Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Stopped on Yellow Zig Zags for just under 10 secs outside School (Bromley)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Mx300
Hi All,

I'm new here, just received a PCN by post issued by a fixed (automatic?) CCTV camera located by my kids school in Borough of Bromley (Greater London / Kent).

Literally stopped on Yellow Zig Zags for just under 10 secs as per video footage they have kindly provided.


There are two signs facing road stating no stopping...(but signs not facing oncoming traffic so not easy to read in less than 10 seconds)

I'm new here but read about 'De Minimis'

- is it likely the council would accept this as a good reason for appeal if stopped for less than 10 seconds?
This was well after 9am (but within restricted period) so there were no other pedestrians around.


- Do I need to try to get a traffic order from council? if so how do I go about it?

- Does there need to be sufficient signage that CCTV camera in operation?

- Does the PCN need to state - CCTV was recorded by an "appropriate device" (as read on the forum that a case was won when appropriate device was missing).

- Is it worth checking the dimensions etc. of the zig zag lines? If so which traffic manual do i need to check (2002 / 2016 / 2018/9??)

Many thanks smile.gif



Starworshipper12
Please read this and edit your post accordingly:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125502
Mad Mick V
From the Sticky thread--------this situation might still apply so the OP needs to get the traffic order to check:-

Bromley ----Stopped in a restricted area outside a school etc-----CCTV PCNs inadmissible


2170003696

The PCN in this case has been issued by post based on camera evidence.

The local authority's TMO only appears to makes provision for on street service of the PCN at the location and for the contravention in question.

Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that this PCN was properly issued and therefore allow this appeal.

Mick
Mx300
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 07:24) *
From the Sticky thread--------this situation might still apply so the OP needs to get the traffic order to check:-

Bromley ----Stopped in a restricted area outside a school etc-----CCTV PCNs inadmissible


2170003696

The PCN in this case has been issued by post based on camera evidence.

The local authority's TMO only appears to makes provision for on street service of the PCN at the location and for the contravention in question.

Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that this PCN was properly issued and therefore allow this appeal.

Mick


Awesome, Thanks, how best to request the Traffic Order please?



QUOTE (Starworshipper12 @ Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 07:13) *
Please read this and edit your post accordingly:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125502


Thank you for your reply. I have the PCN as a PDF File but it's just too big to upload (just over 2mb) and have image ready attached.

There is also video footage of me stopping for exactly 9 / 10 seconds max (not including time of reversing / motion) i would say.

Looking at the PCN flaws database link in post you provided, for this borough this comes up:

QUOTE
London Borough of Bromley

Section 36(1) exemption claimed 22 February 2019, queried identity of qualified person

Section 43(2) exemption - uses Response Master by Barbour Logic



Can I use this in my appeal?


I was looking at the CCTV camera today, it's very high up, the 'Camera' sign is very small and not visible when turning into the road. Is this relevant at all?

Also the Stopping restrictions are not easily visible / readable in less than 10 seconds.
Mx300
I converted the PDF to Jpegs using website.

Here are images of the PCN.

https://ibb.co/QMcp5gx
https://ibb.co/jyQkCMc
https://ibb.co/V2g1skr
https://ibb.co/Lh8kbSM


Any advice greatly appreciated, Thank you
stamfordman
You are bang to rights on the contravention although you can ask for discretion. You must know surely about the no stopping zigzags.

Only hope is a technicality in order or on PCN.
cp8759
What time do the restrictions end?
Mx300
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 30 Mar 2019 - 16:24) *
What time do the restrictions end?


9.30am..

Not that it matters, but there were no pedestrians in sight (and no immediate carparking spaces) when arrived

surely stopping for less than 10 seconds is not a disaster?

And why can't the council issue a 1st time warning...instead of whacking a PCN on straight away...
DancingDad
Looking at the photo, stopped to let someone out.
Which is precisely what school ZZs are designed to stop.
Markings look clear and yellow No Stopping sign is present.
Unless someone can come up with a valid technical argument, grab the discount.
cp8759
QUOTE (Mx300 @ Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 11:55) *
Section 36(1) exemption claimed 22 February 2019, queried identity of qualified person

Section 43(2) exemption - uses Response Master by Barbour Logic

Can I use this in my appeal?

Not in a million years, that just means that so far, attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to get hold of Bromley's internal paragraphs and policy documents have been unsuccessful. It is never a good idea to use something in an appeal if you don't know what it means.

