PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Camden Bus Stop PCN, Chalk Falk Rd Bus Stop PCN
Tony London
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 08:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578




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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 08:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 08:45
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,882
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Needs moving to the Council section.

I would ascertain if the night bus service was running, otherwise the sign is rather redundant.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 10:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,806
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (Tony London @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 09:35) *
2 minutes as I waited for a gap in the cars.

there was little traffic in their area.


Shurely shome contradiction?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baroudeur
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 12:23
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 702
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,212






This bus stop

The sign on the bus stop and the continous wide yellow line marking the stopping area meet the requirements.

The "Bus Stop" marking on the road may not meet....

17.22 Where the stop serves frequent or multiple services, or vehicles with different entrance positions, the length of the bay may be increased in increments of 2 m. The legend BUS STOP should be used once for every complete length of 12 m. Under-used stops of excessive length may result in enforcement difficulties.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 12:44
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,965
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The video gives no indication (pun intended) that you were engaged in a driving manoeuvre. You were indicating left and stopped in a no stopping restriction for a long time.

No doubt an adjudicator would accept your account but the contravention is made out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 13:18
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,339
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 13:44) *
The video gives no indication (pun intended) that you were engaged in a driving manoeuvre. You were indicating left and stopped in a no stopping restriction for a long time.

No doubt an adjudicator would accept your account but the contravention is made out.

To which I would add that Caroline Sheppard and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) do not deal with London PCNs. London Tribunals cover London and you would in all likelihood get a completely different approach to CCTV evidence there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 18:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,187
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 13:44) *
No doubt an adjudicator would accept your account but the contravention is made out.

I'm not so sure about that. The video suggests a vehicle that was stopped, period. A vehicle engaged in a traffic manoeuvre would be signalling to pull out, and you'd expect to see the wheels turned to the right, and possibly inching forwards ever so slightly to get a better view over the driver's shoulder. The video suggests the vehicle was stationary for some time and during that time, there is nothing to suggest there wasn't an adequate gap to pull out (for example there's an 8 second gap from -48 seconds to -40 seconds when no cars are seen in either direction, then again from -.37 when we see the lights of a vehicle in the far lane pass up to -13 seconds there's a 24 second gap before the vehicle finally moves off).

An adjudicator could well conclude the driver stopped to look at his phone or sip a drink or whatever else, and this was not in fact a driving manoeuvre at all, in fact I dare say that is the most likely finding of fact based on the evidence.

We already know that the tribunal will accept a photo of the sign in conjunction with the video as evidence that the sign was there, and you can't say the sign wasn't there as you didn't see it.

To be honest, I'd pay the discount on this one because your only hope is that the council messes up the evidence pack or doesn't contest due to COVID related staffing constraints. However I'd imagine they'd prioritise this case as it's an easy win for them.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 18:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,965
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 19:14) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 13:44) *
No doubt an adjudicator would accept your account but the contravention is made out.

I'm not so sure about that.


Am just saying that if the OP were to opt for a personal hearing they are likely to be believed as a credible person if this indeed is the truth. At that time in the morning the urgency to do something is not as great. Would it be enough to risk the discount? I think we agree no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 18:52
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,187
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 19:29) *
Am just saying that if the OP were to opt for a personal hearing they are likely to be believed as a credible person if this indeed is the truth.

I'm not sure they would believe them, simply because the video is incompatible with their account as it stands right now.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 13:40
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 19:14) *
An adjudicator could well conclude the driver stopped to look at his phone or sip a drink or whatever else, and this was not in fact a driving manoeuvre at all, in fact I dare say that is the most likely finding of fact based on the evidence.

We already know that the tribunal will accept a photo of the sign in conjunction with the video as evidence that the sign was there, and you can't say the sign wasn't there as you didn't see it.

To be honest, I'd pay the discount on this one because your only hope is that the council messes up the evidence pack or doesn't contest due to COVID related staffing constraints. However I'd imagine they'd prioritise this case as it's an easy win for them.


