Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE FOR WAITING PHOTOGRAPHED BY CCTV
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
STITCHUP
I have just arrived home from work to find yet another PCN (the second in a month). This time it's for being "PARKED OR LOADING/UNLOADING IN A RESTRICTED STREET WHERE WAITING AND LOADING/UNLOADING RESTRICTIONS APPLY".

The location is stated as "Green Lanes N4". I do remember stopping but did not leave my car or even turn my engine off although my father who was visiting at the time did get out of the car (I was basically dropping him off at the local newsagent). I was not blocking any traffic and must have been three for only a minute. I did not realise that on top of a high poles are manually operated CCTV cameras which are what photographed my car).

I feel as though Haringey Council are out of control using absolutely no discretion and are making it impossible for me to afford a car, which I only have to help my partner and our 14 month old daughter. Haringey council have had over £300 off of me in the last 18 months even giving me a parking ticket when my car was parked outside my house with permit in the window. I desperately want to stop giving them any more money!

Does anyone have any advice??
Teufel
there is a clear exemption for passenger alighting

howeevr this does not extend to waiting whilst a passenger gets out goes to a shop
and then comes back to get in to vehicle - only reasnoable time for them to get out OR get in
(but not both)

there is no minimum time for a contravenytion

post the PCN here - many council camera pcns are invalid
STITCHUP
At work at the mo so i'll have to post it tonight.

Thanks
legaladviser
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Tue, 17 Apr 2007 - 14:48) *
At work at the mo so i'll have to post it tonight.

Thanks


I had a PCN from Haringey for reversing over zig zag lines! Anyway in defending this nonsensical action, my research revealed that all of the documents produced by them for CCTV PCNs are invalid. In many cases there are multiple invalidities. Further they are breaking the law in other areas. Please do post the PCN and I will let you know what my points were.
STITCHUP
STITCHUP
Thanks
Teufel
pcn looks valid im afraid
legaladviser
QUOTE (Teufel @ Tue, 17 Apr 2007 - 22:23) *
pcn looks valid im afraid


I agree. They have fixed the previous date for payment of reduced amount issue and the is no obvious invalidity on the face of the PCN.

The NTO is another matter however. If you have the will to hold out for this there is a good chance it will be invalid. It was in my case and to rectify this would involve a form re-design which I cannot see Haringey having done. If you decide to wait for the NTO I will be happy to advise on the invalidity.

Otherwise you could deploy the Data Protection argument I used. It might just give them pause, as this potentially invalidates all CCTV PCNs issued by Haringey. I reproduce in full my argument below.

__________________________________________________________________________
Breach of the Data Protection Act

The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) contains a host of requirements relating to CCTV use and the Information Commissioner has issued a Code of Practice. Two of the main requirements in relation to CCTV are that the system must be registered with the Commissioner and that there must be signs denoting that CCTV is in use.

When registering a system the Commissioner and the DPA says that it must be stated what ‘the purpose of the system’ is. This ‘purpose’ can cover several sites. In the case of the Council’s registration, available on the Information Commissioner’s website, it is clear that not only is a mobile CCTV scheme for decriminalised parking enforcement not registered but that the purpose of civil parking enforcement is not specified at all. The only reference to CCTV in the Council’s registration is in Purpose 11 (Crime Prevention and Prosecution of Offenders) which includes the following purpose (none of which are relevant to parking enforcement):

“OPERATION OF CCTV SYSTEMS IN SHOPPING CENTRES, HOUSING ESTATES;
INCLUDES USE OF CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION FOR THE MONITORING AND
COLLECTION OF SOUND AND/OR VISUAL IMAGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING
THE SECURITY OF PREMISES, FOR PREVENTING CRIME AND INVESTIGATING CRIME."

The DPA also requires information to be obtained fairly and lawfully. For CCTV, this means that appropriately sized and placed signs are positioned in and around the area under surveillance; the Information Commissioner has said that these should be A4 and A3 depending on application. They should contain a simple ‘purpose for the system message’ e.g. to prevent and detect crime, and who owns the system with a contact telephone number.

In the current case no signage appears at or around the restricted paring area [you may want to check this or just say it and see what they come back with] and the Council has taken no steps whatever to comply with the requirements of the DPA in this respect. It is submitted that this failure, and the failure to register under the DPA, renders the CCTV activity unlawful and thus any PCN based on such activity invalid.
STITCHUP
OK, so I could respond initially stating that the use of CCTV is unlawful using the Data Protection argument, I will check for signage on my way home tonight? Did you have any success with this?

Can I ask what and NTO is?

Did you use both the above for the same PCN?