The only hope I can see here is for you to as the council for a copy of the Traffic Management Order and see if it has the same issue identified by Mike above, failing that, you'll have to pay the discount.

If you genuinely had no idea what no-stopping zig-zags mean, you might want to refresh your knowledge of the Highway Code. You seem genuinely surprised at being issued a PCN and if you drive in London, it's important to be up to scratch with what all the various signs and road markings mean, otherwise with all the cameras there are around town things can get expensive very quickly.

You can get a copy of the TMO by asking the council, don't make reference to the PCN, just say you want the TMO that supports the no-stopping zig-zags on that street. You can use this form: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/site/xfp/scripts...amp;language=en
Mx300
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 16:05) *
The only hope I can see here is for you to as the council for a copy of the Traffic Management Order and see if it has the same issue identified by Mike above, failing that, you'll have to pay the discount.

If you genuinely had no idea what no-stopping zig-zags mean, you might want to refresh your knowledge of the Highway Code. You seem genuinely surprised at being issued a PCN and if you drive in London, it's important to be up to scratch with what all the various signs and road markings mean, otherwise with all the cameras there are around town things can get expensive very quickly.


Great, Thank you for all the advice, much appreciated. I've requested the TMO now.

I am indeed surprised about getting a PCN for stopping for less than 10 seconds in a quiet road at a quiet time - as been a work from home Dad for years, hardly ever drive to the school unless really have to, and thought that fair warnings, common sense, common decency still prevailed in the world...(with a space for discretion, benefit of the doubt and flexibility etc. etc.)

...but i guess need to brush up my everyday life skills me thinks (and Highway Code of course too) smile.gif especially with all the CCTV and eager beavers around.

When i park somewhere I am normally quite aware of all the signs / parking restrictions and often get out of the car to check the sign posts etc.

However in this case there were no empty parking spaces directly nearby, wanted my child in school by 9.15am (school gate takes 1 minute to open) and in a rush I didn't think about the time restrictions in place after 9am, and I ignorantly assumed that the CCTV (i forgot about due to lack of signage) was for other reasons than automatically issuing PCN's (for ignoramuses like moi rolleyes.gif ).

Also at 9.14am it was so quiet outside school that didn't think anything of it.

Especially as this morning, a little further down the road, at the next gate and set of yellow zig zag lines, saw several other parents dropping off kids there well out of sight of the CCTV....

I don't feel bitter or resentful, it just looks like in my case discretion could be allowed, not painting everyone with the same brush (not saying you are), but surely it's different between when pedestrians are constantly crossing the road at 8.50am to get to school and where you can hear a squirrel pass wind at 9.14am...

Also if I wanted to stop the car to read the Parking restrictions, i assume I would also automatically get issued a PCN....

Perhaps this could have all been avoided (not just for myself but most likely many others) with more signage about the CCTV and with the time restriction signs actually facing the traffic.

Of course next time i will know / walk / get out of the house earlier....(ahhh...hindsight)...Thank you

Will hopefully update if any positive developments

Also big thank you to everyone else that has read and / or contributed.

Best regards
cp8759
Let us know when you get the TMO and we'll check it for you. To answer your other points:

The merits of whether there are or aren't pedestrians around is irrelevant, virtually all traffic regulations are strict liability, meaning the fairness or otherwise of enforcement is irrelevant.

As for stopping to read the restrictions, it depends on what the restrictions are. On a single yellow line outside a controlled parking zone for example, you'd be well within your right to park, get out of the car, read the sign, and if parking is not allowed, drive off. Any PCN issued in these circumstances would be invalid.

But a no stopping road marking can be seen from the driver's seat without needing to get out of the car, example include clearway signs on major roads, red lines on red routes, school no stopping markings and white zig-zags at pedestrian crossings. Stop on any of these, and you're liable to instant enforcement.
Mx300
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 2 Apr 2019 - 18:09) *
Let us know when you get the TMO and we'll check it for you.


Great, Thank you and for your other points too.

I have received a reply from the council now:

QUOTE
These School Keep Clear markings were first introduced back in 1994, and I attach the relevant amendment Order to the Base Order of 1991. However, the Base Order of 1991 (and subsequent amendments) were consolidated in a new Base Order in 1998. The Consolidation Order of 1998 is also attached, together with the latest Base Order 1998 (as amended) incorporating any amendments to the Articles of the 1998 Order.

