Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: CCTV PCN - No images on pcn
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
phoenix01
Hi all,

A friend of mine has received a CCTV PCN without no images being shown on the PCN. Another letter was sent with still images and you can view the contravention, however I wanted to know if the ticket can be appealed on procedural impropriety?

Any help appreciated.














Mad Mick V
There are a number of things wrong here but the chief one is an extended timescale which is prejudicial to the PCN recipient. There are regulations stipulated in the legislation as to relevant dates to make representations and anything which affects that timescale must rank as a procedural impropriety.

The follow up letter cannot be valid IMO since it must contain words such as "certified copy of evidential record" and something about it being "served" therefore it is not admissible as evidence.

I can find nothing in the TMA 2004 or London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 which suggests that a photographic record must be included in the PCN.

So the ground for appeal must be that the recipient had legitimate expectations that the PCN would be served properly but the Council has failed in its duty in that regard resulting in undue delay in the process which causes unfairness and prejudice.

This document might throw up other mistakes made by the Council:-

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...oveddevices.pdf

Mick
PASTMYBEST
21 day's is the correct timescale for a reg 10 PCN within the TMA 2004

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/schedule/made
DancingDad
And nowt in TMA 2004 or the regs to make including photos mandatory.
That they sent photos later is likely to be regarded as a courtesy, exactly as including them is.

Can't see from the photos but is the required yellow "No Stopping" sign present ?
PASTMYBEST
Here.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5107305,-...3312!8i6656

There is a yellow sign but at the other end of the bus stop. You could argue that the signs are insufficient to convey the restriction as they are not visable from where you stopped

Also as per 2.3 5 of this doc there should be signage re camera enfocement, this seems to be missing

Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras in the[Enforcement Authority]

Signs

2.3.5 in the area Relevant camera enforcement signs should be displayed in areas where the system operates. The signs will not define the field of view of the cameras but will advise thatCCTV camera enforcement is taking place.



Signage for camera enforcement is not a statutory requirement, but if they have signed up to a code of practice then they must follow it. Fairly sure all London councils have signed up via the joint commitee

Also get the video. How long were you stopped, Di Minimis may well apply for only a few seconds
phoenix01
Thanks all for your input.

The car was stopped for about 13seconds, from the video footage.

Also, could I not argue that the equipment that is used is faulty (I.e the CCTV ) because the system there system produced an error when trying to obtain the images (see PCN - it says error file not found) hence showing that system they are using is not accurate and does not comply with CCTV code of practice.
Mad Mick V
This has happened in Islington too and has been an issue since mid October:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103188

Do they have the same server farm?

Mick
phoenix01
This is enough to go on I think, I'll draft a letter and take it from there.
Chaseman
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 27 Dec 2015 - 13:15) *
Here.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5107305,-...3312!8i6656

There is a yellow sign but at the other end of the bus stop. You could argue that the signs are insufficient to convey the restriction as they are not visable from where you stopped

Also as per 2.3 5 of this doc there should be signage re camera enfocement, this seems to be missing

Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras in the[Enforcement Authority]

Signs

2.3.5 in the area Relevant camera enforcement signs should be displayed in areas where the system operates. The signs will not define the field of view of the cameras but will advise thatCCTV camera enforcement is taking place.



Signage for camera enforcement is not a statutory requirement, but if they have signed up to a code of practice then they must follow it. Fairly sure all London councils have signed up via the joint commitee

Also get the video. How long were you stopped, Di Minimis may well apply for only a few seconds


It's also worth quoting this para from the CCTV Code of Practice:

2.3.1 The primary objective of any CCTV camera enforcement system (‘the system’) is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.

I have had a look at the GSV link and can see no CCTV warning signs. This seems directly to contradict 2.3.1 above. After all, how can the use of CCTV deter the motorist who might otherwise have broken the rules, if he doesn't know about it! And of course no right-thinking council would ever use unpublicised CCTV systems as a revenue-raiser, the job of CCTV is to keep the traffic flowing freely. sleep.gif. Incidentally it looks as though you were nicked by a camera sitting on a pole next to Sam the 99p man.

Here is a link to the full Code. I am quite sure it has been adopted by all London councils.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/...ctv-enforcement
phoenix01
QUOTE
After all, how can the use of CCTV deter the motorist who might otherwise have broken the rules, if he doesn't know about it! And of course no right-thinking council would ever use unpublicised CCTV systems as a revenue-raiser, the job of CCTV is to keep the traffic flowing freely.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

phoenix01
Hi all,

I need some further advise for this.

I send the council the letter with the following:

QUOTE
I wish to appeal the above PCN issued by CCTV on the following grounds:

1) There has been a ‘Procedural Impropriety’ has there has been a failure to adhere the

CCTV Code of Practice.

 2.5.12 Still images must be provided in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Still Images

Notwithstanding this, authorities should include such still images on the PCN to

show sufficient grounds for the PCN being issued. Still images should be sent

upon request. No charge is to be made for the provision of such images. The

image then becomes the property of the person who received the PCN. All other

still images will remain the property of the operating Authority.

 2.5.13 A still image is a print onto paper of the picture held on a single field or

frame of the video recording. The equipment will be used to generate these still

images and each image produced will contain its unique frame number and the

time (HH MM SS) and date (DD MM YY – or similar format) of the occurrence.

The PCN has failed to provide the images on the PCN (see Image1 in the attachment),

hence it is invalid.

2) Additionally, there has been a failure to follow regulations:-

2.3 Enforcement of Traffic Regulations by CCTV

 2.3.1 The primary objective of any CCTV camera enforcement system (‘the

system’) is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by

deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that

do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful

traffic signs.

Signs

 2.3.5 Relevant camera enforcement signs should be displayed in areas where

the system operates. The signs will not define the field of view of the cameras but

will advise that CCTV camera enforcement is taking place in the area.

There were no visible signs that CCTV was in operation and hence the council has failed to

address this.

This has been confirmed at Adjudicator by the case of Rachel Johnson v Wirral, copy of

press article included. Quote form the code of conduct:

"You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried

out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the

entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. ....... Clear

and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very

discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a

general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less

obvious to people that they are on CCTV

• be clearly visible and readable;

• contain details of the organisation operating the system, the purpose for using CCTV and

who to contact about the scheme (where these things are not obvious to those being

monitored); and

• be an appropriate size depending on context, for example, whether they are viewed by

pedestrians or car drivers."

3) Finally, The Section 48 of The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local

Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions states "The Secretary of

State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or

sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical". Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act

states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance. Hamilton Rd, Southall does

not fall under this description, as CEO enforcement is not difficult nor dangerous in the area.

Hence, I trust the PCN will be cancelled, given the evidence and failure to observe

requirements that have been imposed.




They have come back and rejected the appeal with the following:








Please advise if I should go ahead and appeal to PATAS as I'm not sure of what action to take.

Many thanks.
Phoenix


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.