Camden Bus Stop PCN, Chalk Falk Rd Bus Stop PCN Options

[Tony London]

I received a Camden PCN in the post (see following link) after my car stopped in the Chalk Farm Road bus stop ()7/6/20 1.22pm) just past Morrisons Petrol station. As the Petrol station was closed for renovations, I had pulled over to do a u-turn and was only there for about 2 minutes as I waited for a gap in the cars. The Bus stop is 30 meters and I had stopped before the actual bus stop and I don't recall seeing any signs.

https://imgur.com/a/YwUGa43

Initially I was going to just pay up even though it seemed very harsh to enforce a bus stop at 1.22am, given that we were in a lock down and there was little traffic in their area. Having looked at the video footage times and looked at the images numerousl times, I noticed the camera operator was trying to locate something towards the end of the footage as I complete my u-turn. So I researched Bus Stop retractions and found an annual report by Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator that clearly states the upright sign showing the restriction is essential for enforcement. As the report was from 2009, I checked the 2016 TSRGD and found that it confirms the upright ring is required. I found and included the following from Caroline's report which confirms 1./ the upright sign is required and 2./ the authority must show on the basis of a record produced by an approved device they have reason to believe the contravention occurred.

It is clear from the attached report extracts from "THE JOINT REPORT OF THE PARKING ADJUDICATORS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES 2009/10” by Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator for the UK, that the failure to show the relevant upright sign means that the evidence does not satisfactorily prove the alleged contravention The Traffic Management Act 2004 requires that “on the basis of a record produced by an approved device, the authority has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle which is stationary in a civil enforcement area…”

Having included extracts from the report and a copy of Diagram 1025.1 with the regulation on bus stop clearways referred from the diagram in the 2016 TSRGD, it is amazing that Processing officer ignores the fact that the operator is obviously searching for the sign which I pointed out, then blatantly insists that the sign is there. On reading the Notice of Rejection, it is clear that Alison has not bothered to consider my representation, as she doesn't consider the detailed circumstances I outlined that I was doing a u-turn and you can see my middle brake light shows that along with the low frequency of traffic and buses at that time which would likely be considered de minimis "about minimal things" and/or reasonable mitigation.

I've asked on here before about enforcement by post, where the authority evidence does not show the sign with the restriction. It is clear from Caroline Sheppard that they must ensure that the evidence would support their claim of the contravention. We see parking attendants taking lots of photos when they are issuing a PCN, so should an enforcement authority not also ensure the same with CCTV ?

The bus stop in Chalk Farm Road opposite Morrisons is 30 meters long and I would have expected at least another upright sign to show that it was a restricted bus stop. I can't recall if additional signs are required or just a suggestion. It seems to me that had they had another sign, then the operator would have been able to focus on this and there would be no doubt on the contravention.

I feel that I still have a strong case and I think Camden needs to train their staff to ensure that they have evidence, so I am, also considering making another formal complaint, which I've had success with Camden admitting the need for restraining. Though, it seems to be less about traffic management and more about revenue generation.


Thanks for any advice and I will lodge the case with the Tribunal later today. Unusually, they have given me 28 days to pay at the discounted rate and so I have until 6th/8th August for both.

[Advertisement]

[Tony London]

Do you even know if the sign is there? I suggest you go and check before deciding what to do next.

Thanks for your responce.

Isn't it a legal requirement for Camden to provide tangible evidence, firstly with the PCN and then in the notice of rejection ? I would think that is why Regulation 10 the the "Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007" was drafted ?, which states that “on the basis of a record produced by an approved device, the authority has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle which is stationary….".

This website was created with the principle of justice for motorists. I should be able to see what I did wrong without having to go back and check and they should provide evidence when rejecting my representation.

[southpaw82]

This website was created with the principle of justice for motorists.

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

[Tony London]

This website was created with the principle of justice for motorists.

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

Everything surely! Isn't that why Councils are now legally obliged to have proper regard towards representations, instead of just any response and usually ignoring mitigation and actual evidence.

15 years ago I complained to Camden Head of Parking for the rejections and inaccurate letters they issued for parking in Brittannia Street and driving through the Pedestrian area of Lambs Conduit Street, both of which I was allowed to do as a disabled badge holder and with my badge in full view. However, I got letters back saying that my badge was not valid in Camden's Green badge zone... which neither of these streets were part of and the Pedestrian Zone exemption applied to all Orange badge holders and not just Green badge holders.

Hence the Justice for Motorists is to ensure that evidence clearly supports the contravention and it is not for a motorist to prove that they are innocent. That is something that Caroline Sheppard (Chief Parking Adjudicator for England and Wales) clearly stands for and it can be seen from her reports.

[southpaw82]

And what has this website (PePiPoo) got to do with the council’s obligations? That’s what in confused about - you’re throwing out this website’s tag line in relation to something you think the council ought to do.

[Tony London]

And what has this website (PePiPoo) got to do with the council’s obligations? That’s what in confused about - you’re throwing out this website’s tag line in relation to something you think the council ought to do.

You are missing the point. I included the website tag line to remind posters that the website is about justice and fairness to motorists. I've seen lots of other posts here where people have pointe out where the council has not had regard for their representation.

I have asked several times why it is fair to send a PCN without clear evidence and for adjudicators to simply say thats fine you can send it later if the motorist will simply not roll over and pay up.

Thanks

[southpaw82]

You are missing the point.

Evidently.

I have asked several times why it is fair to send a PCN without clear evidence and for adjudicators to simply say thats fine you can send it later if the motorist will simply not roll over and pay up.

Perhaps that’s an accurate statement of the law?

[stamfordman]

I see the OP isn't taking no for an answer...

Stopping on a bus stop is a decriminalised contravention. There is no judge and jury and no need for the council to provide the equivalent of DNA putting your car at the scene. Nearly all London bus stops are part of a priority no stopping network and many are monitored by CCTV. CCTV contraventions are backed up with library pictures - there cannot be cameras on every aspect of street furniture.

As we've already said, your only chance is to convince either the council or tribunal you were engaged in a driving manoeuvre and the most you can pay is the full penalty provided you stick to deadlines.

[cp8759]

I have asked several times why it is fair to send a PCN without clear evidence and for adjudicators to simply say thats fine you can send it later if the motorist will simply not roll over and pay up.

Perhaps that’s an accurate statement of the law?

You can drop "perhaps", there is no requirement to provide any evidence at all with the PCN. Indeed, I can't think of any sort of legal proceedings where *all* the evidence must be provided up-front.

The OP's best course of action would be to check if the sign is there, pay if it is, contest all the way if it isn't.