Notwithstanding the above, School Keep Clear markings no longer require a Traffic Management Order as these are now covered under Part 6 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (a copy of Part 6 is attached).


and they've attached some documents but seem quite old as per dates above. Shall i upload them here too?

The CCTV was set up around October / Nove 2016 (would need to check) in case that's relevant?

Cheers
Mx300
I assume thisTMO is publicly available knowledge and ok to post here?

If so, here are the jpgs of the TMO from 1998, i see with an amendment from 2011.

Should there be something written in about issuing a PCN when using CCTV device?









Thank you

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 27 Mar 2019 - 07:24) *
From the Sticky thread--------this situation might still apply so the OP needs to get the traffic order to check:-

Bromley ----Stopped in a restricted area outside a school etc-----CCTV PCNs inadmissible


2170003696

The PCN in this case has been issued by post based on camera evidence.

The local authority's TMO only appears to makes provision for on street service of the PCN at the location and for the contravention in question.

Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that this PCN was properly issued and therefore allow this appeal.

Mick


Looks like Mick's posted argument may apply?
Mad Mick V
Not sure about this one at all and the OP is coming to the end of the discount period.

My view is that the restriction has to be covered by a TMO regardless of their comment that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 provides a default position.

Last, the Order posted is a dog's breakfast and I cannot imagine that it has not been amended whatever they say. The Article referring to an offence is clearly not applicable.

TBH it would be a significant risk taking this to adjudication even if the OP decides to gamble the full amount.

Mick
PASTMYBEST
School zig zags are s36 and do not require a TRO
DancingDad
To me it is a gamble.
No order is needed since TSRGD 2016 came into play.
But the order that is in place requires manual service.
50/50 on what an adjudicator would say.


Clause 3 must be considered in full before deciding to risk the discount.
Mad Mick V
And yet the case I posted (2170003696) was decided on 4th February 2017.

It seems to be a Sect 36 sign as per Part 3 Para 3(b) here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

In that case I might settle at the discount.

Mick
DancingDad
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:00) *
And yet the case I posted (2170003696) was decided on 4th February 2017.

It seems to be a Sect 36 sign as per Part 3 Para 3(b) here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

In that case I might settle at the discount.

Mick



I keep coming back to Clause 3.
The important bit basically says the TMO is in addition to any other enactment.
So is not a stretch for any adjudicator to decide that the allowances within TMA2004 and its regulations allow CCTV and that is what counts.


OP must also keep in mind that no decision is binding on any adjudicator.
Mad Mick V
@DD
Does Clause 3 specifically exclude CCTV enforcement under TSRGDs 2016?
Does it indicate that the terms of the TMO are superior to prime legislation?
Does it mean they can to enforce by CEOs only?

I assume the answer to all three questions is "no" because the TMO indicates it will not act in derogation of an enactment.

Quite clearly the adjudicator in 2017 did not take the TSRGDs into account.

That said, the OP might submit reps including that Decision, whilst within the discount period, and see what sort of line the Council takes. It is not clear which department of the Council dealt with his request or whether it was via FOI.

Mick
DancingDad
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:46) *
@DD
Does Clause 3 specifically exclude CCTV enforcement under TSRGDs 2016?
Does it indicate that the terms of the TMO are superior to prime legislation?
Does it mean they can to enforce by CEOs only?...…...

No
To all three.
In addition to doesn't mean only the TMO counts or excludes other legislation that may have a bearing.
In derogation means that there is no relaxation of other laws.


To me, if the council raises this or an adjudicator thinks on TSRGD, Op is stuffed.

Certainly would not argue against citing the decision in a challenge but do not lose sight of the discount option
hcandersen
IMO, the adj in the quoted decision was wrong.

The order sets the restrictions, although none is needed by virtue of Part 7 here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

Conceptually, there are 2 separate strands in every road traffic contravention PCN:

The restriction;
The enforcement.

And what brings them together....?

Schedule 7 of the TMA which sets out what are road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement under the Act. The TMA also enables regs to be made regarding the how.

Would esteemed posters pl advise which of the possible offences in para. 3 of Schedule 7 applies here.

If 3(2)(b)(1), then is this strictly a 'waiting' restriction?

If not, then is it captured by 3(2)(h)?

If 3(2)(b)(1), then it's simply contravention of a restriction and has nothing to do with whether the order refers to PCNs, PNCs, CPNs or anything. An order should not deal with and is not required to deal with the 'how', that's the role of the Gen Regs and therefore falls under derogation.

Mx300
wow thank you all for all your input!

