Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Stopping on a Pedestrian crossing or crossing area marked by zigzags [Code:99]
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
I am posting this on behalf of a friend as I believe that the Council have it wrong and would like you guys to confirm this.

I am sorry I cant scan the PCN at the moment but will be able to do so as soon as I visit a friend with a scanner.

The PCN states that the vehichle identifed above was observed at 19:33 Hrs on 24/10/2010 and the authority believes that a penalty charge is payable on the grounds of the following alleged parking contravention.


Date of contravention: 24/10/2010
Time: 19:33 Hrs

It has two images (in this order)

As you can see by the two above images no zigzags or crossings. put also notice the time stamps. Your also able to login and see 2 more images.

The correct order of images is like this.

As you can see by the time stamps the car is moving and only stops at the give way juntion in the last images which is this road.

Here is a google street view of the road looking into it, also the google view is out of date as the road has been made longer.,,0,27.93

Thanks inadvance
Do post up the PCN.

As for the photos ... Que?

I reckon no contravention occured would be extremely valid based on those :-))

I'd suggest sending an email from Confused that has received a PCN with pictures only showing a car in the road and asking, very politely if they actually have pictures of the contravention?

No point in wasting a formal appeal for them to simply post pictures from a minute earlier when the PCN is timed that do show you stopped.
And the actual formal can deal with no contravention occured due to lack of evidence on PCN even if they have pics.

are there any zig zags out of sight of the zoomed in happy snaps ?
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 5 Nov 2010 - 08:44) *
Do post up the PCN.

Here is the PCN

Here are some shots I took of the road last night.

Here at 19:34:05

Here at 19:34:15

No zigzag apart from the one on the other road, my friend pulled up to the give way markings before turning left when he entered the main road.

You can see the 1st road markings in the images and then the give way markings at the junction with the zigzag going from right to left.
I would say those zig zags don't comply with the regs. For example the distance from the edge ofthe cariageway exceeds the lawful limit and their is an argument to say due to the road layout they are longer than need be and unreasonable. Read up. If the Zig Zags are non compliant then no contravention.
Thanks for your input Bogsy.

Am I right in thinking they issued the PCN as my friend stopped at the giveway markings before entering the main road and they have marked him for stopping at the zigzag on that main road. So every car which comes to that juntion they are sending out PCNs?
Ripple road is a heck of a long road, would vague locus come into it?
The part of Ripple Road is with the junction of Cambridge Road and Station Parade.

We had to trace his route and work out via the pictures supplied by CAM 3 to see where the pictures where taken. See my above posts with my pictures I took last night.
Time of contravention.
Shown as 19.33
Photos at 19.34
Unless they can show your mate stopped on ZZs at 19.33.....fecked

And if last photo at 19.34.14 is the "money shot" (as if :-)) and those are the zigzags..WTF are they thinking ?

ZZs are defined as being at the edge of the carriageway so how in the world they think they can enforce when they drift up the middle is anyone's guess.
They are also not allowed to be used with most markings including give way non compliant again

Thanks for that input DancingDad,

Does he now just write in and ask for evidance of stopping at zigzags at the time stated on the PCN or just fill in the PCN and return to them staying "The traffic order which is alleged to have been contravened was invalid because your images show 19:34 onwards but you say the contravention happend at 19:33 please supply evidence of this. ?
The Google Street View location is the junction of Station Parade and Cambridge Road. The location stated is Ripple Road which is mostly pedestrianised and bollarded off.

Maybe the camera was located on Ripple road. So far as I can tell you've got them on location alone. I can't anywhere on Ripple Road where this could have happened and anyway they would have to be way more specific than that. Ripple Road is the A123 and the A13 as well as the shopping precinct and there are other bits of it too. Goes on for miles. You can't possible tell where it was on Ripple Road.

Oh Lordy - it wasn't Ripple Road at all.

Lots of ways to play it, whichever way you've got them.
Apologies - perhaps it was Ripple Road. Here?

Ripple Road

Still complete and utter bollards though.
QUOTE (Bagshot @ Fri, 5 Nov 2010 - 17:43) *
Apologies - perhaps it was Ripple Road. Here?

Ripple Road

Still complete and utter bollards though.

Interestingly enough, the streetview link seems to show ZZs following the edge of the carriageway, not meandering all over the road.

I reckon if your mate is sure that this junction is where they are citing the contravention and not a crossing just before, may as well put an appeal together.

Go through the thread, pull out all the points people have made and draft summat up,
Post it up and we'll fine tune it before it is sent

Warn your mate it is likely to be rejected no matter how valid the points are and it will probably go to adjudicators.
But they are unlikely to reject.
Thanks once again guys I have read over the PCN once again and we are going to request images be sent as per this page of the pcn

Once we have all images we will see what on earth made the camera operator think he was on a zigzag.

