Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nicked by CCTV in Wandsworth
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Chaseman
This concerns a notorious camera installed in Queenstown Road SW8 designed to catch motorbikes nipping round the outside of a Keep Left sign when the traffic is heavy, I was duly nicked. Key issues:

1. 1 June - Date of alleged offence

2. 17 June - Date of PCN (no photos enclosed)

3. 22 June - Date PCN received (no postmark on PCN envelope)

4. 25 June - letter from me requesting photo evidence and pointing out failure to adhere to

London councils CCTV code of practice and requesting a hold be put on discount period

5. 28 June - holding letter from Wandsworth stating that a full reply will be sent and no action will be taken in the meantime.

6. 8 July - Date of letter enclosing photo evidence and offering viewing arrangements

7. 11 July - Postmark on envelope containing 8 July letter

8. 12 July - Letter received.

So far as I can see the original PCN is in order but I can post it up if necessary. It refers to offence code 38L - failing to comply with a Keep Left sign. My questions are as follows:

1. Is there a time limit within which the PCN must be sent following "offence"?

2. Is failure to include the photo evidence with the original PCN a valid reason to challenge?

3. Letter dated 8 July gives me "14 days from the date of this letter" to challenge despite it being delivered on 12 July.

4. "Alternatively payment of the reduced amount of £65 will be accepted if received within 21 days from the date of this letter". So what if I challenge within 14 days - does this automatically put the discount on hold? Must I still pay within the 21 days in order to protect the discount? What about the 21 days running from "date of this letter" rather than from date of actual or deemed delivery? Isn't it unusual to have different periods for challenge and for payment?

5. Finally, the time shown in the photos is exactly an hour after I recall riding my bike on Queenstown Road on that date (because another biker warned me about the camera and I looked at my watch). What if I view the evidence and can show that the clock is an hour out? Of course it may have been corrected by now.

6. I see no signs warning of CCTV enforcement in the area of the camera although there are such signs much further back on Queenstown Road - say a mile back

7. Is anyone familiar with the Richmond council case whereby they have supposedly got to cancel 20,000 tickets because their CCTV camera were not properly certified? How can I find out if Wandsworth's cameras are properly certified?
hcandersen
Pl don't quote selectively - post the docs.

And the clock's ticking.

HCA
Chaseman
OK here are the documents. I have checked the London Councils' CCTV code of practice and it says that PCNs should be sent out within 14 days "unless there is a delay in getting details from DVLA" which I assume would be the excuse Wandsworth would advance. It also says that PCNs must be sent out first class - mine was BUT the envelope bore no postmark and while the PCN was dated 17 June I received it on 22 June. Deemed date of service is two working days after posting. As 17 June was a Friday then it "should" have been delivered on Monday 20 June.

Further, I have checked in the vicinity and the closest camera enforcement sign is more than half a mile down the road warning of Bus Lane cameras - this was clearly not a bus lane offence anyway. There is a closer one but on the opposite side of the road so not visible in the direction I was riding. The CCTV code of practice says that "relevant camera enforcement signs should be displayed in the area where the system operates". Does anyone know whether this is also a statutory requirement? Confusngly Wandsworth has a much briefer code of CCTV practice on its website which makes no reference to signage and appears not to be compliant with the comments in the latest Parking Adjudicator's Review 2009/10.

Any help gratefully received.

hcandersen
The council have 28 days to serve.
Date of delivery does not prove date of posting - it's indicative though especially considering that the 17th was a Friday. IMO your entitled to raise this point - not that they didn't post but to get them to identify their process e.g. when are these notices produced, how are they placed into the post etc?

All I can see are procedural points which you'll need to take to adjudication as I cannot see Wandsworth accepting them.

What you need to do is to raise these in your formal reps e.g. failure to comply with LC COP, failure to treat you fairly (you wrote to them within 3 days of receiving their PCN which allowed you 28 days to make reps, and yet they only allow you 14 days from the date of their letter which they've taken 10 days to deal with. And note that it's also dated on a Friday so God knows when you received it) etc.

Others more expert might find more concrete grounds.

HCA
Chaseman
That's a good point HCA. On the original PCN I had 28 days from the "date on which this notice was served on you" which being 22 June [actual receipt] makes 20 July. Or deemed receipt on 20 June makes 18 July. Then the letter of 8 July offers me "14 days from the date of this letter" which would make 22 July, except that as the letter was not delivered until 12 July I should have until 26 July. So that makes four different dates!

Can anyone give chapter and verse on the requirement for signage to alert one to use of CCTV? It's certainly in the London Councils Code of Practice (and is absent on this stretch of road) but is it a statutory requirement? Secondly the LC CoP talks about the objective of CCTV being to deter breaking of the traffic rules and [secondly] to detect offenders. Well if there are no signs to warn of the existence of a camera (and in this case it's positioned on a bend just as you come under a bridge so difficult to spot) then how can it be a deterrent - at least until word gets round about its location?

Are there any other concrete points on which to base an appeal?
hcandersen
The mandatory requirement is that the enforcement authority must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State:

QUOTE
87Guidance to local authorities

(1)The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions.

(2)In exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance.


And the relevant part of that guidance is:

QUOTE
Enforcement using Approved Devices
48. TMA Regulations give the power to authorities throughout England to issue
PCNs for contraventions detected with a camera and associated recording
equipment (approved device). The Secretary of State must certify any type
of device used solely to detect contraventions (i.e. with no supporting CEO
evidence). Once certified they may be called an ‘approved device’. The
Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where
enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical.
Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as
resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply.
It is recommended that the authority sends a copy of the record of the
contravention (in the form of a still image or images) with the PCN.
The primary objective of any camera enforcement 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.