Also could you point me the direction of the council's registration regarding CCTV?

Thanks.
Adenuff
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 10:11) *
Can I ask what and NTO is?



NTO is the Notice to Owner referred to on the PCN. The Council issues one if you do not pay the PCN
legaladviser
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 10:11) *
OK, so I could respond initially stating that the use of CCTV is unlawful using the Data Protection argument, I will check for signage on my way home tonight? Did you have any success with this?

Can I ask what and NTO is?

Did you use both the above for the same PCN?

Also could you point me the direction of the council's registration regarding CCTV?

Thanks.


Here is the Haringey DPA registration (clear that parking enforcement not specified as a purpose):

http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov...asp?reg=3211434

Yes this was one of the reasons they dropped my PCN. It is a fairly serious breach of the law.

When you get the NTO, post on here and I will send you a private message. I'm mindful they could close the loophole in that if they spot it on here.
viper
I have similar ticker in Enfield. It only says Green Lanes N13. I see yours only says Green Lanes N4. Given that Green Lanes stretches for miles surely they need to give a door number or street junction at least
STITCHUP
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 13:54) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 10:11) *
OK, so I could respond initially stating that the use of CCTV is unlawful using the Data Protection argument, I will check for signage on my way home tonight? Did you have any success with this?

Can I ask what and NTO is?

Did you use both the above for the same PCN?

Also could you point me the direction of the council's registration regarding CCTV?

Thanks.


Here is the Haringey DPA registration (clear that parking enforcement not specified as a purpose):

http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov...asp?reg=3211434

Yes this was one of the reasons they dropped my PCN. It is a fairly serious breach of the law.

When you get the NTO, post on here and I will send you a private message. I'm mindful they could close the loophole in that if they spot it on here.



Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?
STITCHUP
Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?
legaladviser
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 16:59) *
Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?

Yes , send it now as an informal representation. You can always make it formal when you receive the NTO.
STITCHUP
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 21:34) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 16:59) *
Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?

Yes , send it now as an informal representation. You can always make it formal when you receive the NTO.



I had a look this morning and there is a sign about 100yards from where this alleged "waiting" happened.

The sign says "Traffic enforcement cameras in operation", do you think this covers the council for using them in my case?

I am still happy to send the letter but I am interested in your thoughts on this??
legaladviser
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 - 09:24) *
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 21:34) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 16:59) *
Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?

Yes , send it now as an informal representation. You can always make it formal when you receive the NTO.



I had a look this morning and there is a sign about 100yards from where this alleged "waiting" happened.

The sign says "Traffic enforcement cameras in operation", do you think this covers the council for using them in my case?

I am still happy to send the letter but I am interested in your thoughts on this??



Depends whether a reasonable person would say 100 yards is "in or around the area under surveillance". I would say there is s good argument it is not. If I were you I would send the letter anyway as the main issue is that the Council has not registered traffic enforcement as a purpose for data collection under the DPA. This renders the use of the CCTV cameras illegal in my view and it does not matter if signs were correctly placed. If this argument is correct, and as a lawyer I cannot see how it would not be, all CCTV PCNs issued to date by Haringey are invalid.
STITCHUP
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 - 10:54) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 - 09:24) *
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 21:34) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 16:59) *
Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?

Yes , send it now as an informal representation. You can always make it formal when you receive the NTO.



I had a look this morning and there is a sign about 100yards from where this alleged "waiting" happened.

The sign says "Traffic enforcement cameras in operation", do you think this covers the council for using them in my case?

I am still happy to send the letter but I am interested in your thoughts on this??



Depends whether a reasonable person would say 100 yards is "in or around the area under surveillance". I would say there is s good argument it is not. If I were you I would send the letter anyway as the main issue is that the Council has not registered traffic enforcement as a purpose for data collection under the DPA. This renders the use of the CCTV cameras illegal in my view and it does not matter if signs were correctly placed. If this argument is correct, and as a lawyer I cannot see how it would not be, all CCTV PCNs issued to date by Haringey are invalid.


Thanks for your help you, I shall send the letter and keep you posted.
STITCHUP
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 - 11:13) *
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 - 10:54) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 - 09:24) *
QUOTE (legaladviser @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 21:34) *
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 18 Apr 2007 - 16:59) *
Thank you. So just to clarify do you advise I send a similar version of your "Data Protection argument" letter now before i recieve my NTO?

Yes , send it now as an informal representation. You can always make it formal when you receive the NTO.



I had a look this morning and there is a sign about 100yards from where this alleged "waiting" happened.

The sign says "Traffic enforcement cameras in operation", do you think this covers the council for using them in my case?