The part of the road is def the same road as in the images I posted up in this Link to imagesas you can see the road markings in both pictures mine and the camera 3 ones have all the same road markings. As I said before the google image is out of date and the road has changed but my images where taken last night so they are very up to date.

Will send letter to them via recorded incase they say they never got the request.
Here is the letter we have just drafted anything we should add or remove?

Subject: PCN ----------

Dear Sirs,

Could you please supply all stills you have of this allegation as from the images you have supplied in the PCN and the 4 images supplied online do not show such offence.

If you can supply your CCTV footage as well maybe on a DVD then it might be possible for me to see where your operator thinks I am parked on zigzags.

Yours sincerely

Change the last bit to "where the vehicle was allegedly parked on zig zag lines". Don't admit you were driving at this stage.
Today my friend has recieved a letter today dated 12th November 2010 from Car Parking Services. Taken a full week to arrive!

Dear Sir or Madam

Ref: Photographic Image Request
Penalty Charge Notice: ##########
Vehicle Registration Mark: #######

I have enclosed, as requested, photographic images captured by Camera perator at the time of the contravention on 24/10/2010 for which a Penalty Charge Notice was served to you on 10/11/2010

Copies of video footage are currently not released to avoid breaching Data Protection Act 1998 however viewing can be arranged on our premises by contacting us on (telephone number) between 9.00am and 5.00pm, Monday - Friday (exept on bank holidays).

Please be advised that the Penalty Charge Notice has been placed on hold at the discount amount of £60.00 for 14 days from the date of the service of this letter. If payment or written enquiry is not received within the period, the penalty will be taken off hold and progress to the next stage.

If you want any help or more information, please telphone out helpline on (phone number) or fax your correspondence on (fax number) or go to our website address http://

Your faithfully

On behalf of Parking Administration Team

They have supplied the same 4 images as before still in the wrong order.

So what do we do next?
Copies of video footage are currently not released to avoid breaching Data Protection Act 1998 however viewing can be arranged on our premises by contacting us on (telephone number) between 9.00am and 5.00pm, Monday - Friday (exept on bank holidays).

So how do they avoid breach of the DPA when they have to send the video footage to the adjudicator and the appelant in the evidence pack to prove the contravention?
DPA s.35 (2)
(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

an adjudication is a legal proceeding AND you exercising your rights (to due process and to see the evidence)

so the council is talking bollocks you are entitled to a copy by statute.
By refusing they have acted unlawfully - so we know what words have to go in about that smile.gif

remind them IN WRITING of S.35 (2) and report them to the ICO as a side line
The images are of something they allege is your car, making a contravention for which you are responsible. You are ENTITLED to this under the data protection act. It's everyone else they shouldn't be releasing it to. You'd be entitled to it just because they shot it whether they alleged a contravention or not.

Why does officialdom try to hide behind the DPA all the time?

I think I would ask under the data protection act for any footage or photographs they have ever taken of you or any vehicle of yours whether contravening or not.

Goodness me these people are numpties!
I'd also question why releasing the video can be a breach of the DPA but showing it to you in their offices isn't ... muppets!

Don't forget time is ticking, even with the added 14 days.... draft up an appeal and post it here.
They obviously need the appelant to come to the office so they make their claims of "you have no chance..." as has been seen in another thread.

Thanks for the authority on this bama, very useful for those of us too lazy to look it up.
QUOTE (J_Edgar @ Sat, 20 Nov 2010 - 00:24) *
They obviously need the appelant to come to the office so they make their claims of "you have no chance..." as has been seen in another thread...........

JE, you're not telling us that councils would exert undue pressure are you wink.gif

Mind you, I'd like to see the letter....
Dear Sirs
We cannot release the video requested as it is our policy to make it as difficult as we can for you to see it. If you do decide to make an appointment for a private viewing with our gratuitous comments manager he will be pleased to offer unsolicited advise designed to convince you of the futility of actually appealing against this or any other PCn we decide to send to you. Please ensure you bring payment in full should you decide in a moment of weakness to pay while at our offices.
unsolicited advise designed to convince you of the futility of actually appealing

Big lollage DD smile.gif

Resistance is futile...


Mind you 7 of 9 is a peach wub.gif
I don't think I'd be inviting anyone from the council to view the video with me. They may realise what bollards it is. Demand a copy and wait for them to stuff themselves at adjudication. They'll have to let you have a copy eventually even if they do play obstructive now. My belief is that you've won this easily anyway.

