TFL on parking except code 46, stopping where prohibited. Which they could have served here and would have less defence. |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 05:50
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Have you posted the page of the PCN which refers to viewing the video and obtaining still photos which establish the contravention?
|
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 06:04
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Bottom of post 1. It's on second page.
Mick |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 06:26
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Thanks.
I'd request the photos. And if all they do is to show the car stationary for no more than 15 seconds - as in the PCN - then I'd make reps on the grounds that the driver went to contact security regarding gaining access for the reasons you set out and that it is permissible for the car to be stationary in these circumstances for the period shown in the photos. And if they were to reject these and claim that the video shows that the car was stationary for much longer then I would appeal on the grounds of procedural impropriety because these photos are required to establish the contravention - see (5)(b) - they are not simply 'still images of the contravention' which is the shifty change of words used in the PCN. So if the recording shows the driver exiting and being away from the vehicle for an extended period and if the authority's argument in rejecting your reps was based on that extended period which was not in evidence in the photos, then IMO this is a procedural impropriety. But it would all depend on what their photos showed. See what others think. |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 06:48
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
+1
Given that this a private hire vehicle I would probably quote the Makda case which allowed much more time. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j...f4w&cad=rja In general terms, I endorse the concerns of others who question the authority of TfL to use cameras for a Code 62 because the road is a red route. A step too far IMO. If the vehicle is wholly on the footway how the hell is the free passage of a red route affected? Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Mon, 23 May 2016 - 06:52 |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 07:48
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4818654,-...3312!8i6656 Have a look at my last post in the sticky thread--ask where you can go to view the video. Mick Uhm,while this is on a red route, what are TFL doing serving CCTV PCNs for footway parking? Why can't they? Red Routes are exempt from the ban on CCTV enforcement. Totally agree with your (and MMVs) other points. Not saying they can't. But never seen anything from TFL on parking except code 46, stopping where prohibited. Which they could have served here and would have less defence. It seems wholly at odds with that historic bee you had in your bonnet about blanket use of 46. If, as we all had to accept, the contravention could only ever be 46 on a Red Route then I can't see they can use 62. A theory > A mini cab driver recently posted in another case that he understood he was able to stop to pick up/set down, for up to 5 mins on RRs and in bus lanes. I don't know if this is so or whether written into RR Orders or a less formal undertaking from TfL? If it is allowed then perhaps that's why they've resorted to 62. I can't see how they can though: As CCTV enforcement remains allowed on RRs then surely it can only be for contraventions of the RR. Can anyone link the legislation/amendment that made the changes to CCTV enforcement? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 08:02
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/10...gulation/2/made
'Red routes' are exempted and defined at 9A(7) which refers to 'road' and as the offence relates to parking on a road I think the use of CCTV is permitted. |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 08:10
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I had just found it, read and concluded the opposite.
I'll read again. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 08:22
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Ok, it's open to interpretation and needs a ruling as to meaning.
Here's an interpretation > (6) The circumstances referred to in regulation 9A(3)© are that a vehicle is stationary in a civil enforcement area on— (a)a bus lane; Specific contravention. (b)a bus stop clearway or bus stand clearway; Specific contravention. ©a carriageway outside a school entrance which is marked in accordance with diagram 1027.1 of Schedule 6 and diagram 642.2A of Schedule 2 to the Traffic Signs Regulations; Specific contravention. or (d)a red route. Reads as only RR contravention to me? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 08:49
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,060 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Can't agree.
The vehicle was stationary on a road, that's not in dispute and captures everything which follows. 'On a red route' is clear as is the meaning of 'red route' which is defined. I would not take this to adjudication on its own, it would surely fail. As a further point regarding rationale, it is parliamentary convention that whenever an act or regs places an unavoidable financial burden on an authority, that authority is compensated financially from central taxpayers' funds. IMO, to rule out the use of CCTV for red routes would place a financial burden on TfL and as govt. wanted this change to be cost neutral then red routes were exempted. This did not apply to authorities who were simply misusing a power which was never envisaged by parliament in the first place. A full impact assessment was not made in parallel with the regs, but I'm certain that TfL would have made the point I've set out above. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 23 May 2016 - 08:57 |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 08:59
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
As I read it, the use of CCTV it's self is not forbidden. Only the manner of service of the PCN, so if service by post is allowed for RR then the pcn would be valid
in it's service -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 09:03
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Got to agree with HCA.
My first thought was "they can't do that with the CCTV ban" but while the underlying may be to allow PCNs on places where stopping is prohibited, this is not spelt out, simply that CCTV enforcement on red routes is allowed. But I still find it an oddity, after all, they could have used a code 46, as with yellow lines, red lines cover the highway from centre to boundary. |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 11:04
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
This issue has got to be taken to adjudication for a ruling as hca indicates. In dburt's case they used cameras for a code 21 (suspended bay) which is well beyond the traffic management purposes of a red route IMO. If TfL keep pushing the boundaries in this manner (for income generation only) it's an abuse of process.
That said, I don't think this is the case to beard them in their den. Mick |
|
|
Mon, 23 May 2016 - 18:51
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4818654,-...3312!8i6656 Have a look at my last post in the sticky thread--ask where you can go to view the video. Mick Uhm,while this is on a red route, what are TFL doing serving CCTV PCNs for footway parking? Why can't they? Red Routes are exempt from the ban on CCTV enforcement. Totally agree with your (and MMVs) other points. Not saying they can't. But never seen anything from TFL on parking except code 46, stopping where prohibited. Which they could have served here and would have less defence. It seems wholly at odds with that historic bee you had in your bonnet about blanket use of 46. If, as we all had to accept, the contravention could only ever be 46 on a Red Route then I can't see they can use 62. A theory > A mini cab driver recently posted in another case that he understood he was able to stop to pick up/set down, for up to 5 mins on RRs and in bus lanes. I don't know if this is so or whether written into RR Orders or a less formal undertaking from TfL? If it is allowed then perhaps that's why they've resorted to 62. They do use code 62, but usually it's for PCNs issued on street, but AFAIK there's nothing in Law that prevents CCTV operators using it too. I believe that the 5 minute concession (I've been told it's actually 3 minutes) for boarding/alighting is a concession by TfL. I understand there's a night time concession to allow people to go to the cashpoint so they can pay the cabbie. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a defence of waiting for a gate/barrier to be opened? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:16 |