I am still happy to send the letter but I am interested in your thoughts on this??



Depends whether a reasonable person would say 100 yards is "in or around the area under surveillance". I would say there is s good argument it is not. If I were you I would send the letter anyway as the main issue is that the Council has not registered traffic enforcement as a purpose for data collection under the DPA. This renders the use of the CCTV cameras illegal in my view and it does not matter if signs were correctly placed. If this argument is correct, and as a lawyer I cannot see how it would not be, all CCTV PCNs issued to date by Haringey are invalid.


Thanks for your help you, I shall send the letter and keep you posted.


I forgot to ask are there any additional cost implications for me challenging the PCN and potentially taking this to PATAS?
Teufel
none apart from your time and the loss of the chance to pay the discounted amount
mardeman
I am currently contesting a ticket in Southwark. Do yuo have any ideas where I can get the sourthwark version of this, and also what wordign I am looking for?

I have also only just found this forum. Last year within a week, I alos got a ticket in Earls Court (for parking in a loading bay - sign was about half a mile away) and also parking in Bethnal Green for parking in a bus lane (no signs.)

Help please. A lot of money at stake.
Teufel
please give more info if you want help
STITCHUP
Hello,


I have finally received a NTO from Haringey Council.Initially I received letter of response from Haringey Council (see below) to my informal representations.

Today I received an NTO from Haringey Council (see below).

Please let me know what you think?

I also have noticed that the Council stated in their reply to my informal representation that they “have held the reduced rate” until they reply, and then if they do not accept my challenge they will give me another 14 days to pay the reduced rate. The original reduced rate on my PCN was £40 but now on the NTO its now £80?

Help!



Teufel
yr infromal reps have been overtaken by the nto

the nto is not valid

RTA 1991 sched 6

2) A notice to owner must state—
© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice to owner is served;

it does not do this

the date it does state (24/08/07) for pay/reps is 36 days from date of issue
20/07/07 (starting with issue date)

their presumption of days for service is too generous - though they are probably estopped
from earlier enforcemnt in fact in law they could

wether together this is unfair or compliant is moot


it would be helpful to see the reverse
STITCHUP
Here's the reverse.....and thanks.

Teufel
the NtO also fails to explain anything about adjudication - it is invalid


its all in RTA 1991 scehd 6

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga...en_10.htm#sdiv6

1(2)g) the effect of paragraph 5 below

Adjudication by parking adjudicator
5.—(1) Where an authority serve notice under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2 above, that they do not accept that a ground on which representations were made under that paragraph has been established, the person making those representations may, before—
(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or
(b) such longer period as a parking adjudicator may allow,
appeal to a parking adjudicator against the authority's decision.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph, the parking adjudicator shall consider the representations in question and any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 2(4) above and may give the London authority concerned such directions as he considers appropriate.
(3) It shall be the duty of any authority to whom a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2) above to comply with it forthwith.
STITCHUP
So basically the fact that they have not stated that I have 28 days from the service of the NTO makes it invalid?
Teufel
only maybe since they give you 36 days

the bit about no adjudication defintiely makes it invalid
STITCHUP
When you say "no adjudication", are saying that the Council have by regulation to inform me about the adjudiaction process if they reject my representation?
legaladviser
Definitely invalid. The NTO is far too generous on timescale. But prejudice is not required to be made out - see Al's Bar and Moses JR. And as Teufel says whatever the NTO says they could under the RTA take action earlier than the quoted date, so the NTO cannot stand. This is exactly what happened in my case and the Council pulled out before adjudication.

For a laugh look at the second page. One paragraph says there are 9 grounds of representation. The next paragraph says there are 8. There are then listed 8 grounds grouped together and a ninth sitting on its own (mitigation). There is also hilarious language about the PCN being issued to the motor vehicle.
Teufel
yes to OP prev question
STITCHUP
Teufel: Can I ask where in the RTA it states that the NTO has to inform me about the adudictaion process, I'm having trouble finding it??

Legaladvisor: So Am I right in thinking that even though the council has been over-generous with the timescale they have to follow the RTA of 28 days from notice. Also where can I find the Al's Bar and Moses case?

Sorry to keep asking these questions but i have trouble undertstanding some of the legal jargon, and I am trying to build my representation letter with the correct wording.

Many thanks.
Teufel
its all in my post above

sched 6 para 1 says what the NtO must contain - at the end (g) it says it must include the effects
of para5 - para 5 is also what must go in a NoRejection and is about indep adjudication

your NtO makes no mention of this and so is invalid
legaladviser
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Wed, 25 Jul 2007 - 10:19) *
Legaladvisor: So Am I right in thinking that even though the council has been over-generous with the timescale they have to follow the RTA of 28 days from notice. Also where can I find the Al's Bar and Moses case?