Just to be clear, the mitigation is not something was relying on. I had included it to see if Camden would have regard for it in their notice of rejection. Once I had seen the TSRGD, it became apparent that the fact that I had stopped was all that was needed, along withe the relevant upright sign.

So the adjudicator will accept a photo of the relevant upright sign, regardless of the fact that Regulation 10 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 provides 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….".

They don't capture the moment I had come to a stop, so what about the situation where a bus was at the bus stop when I pulled over and this blocked my view. How would a photo of the sign prove that it was visible at the time. I also mentioned that as this is a long bus stop at about 30 meters, there should have been more upright signs and as a previous poster mentioned, the word BUS STOP should be repeated every 12 meter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 14:04
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 19:52) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 19:29) *
Am just saying that if the OP were to opt for a personal hearing they are likely to be believed as a credible person if this indeed is the truth.

I'm not sure they would believe them, simply because the video is incompatible with their account as it stands right now.

The initial part of the video had to be cut to be upload and it shows 3-4 oncoming vehicles. However, I accept that this is only mitigation and I wanted to understand why Camden have not acknowledged this in the rejection. Surely that is Procedural Impropriety ?

I was in no rush and overly hesitant after mostly being at home for 3 months, so I was keen not to stop other traffic, including buses behind me, whilst making a u-turn. It was not busy by usual standards for the area, but there was mostly oncoming traffic (I had to cut the start of footage to upload) and as you can see at the end I had to make a 3-point turn. My car is an automatic and you can clearly see the middle brake light is on, so I wasn’t parked.

Whenever I stop to make a u-turn, I indicate left to pull over and wait until there is a gap in traffic so that I don not force traffic to stop. I indicate right when I am ready to move out and in case of vehicles I had not noticed. I’m not a fan of turning my wheel outward and edging out, as in most roads this would cause an obstruction and forces cars over the centre line. Often when you indicate right, a vehicle will stop/slow/flash to allow you to move and then don't understand that you are trying to do a u-turn, which in daytime I would not consider doing on a main road or at a bus stop.

I passed my test long before we had CCTV and councils looking to catch people out for even minor offences, so I am not used to driving to prove my reasons mellow.gif I will probably need to

QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 11:21) *
QUOTE (Tony London @ Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 09:35) *
2 minutes as I waited for a gap in the cars.

there was little traffic in their area.


Shurely shome contradiction?



There was less than the usual amount of traffic, but still enough to mean I had to wait to complete the u-turn safely and without the risk I'd force traffic to stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 14:14
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,965
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



You are entitled to put this in front of the adjudicator but the full £130 will be in play.

First you may as well try reps to Camden.

Forget the signage - nearly all bus stops in London are properly marked and signed as no stopping zones.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 16:45
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 15:14) *
You are entitled to put this in front of the adjudicator but the full £130 will be in play.

First you may as well try reps to Camden.

Forget the signage - nearly all bus stops in London are properly marked and signed as no stopping zones.



Thanks for your feedback. My point is that Camden have not provided any proof that the upright sign is in place, not even a stock photo. Why does everyone and apparently adjudicators also, take the opinion that all bus stops in London are properly marked and signed ?

Surely, there is a legal requirement to capture the contravention with the upright signs or at least evidence the sign is in place if it's not readable. Why does Regulation 10 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 exist ?, 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….".

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 17:41
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,965
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



If the sign isn't there you win. I'm sure Camden has stock pictures on file but signs can get dislodged. An adjudicator would also note a sign was there in July 2019 on GSV.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 17:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 20:47
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,187
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Tony London @ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 15:04) *
The initial part of the video had to be cut to be upload and it shows 3-4 oncoming vehicles. However, I accept that this is only mitigation...

No it's not mitigation, if you had been unable to pull out because there wasn't a gap in traffic, this would amount to reasons beyond your control because you're not expected to pull out if that would cause an accident, as the duty to avoid an accident overrides pretty much all other laws. Hence if there had been no gap, that would be a statutory ground of appeal i.e. the alleged contravention did not occur.