Not sure if I understand all the points correctly - but generally looks like it could go either way at adj?

So, if i go via appeal / representation route by Sunday 14th April 2019 (online) ie. 21 days from 25th March (?)

then if that were to be rejected, at that point get another chance to either
i) pay the discount rate (within 21 days of rejection letter)
or
ii) still choose adj route at that time ye?

Thank you
DancingDad
21 days starting with date of service, ie, 27th March = day 1.
Last day to retain discount = 16th April
hcandersen
If it's a s36 sign which part of Schedule 7 applies such as to render failure to comply liable to enforcement as a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement?

It neither falls under the table in part 2 of Sch 14 neither is it a bus stop or bus stand clearway.

Just asking!
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 17:23) *
If it's a s36 sign which part of Schedule 7 applies such as to render failure to comply liable to enforcement as a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement?

It neither falls under the table in part 2 of Sch 14 neither is it a bus stop or bus stand clearway.

Just asking!


good question, I agree TMA 2004 does not seem to support civil enforcement. Interesting the LLAA 2003 does
hcandersen
Agree.

OP, when you make reps you must ask them to specify which paragraph in Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act applies such as to make the offence of stopping on these markings subject to civil enforcement.

Don't do any more on this point. We'll keep their unequivocal response that the markings do not need an order up our sleeve: I always keep my powder dry by putting it up my sleeve.
Mad Mick V
Very interesting.

"Driving or propelling"---- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36

Mick
Mx300
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:46) *
It is not clear which department of the Council dealt with his request or whether it was via FOI.

Mick


The initial request for TMO was a 'General Parking Request' and responded to by a 'Technical Assistant' from 'Transport and Highways | Environment and Community Services'.

I have just today received a response (a few more PDF's no text as per 1st reply) for my FOI request -
upon first glance look pretty much the same as the pdfs received from the first other enquiry.

I can try to post the PDFs here from the FOI response if it would be helpful.
If so, how best to post PDF's? as converted JPG's or as attachments somehow?




QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 16:50) *
21 days starting with date of service, ie, 27th March = day 1.
Last day to retain discount = 16th April


@DancingDad Great, so date of service is 2 days after the date of the letter, Thank you very much for clarification.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 18:00) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 17:23) *
If it's a s36 sign which part of Schedule 7 applies such as to render failure to comply liable to enforcement as a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement?

It neither falls under the table in part 2 of Sch 14 neither is it a bus stop or bus stand clearway.

Just asking!


good question, I agree TMA 2004 does not seem to support civil enforcement. Interesting the LLAA 2003 does


Sorry i don't quite understand the above, would it be helpful / essential to get my head around it?


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 18:16) *
Agree.

OP, when you make reps you must ask them to specify which paragraph in Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act applies such as to make the offence of stopping on these markings subject to civil enforcement.



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:46) *
That said, the OP might submit reps including that Decision, whilst within the discount period, and see what sort of line the Council takes.



Thanks Mick & hcandersen

So if I understand correctly, I make representation citing previous case (2170003696) from 2017
and / or (?)
do I in the same rep "ask them to specify which paragraph in Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act applies such as to make the offence of stopping on these markings subject to civil enforcement."

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 18:16) *
Don't do any more on this point...


Thanks again, much appreciated!
cp8759
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 18:00) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 17:23) *
If it's a s36 sign which part of Schedule 7 applies such as to render failure to comply liable to enforcement as a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement?

It neither falls under the table in part 2 of Sch 14 neither is it a bus stop or bus stand clearway.

Just asking!


good question, I agree TMA 2004 does not seem to support civil enforcement. Interesting the LLAA 2003 does

What if the council rely on the TMO? In that case paragraph 3(2)(b) of Schedule 7 would apply, right?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 23:08) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 18:00) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 17:23) *
If it's a s36 sign which part of Schedule 7 applies such as to render failure to comply liable to enforcement as a road traffic contravention subject to civil enforcement?

It neither falls under the table in part 2 of Sch 14 neither is it a bus stop or bus stand clearway.

Just asking!


good question, I agree TMA 2004 does not seem to support civil enforcement. Interesting the LLAA 2003 does

What if the council rely on the TMO? In that case paragraph 3(2)(b) of Schedule 7 would apply, right?



Council have already stated that they don't need a tmo when asked for it
cp8759
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 02:04) *
Council have already stated that they don't need a tmo when asked for it

Just trying to think what the position might be if they change their tune at the tribunal stage.
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.