They must allow 28 days from service of the NTO. Even though their increased timescale may be in your favour, it does not matter as prejudice does not need to be shown.
Moses JR here:
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...gust%202006.pdf

Al's bar here:
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...orthvAlsbar.doc
Teufel
the council has no power to extend the time by so much and leaves
you in an uncertain and unfair postion as to wetehr the statutory period
applies or their extended period
STITCHUP
Thank you
STITCHUP
So I shall make my representations on the grounds that the NTO does not conform with the requirments of the RTA.

Should I also include my original informal represntations (see above) that were based on the use of CCTV for parking enforcement being unlawful, or just concentrate on the NTO?
Teufel
always appeal on every possible grounds - start with the legaility of the TRO
then the application of the TRO, then cctv, then contravention, then nto

the counicl have to fight and prove every part - they will give up !
STITCHUP
I have received a response to my representations and Haringey Council have completely ignored my request for PATAS forms, (see below for my original letter of representations and their response). Also I sent my representations recorded delivery and I have proof of delivery.

Penalty Charge Notice Number – Hxxxxxxxxx


Dear Sir or Madam,


[/font]I refer to your Notice To Owner with the above reference number. I should be grateful if, where applicable, you would accept this letter as representations as set out on the back of the Notice.

I am making representations on the following grounds:[font="Arial"]


- The use of CCTV for decriminalised parking enforcement is unlawful as stated in my informal representations as sent in response to the original PCN. (see copy my letter attached dated 11/04/07).

-The Notice to Owner does not conform to the mandatory requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

I would also like to point out that in your response to my original informal representations (copy attached) you stated that: “…we have held the Penalty Charge at the reduced rate, until we reply to you.” And, “if we do not accept your challenge to the PCN we will give you another 14 days to pay the reduced rate.” The reduced rate at the time was £40, the NTO reduced rate is £80.

Please send the PATAS form by return so that I can get a fair hearing on the matter from an Independent Adjudicator, as I am very confident that an appeal will be allowed on the above grounds.

legaladviser
Issuing a Charge Certificate is an abuse of process without first issuing a Notice of Rejection. An adjudicator would take a very dim view of this. See Miah v Westminster and O'Gilvie v Camden cases.

You will need to serve a Statutory Declaration asap. This will nullify the CC and return matters to the NTO stage. Because of the Council's actions your prospects of success in an adjudicatin are enhanced.
STITCHUP
Thanks

But how do I serve a Statutory Declaration?
STITCHUP
Thanks

But how do I serve a Statutory Declaration?
DW190
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Tue, 4 Sep 2007 - 12:11) *
Thanks

But how do I serve a Statutory Declaration?


You can serve it by post or hand delivery. The preferred method would be some form of signed for delivery. If you deliver in person ask for a receipt.
STITCHUP
Sorry, but what exactly is a Statutory Declaration?
DW190
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Tue, 4 Sep 2007 - 17:35) *
Sorry, but what exactly is a Statutory Declaration?


A Stat Dec is a legal document that you swear is truthful.

You should have been sent one with the Charge Certificate.

Take a look here.
DW190
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Tue, 4 Sep 2007 - 17:35) *
Sorry, but what exactly is a Statutory Declaration?


Finger stuck ohmy.gif
legaladviser
Or use the form (PE3) on here:

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/fil...icationPack.pdf
STITCHUP
Thanks

Does this form ask the same question twice as to the reason for filing the Statutory Declaration? It seems to give a multiple choice option then later asks again for your reasons for the SD??

Do I have no alternative but attending my local county court for a Commissioner of oaths to witness my signature?
legaladviser
QUOTE (STITCHUP @ Tue, 4 Sep 2007 - 21:17) *
Thanks

Does this form ask the same question twice as to the reason for filing the Statutory Declaration? It seems to give a multiple choice option then later asks again for your reasons for the SD??

Do I have no alternative but attending my local county court for a Commissioner of oaths to witness my signature?


Any practising solicitor is a a commissioner for oaths. Just make an appointment with your local firm. There is a small fee.
Box Clever
QUOTE (DW190 @ Tue, 4 Sep 2007 - 18:38) *
A Stat Dec is a legal document that you swear is truthful.

You should have been sent one with the Charge Certificate.

I would question the above statement. It is my understanding that the Stat Dec is sent out by TEC along with the Order for Recovery?
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.