The only thing I can suggest is that you go back and check whether the sign is still there and if it isn't, get a timed / dated photograph.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 10:35
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (Tony London @ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 15:04) *
The initial part of the video had to be cut to be upload and it shows 3-4 oncoming vehicles. However, I accept that this is only mitigation...

No it's not mitigation, if you had been unable to pull out because there wasn't a gap in traffic, this would amount to reasons beyond your control because you're not expected to pull out if that would cause an accident, as the duty to avoid an accident overrides pretty much all other laws. Hence if there had been no gap, that would be a statutory ground of appeal i.e. the alleged contravention did not occur.

The only thing I can suggest is that you go back and check whether the sign is still there and if it isn't, get a timed / dated photograph.



My understanding is TSRGD 2016 legislation only makes it a restricted bus stop and a contravention if the "required sign" as defined in said legislation is there. However, Regulation 10 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 provides 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….". So does it seem reasonable to simply accept that the required sign is there, when Camden have not provided evidence either on the video footage or the in their notice of rejection. Not even a stock photo and you are suggesting that I should go and take a photo to prove that the sign is not there.


Caroline Shepard is/was the Chief Adjudicator for England and Wales. Her reasoning seems to be in line with what any reasonable person would extrapolate from the legislation. Meaning that an Authority must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contravention did occur. I am prepared to pay the fine, but I want justice as it seems that we are heading back towards the days of fines being imposed without proper consideration. However, I am starting to understand that Adjudicators are somewhat biassed towards the Authorities if they allow stock photos in light of regulation 10.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 10:47
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 18:41) *
If the sign isn't there you win. I'm sure Camden has stock pictures on file but signs can get dislodged. An adjudicator would also note a sign was there in July 2019 on GSV.


Regulation 10 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 provides 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….". So how could a stock photo be allowed, as that only proves the sign was there either before of after and at best would be a balance of probability it was there at the time.


The bus stop is 30 meters long and I would think it would be reasonable to have more than one sign, in situations where a bus was obstructing up upright sign and the road markings. Is there no requirement to cater for these situations ?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 11:22
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,939
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Regulations require that signs be placed that are adequate to inform of the restriction. Although LATOR would not apply because this is s36 an adjudicator would apply the principle. So then what do you have. Guidance. Guidance says in a long bus stop the council should consider putting a sign at the start of the bus stop. But if they had you would have been parked further away from it than the one that is in situ. So i would not be making that argument.

The burden of proof is on the council but it is the balance of probability not beyond reasonable doubt. Your argument that they evidence must be from an approved device but i don't expect it would win or almost every bus stop would become virtually unenforceable. And there is nothing to say that if the council provide photos that they have not come from an approved device in any event

Good luck with this one. I don't think i can offer any better advice


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 13:42
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,187
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



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


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tony London
post Mon, 3 Aug 2020 - 08:09
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,578



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 12:22) *
Regulations require that signs be placed that are adequate to inform of the restriction. Although LATOR would not apply because this is s36 an adjudicator would apply the principle. So then what do you have. Guidance. Guidance says in a long bus stop the council should consider putting a sign at the start of the bus stop. But if they had you would have been parked further away from it than the one that is in situ. So i would not be making that argument.

The burden of proof is on the council but it is the balance of probability not beyond reasonable doubt. Your argument that they evidence must be from an approved device but i don't expect it would win or almost every bus stop would become virtually unenforceable. And there is nothing to say that if the council provide photos that they have not come from an approved device in any event

Good luck with this one. I don't think i can offer any better advice



Thanks for your feedback.

Sorry I don't know what LATOR means or why because this is a section 36 an adjudicator would apply the principle. Do you mean principle that signs are adequately placed ? Surely that is a positive argument in my favour and to prevent other drivers from not knowing that it is a restricted bus stop.

It's nice that someone can see my argument that the burden of proof is on the Council. As you can see from the video they attempt to locate the sign but still decide to issue the PCN without proof or even a stock photo. The Notice of Rejection simply states that the sign is there and attached to the post, yet again there is no evidence it is in place, not even a stock photo.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 25th November 2020 - 08:35
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.