Rules on L.A video evidence, Is this evidence conclusive? Options

[Nuboy]

Hi there,

I've received a PCN from Barnet for an alleged yellow box junction contravention.

The Council have failed to show the contravention occurred in their supplied evidence: my reg. no. is not visible on the video and a seperate still image (taken with a different camera) of my number plate shows only rear of the car, not its location.

I have a few questions which I hope forum members may be able to answer. My questions are;

1 - Can the council produce further evidence at my appeal (which they have not released), or is the evidence they have released to me (on their website) the sum total of what they can rely on?

2 - The legislation states a PCN must contain "....the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that a penalty charge is payable...." Therefore, as the Council have failed to show the contravention occurred in their PCN, are they guilty of a "procedural impropriety" which nullifies the PCN?

3 - Can the council use multiple cameras to show an alleged event or does it need to be one single unbroken piece of footage?

Thanks in anticipation of any replies.

[Advertisement]

[DancingDad]

I think you'll find it is the same camera or position. Barnet uses an automated digital camera system that captures possible contraventions and tees them up for review. It is commonplace for the camera to switch to a close up view that highlights the numberplate.

It can't be the same camera nor can it be a different camera in the same position.
The video footage only shows a side and a rear view and the still shot is of the front of the car and this shot is timed at 8 seconds after the car comes to a stop in the box.

The camera information is the same for both video and still.
The video is still running at 22.05.58 which is the time of the still
As Mick says, that is the rear of a car

[stamfordman]

The latest cameras look like this - there is a monochrome camera that captures pulsed infrared illumination of the number plate, and a colour camera that provides an overview and presumably moving video. The infrared diode array is between the cameras.

[Mr Mustard]

The driver bowled into the junction when there was zero prospect of exiting.

One to put down to experience and expense.

For the benefit of all I wrote about these junctions a while back https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2016/06/yellowboxfever.html

[Nuboy]

Thanks for all the comments to date

Really useful to see that I’ve been looking under the wrong act; TMA 2004 rather than LLAA2003!

I’ve scanned through the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the Road Traffic act 1991. I can only find fairly generalised references to powers and duties of Local Authorities in these acts.

I can’t find any type of statutory guidance for local authorities to accompany the LLAA2003 act, similar to that which is supplied for the TMA 2004.

This guidance must exist. There must have been guidance on the content of PCNs and procedural advice for Local Authorities, even if was just a general code of practice the local authorities whipped up.

Can anyone signpost me to any such documents please?

[Mr Mustard]

As requested

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j...664956595341603

[Nuboy]

Much appreciated Mr Mustard, Thank you.

[Nuboy]

Thanks for all the input.

I’m going to appeal to the PTAS, assuming Barnet reject my appeal, on the grounds of procedural impropriety (i.e. they haven’t followed the minimum code of conduct) along the lines given below. Any final comments please.

The document “The Code of practice for operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras in the (Enforcement Authority)” sets a minimum standard which must be adhered to by all those authorities in London enforcing traffic regulations using CCTV cameras. Sect 2.5 lays out the procedure for dealing with CCTV and photos, including releasing media (recordings and stills) to support the authorities alleged infringement.

Two sections are relevant in this case;


2.5.12   . . . . . . authorities should include such still images on the PCN to show sufficient grounds for the PCN being issued.
2.5.1 A copy of the section of footage, relevant to a particular contravention, will be released to the appellant in whatever means the authority deems appropriate.

I contend:
The footage and still image do not show sufficient grounds for the PCN being issued as video does not identify the vehicle and the still image does not identify the position of the vehicle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posters have said that the still is a photo taken with the same camera using a different imaging system. So one camera films the whole scene and another snaps the number plate in HD. I would argue whether this is the case or not is irrelevant; the local authority have not produced evidence showing sufficient grounds on the PCN, as they are instructed to do in the code of practice, section 2.5.12.

There may be a technical explanation that clarifies their technology and their methodology, but they haven’t detailed that on the PCN, so not provided sufficient grounds.

Now this next bit may be a red herring ……
I took a freeze frame of the video at the same time as the councils freeze frame showing my number plate. I then blew it up, sized and rotated it to align it with the council freeze frame. I've posted the images together. Looking at the angles of the vehicle, it’s clearly not taken from the same source. Is this significant?

From this I’m wondering if the council actually have an image of a number plate on a car in the yellow box.

Any suggestions to improve my case further? Many thanks

[stamfordman]

There is only one camera - you can't tell much about angles from the mono image. If you look at the pole you'll see the upper one of the two ANPR cameras is the one that got you. There looks to be something at the top of the pole but that isn't an ANPR device I reckon. I guess it's possible it is a general video camera linked to ANPR cameras.

Also, the numberplate does not have to be snapped in the box but can be taken if the vehicle is tracked further usually if the plate is obscured. We see this done manually by operators a lot. In these automated systems though I think it can only be done in the box.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6276611,-0....6384!8i8192



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 - 15:02

[cp8759]

Thanks for all the input.

I’m going to appeal to the PTAS, assuming Barnet reject my appeal, on the grounds of procedural impropriety (i.e. they haven’t followed the minimum code of conduct) along the lines given below.

Are you aware that the code of conduct doesn't carry any legal weight whatsoever and the adjudicators don't care whether councils follow it or not?

Under the LLA 2003, there is no requirement to use a camera at all. In theory a CEO saying you stopped in a box could suffice.