Once again thank you for your comments and advise.

My friends is thinking it will be cheaper for him to pay as taking a day off work is going to cost him more than then £60 if this goes on more and he needs to take a day off work, can he claim a day’s wage off the council for wasting his time?

Now for a letter to send back to them has anyone got a link to a template as with all these quotes to the DPA we are a little lost, but this is what we have put together.

Comments and advice please before we fire it off to them

Date 19th November 2010

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter dated 12th November which I received today.

As stated in my last letter, I am requesting a DVD of the CCTV recordeding of said vehicle committing said offence. You have only supplied the same images which are visible on your website. I can’t see anywhere my vehicle has committed such an offence what you have alleged as it drives down the road. So I request once more a copy of the images on DVD.

As you have quoted the Data Protection Act I would like to remind you of section S.35 (2) of such Act. I have a right to see said images records of my vehicle. I will also be filing a complaint to the ICO, as a CCTV operator you are clearly breaking the rules by not supplying said images.

I would also like to point out, as a working person I won’t be able to attend your offices at your opening times another reason for requesting a copy of the recording.

I recommend you spend some time in looking over this PCN and your supplied images and drop your allegation. If I do need to attend the adjudicator to defend myself I will be seeking full costs.

I look forward to your letter confirming this allegation and PCN have been dropped.

When LAs refuse the footage using their clearly demonstrably wrong arg that DPA disallows release of the video when in fact the DPA explicitly and unequivocally allows disclosure have they not made made an 'error in law'.
AIUI such an error is one of the three reasons under common law why a judicial proceeding will find the decision by the LA to be unlawful. (the other two being lack of due process and wrongful use of discretionary power).
LAs must have regard for the rule of law.

Chuck it in (if you agree and/or this post doesn't get shot down by an eagle).

Worried.... No other comments about letter, should we just send it in?
You are up against a deadline here. So I would submit your reps as is.
IE. Normally if you submit reps within the discount period (in this case 21 days) the discount will be re-offered.
So get the reps in and stop the clock.
Make sure you use 1st class recorded delivery and if you can do it online make sure you get a receipt.

I am not sure that we have the location correctly identified. However vague locus is a plus point for you.

That said be aware that Barking and Dagenham have a habit of posting a number of vital documents directly to landfill, if indeed they bother to print them at all. So don't be surprised if the next thing you see is an Order of Recovery from Northampton County Court. So please keep a tight grip on the timelines and report back any developments before taking any action.
Thanks for that info Enceadus.

His letter as above has been posted this morning 1st class recorded.
On my first pass reading I missed that the letter from the Council dated the 12th November re-offered the discount. I was thinking you needed to get something in by the 23rd to stop the clock to preserve the discount opportunity. No harm done. You can always add to your reps, if you feel the need, within the timelines.

I cannot make sense of this at all. Our car pulled up to a set of give-way markings at a junction and stopped. Irrelevant but it seems the car behind then drove around. (Possibly dangerously.)

It is a plain and simple case of no contavention occured. There is not a shred of evidence to support the alleged contravention.
IMHO, even if our car was stopped for an unreasonable period of time for no valid reason, at the "give Way", then it was never a matter for the Council. It was a matter for the MET police for causing an obstruction.

Over and above that we cannot agree on the location of the alleged contravention. Is it even Ripple Road, if so where? I for one cannot match any of the proposed locations to the photos. So vague locus applies.
Quoted from http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.g...02060381000.pdf
"the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in
terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred."

So maybe there is a mistake, the Council have used the wrong set of stills from the wrong timeframe etc. This would also be unreasonable. How are we to know is it even our car that is involved? And you have asked them for further evidence and they have refused.

I cannot imagine how you could lose at Adjudication. It would simply not be justice.

This is either the most outrageous case of trying it on to raise revenue. Alas 99% of people will just pay up.
It is the most outrageous case of incompetence.
I would be writing a stiff letter of complaint to the Council CEO.

So you might care to expand your reps and send them again. There were other points in the thread. Or you can wait and see what happens.

Be aware that B&D have a habit of;
Throwing representations directly into the bin,
Will deny ever having received any even if you have an acknowlegement or receipt,
May well issue a Charge Certificate and post it into the shredder,
Will very promptly register the CC with the court and send the bailifs in as soon as they can.
So be wary if nothing happens. Especially after 56 days.

So when something happens post back here for advice. If you get an Order of Recovery from the court, you will need to get that promptly killed.
So long as you follow the process you will prevail.
"I cannot imagine how you could lose at Adjudication. It would simply not be justice."

Justice at adjudication.....

search on here for "The Redbridge Scandal"

other instances abound....
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.