Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Appeal - CCTV from Council
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
mercedes5
I have an appeal due very shortly against a council on the outskirts of N London.

In February they recorded my vehicle on CCTV in a loading bay.

The first notification I received was the NTO, which had no reference to CCTV – so I wrote to them saying I hadn’t had a pcn on my vehicle an wanted further information.

Automatically, I assume, they rejected this, so I had no option other than appeal.

The loading bay is part time, in a pedestrian area and my vehicle certainly isn’t a goods vehicle. Although adjacent to the bay is the entrance to my property.

I have already received copies of the council’s evidence. I believe this strengthens my case:

(1) The picture clearly show and it is noted in their comments that the driver carries a large box from the vehicle to the property. This entrance door is up an alley around the rear of the property, this is the only entrance to it, and thus the car was left unattended while taken in.

(2) A picture of a sign is included – saying No loading at anytime. Yet the next picture shows my vehicle in a bay saying loading bay only. The council have tried to deceive the appeal by taking a picture of the sign just after my vehicle, which clearly is for a different section of road. The correct sign is before my vehicle stating loading regulations for the bay.
Is this not deception on their part

(3) The CCTV evidence I have received is distorted so much, my registration cannot be seen. Have they distorted this purposely to stop me seeing something – because they must have a better copy that shows my registration.

(4) I believe my best defence is the "convienence over necessity rule" - Any opinions??


Does anyone have any advice or information for me? I am confident of winning the case; I just want to cover all the angles against this greedy useless council.

Even if I do not win I will be happy. If they are to get a penny from me they deserve to work for it.
g_attrill
Can you take photos of the bay(s) in question? It would help the appeal to show exactly what each frame of their evidence is showing and where it relates to.

On the subject of the PCN, I am pretty sure they must prove that it was sent to the registered keeper's address. I think they are subject to a 14 day rule like FPN's.

Have you check whether the wording of their Notice to Owner is incorrect (see other threads for info).

If you raise ALL these points it will increase your chances of winning, unlike the courts it seems the more points you raise the better, as long as they are concise and based on legitimate reasons.

Gareth
mercedes5
I have taken some very good photos. They clearly show the 2 differing signs & the different road markings that relate to the signs.

They show how the council has purposely taken their picture at an angle to distort the facts.
Teufel
its possible they have obscured elements of the

go back and take your own photos of the bay and signs

the key PATAS case on loading is jane packer

though note that if you are claiming an exmption (ie yellow line) the burden of proof is on you to prove loading - if parked in a loading bay the burden is on them to prove you were not
(see patas douglas v brent)


the type of vehicle is not relevant for loading (clear from jane packer) - councils do operate their own rules
for not isueing tickets to commerical vehicles but this is their
own decision

loading includes reasonable time away whilst delivering load
and colecting/signing paperwork (jane packer)

the issuing of PCNs from cameras is expermintal and i am not sure of the regs

patas website seems to have problems recently so icant post links
MaxUK
There is a difference in wording between PCNs issued by a parking attendant and PCNs issued on the bassis of the CCTV data.

A PCN issued by PA must state that you can pay at the discounted rate within 14 days from the date the PCN was ISSUED.

A PCN issued by CCTV must state that the discounted rate is within 14 days the PCN was SERVED.

If your PCN (issued by CCTV) says 14 days from the date it was issued, then it does not comply with the Section 4(5)( c ) of The London Local Authorities Act 2000.
There is a difference between the 'date of notice' and the 'date of service of the notice,' and the legislation refers to the latter. Therefore such a PCN is unlawful and uneforceable.

There is also a statutatory 28 days limit when the council has powers to serve a PCN. If your PCN has arrived later than 28 days after the date of the alleged contravention, then this PCN is also unlawful and uneforceable.
mercedes5
I didn’t receive a PCN, but surprise surprise the council say they sent one. The 1st notice I had was the NIP.

I have taken my own pictures showing clearly all the markings and signs. They discredit the pictures taken by the council, which have been selectively taken. Although one of their pictures clearly shows a large box being unloaded from my car into the property.

My car was in a loading bay white box; this has double yellow lines throughout.
mercedes5
I have just quickly reviewed all the evidence the council are required to send me before the hearing. Can they do anything right?

In the witness statement and case history they constantly refer to the wrong date for the alleged contravention.

The case history states the PA affixed the PCN to vehicle (which is complete rubbish).
- They then contradict themselves. –
In the details of appeal they state the PCN had been issued from CCTV footage.

Does anyone know if the council will send a representative to the hearing?
Teufel
councils usually send a representative

the contradictions in their evidence will not help them
make sure you point it out

see the PATAS case - search key cases under heading duplicity

attack on all sides !!
mercedes5
Thank you to everyone for your assistance. I had my appeal yesterday. The adjudicator has directed London Borough of Harrow to cancel the penalty charge notice and the notice to owner.

The reasons he gave were:

The videotapes supplied to PTAS and myself were impossible to view.

Harrow’s still photograph of the sign was not relevant to were I had parked

The alighting exemption applied

The notice of rejection is invalid. (Re Lukha v Aylesbury Vale District)

If anyone has received a notice of rejection check the reference to 28 days – it should say “28 days from its date of service”.
fred2
If you win at appeals can you claim out of pocket expenses / costs similar to a magistrates court?
Teufel
the parking adjudicator rarely awards costs

instead claim directly from the council opn the basis
of maladministration (illegal tickets)

if they wont pauy up complain to the local government ombudsman
peterb
QUOTE (mercedes5 @ Tue, 1 Aug 2006 - 09:05) *
The reasons he gave were:

The videotapes supplied to PTAS and myself were impossible to view.

Harrow’s still photograph of the sign was not relevant to were I had parked

The alighting exemption applied

The notice of rejection is invalid. (Re Lukha v Aylesbury Vale District)

What sort of con outfit is this ??
Sounds like they're as bad as cowboy clampers.

I'm surprised they had the nerve to contest your appeal.

peterb
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.