So rather than hunt high and low for signs and say that the council hasn't done A, B, C IMO you ask them what their policy is in respect of the SoS's guidance and when this was determined? In particular, by not exclusively, you require the council's policy in respect of:
1. How the council has determined "difficult and sensitive" areas, the factors that the council considered in determining whether "CEO enforcement is not practical." and its view of the SoS's guidance in respect of enforcement "where permits or exemptions may apply".
2. The nature of the publicity given to the system and the location of the nearest "lawful traffic signs" .

HCA
Chaseman
Thanks HCA. Can I ask what the document is that you are quoting from i.e. how would I refer to it in an appeal?

I imagine that in the case of a moving traffic offence it would not be practical to use a CEO and so the point doesn't really arise. The thought of a CEO on a moped chasing a motorbike that has just gone the wrong side of a Keep Left sign is amusing. Clearly if the council is using a camera to take a photo of a stationary car when a CEO could have put on a ticket then one has to ask what the reasons are.

Very useful about

"To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs"

which in this case it is not.

So I think I base my appeal on procedural impropriety (originally 28 days to appeal, then 14 in a later letter but none of the letters posted when written giving rise to four potential deadlines), the lack of signage (or asking them how they follow the SoS guidance/LC CoP on signage) and failure to include photo evidence in the original PCN as required by CoP.

Anyone have any other thoughts?
Lancaster
Chaseman,

I have been trying to draw information from Enfield and Haringey on their consideration of SoS guidance on use of CCTV.
On both occassions i failed. Haringey ignored the question (perhaps to my advantage) and Enfield rattled on about having the right to put CCTV where they want and not having to provide signs(?) but did not provide any explanation of their consideration.

I guess the point is that if you are trying to get these to explain their consideration, make it VERY VERY clear you want to know what they did about providing consideration to the SoS Guidance. Not allowing them to decide to explain why they chose use CCTV - that's not what you want to find out.

If the wording of your question is crystal clear and they still fail to answer (I assume, but haven't had this confirmed yet) that others here will be able to tell us how we can use this in our appeal defense later.
mashkiach
The date on posting can be verified even on envelopes without date stamps. All post have now fluorescent dots printed in them when they reach the first post office. From these it is possible to identify the date of posting.

The authorities themselves more than likely also have a system of verifying the date of posting. This is done by batch processing tying up with a post receipt.

bama
but how do you get the markings interpreted ?
mashkiach
QUOTE (bama @ Mon, 18 Jul 2011 - 12:07) *
but how do you get the markings interpreted ?
Royal Mail can do it. I have once had someone private do it for me but it is some sort of closly guarded voodoo.
clark_kent
QUOTE (mashkiach @ Mon, 18 Jul 2011 - 08:40) *
The date on posting can be verified even on envelopes without date stamps. All post have now fluorescent dots printed in them when they reach the first post office. From these it is possible to identify the date of posting.


How does the date it reaches the sorting office confirm date of posting? An item is surely considered posted once it is posted and not sorted, I can post an item at my local sub post office up to closing time but the last collection is often an hour before.
mashkiach
QUOTE (clark_kent @ Mon, 18 Jul 2011 - 12:49) *
QUOTE (mashkiach @ Mon, 18 Jul 2011 - 08:40) *
The date on posting can be verified even on envelopes without date stamps. All post have now fluorescent dots printed in them when they reach the first post office. From these it is possible to identify the date of posting.


How does the date it reaches the sorting office confirm date of posting? An item is surely considered posted once it is posted and not sorted, I can post an item at my local sub post office up to closing time but the last collection is often an hour before.
Please see my reply when the same question was asked. The worst scenario can be if it has gone out with the last post but only gets processed the first thing the next morning in the first slot.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=507520
hcandersen
As regards my reference, it is to the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance issued pursuant to section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

As already referred to, you identify the aspects which comprise the guidance and pose the questions. How/when/who did etc?

A duty is a duty is a duty; and authorities are under a duty to have regard to the guidance. If they cannot demonstrate in response to your reps that they have, then this will simply feature as a Procedural Impropriety in your appeal. But remember. it's how/where/why, not did you? You ask open questions.

And as regards the issue of post, ask how/who again. Authorities have their own franking m/c and post rooms, so you enquire about their processes. I know of at least 1 London borough which relied on a person to ferry boxes of notices form A to B, a distance of over 5 miles. And if there wasn't anyone to act as carrier, then it didn't get done.


HCA
Chaseman
Thanks HCA and Mashkiach. I will nip down to the Post Office and see if they will decipher the fluorescent dots - which actaully look more like a bar-code to me. if that shows Wandsworth posting PCNs out 3 or 4 days after they are dated then that says Procedural Impropriety to me. Certainly that practice is evident in the follow up letter containing the images. Going to view the video evidence tomorrow and will pay particular attention to timings and the CCTV log.
Chaseman
Went to the Town Hall this morning for a viewing. It showed what the stills showed as expected. I queried the timing and was assured that the clock was accurate. I asked for the operator's log and was told I would have to write in to see it or an extract. I am still convinced the timing is an hour out but can't prove it.

I asked about the practice of sending out PCNs and was told that they are produced in the building and sent from the Post Room downstairs and "there would be no reason to delay posting". I showed the lady the letter dated 8 July enclosing stills, with its envelope postmarked 11 July and she said this was "definitely something to write in about" as it "would be unfair if they didn't post a PCN on its stated date". Unfortunately the envelope in which the PCN came is prepaid and states itself to be "Advanced Mail First Class" but bears no postmark. I went to the post Office to ask if they could decipher the bar-code marks on the front but apparently not. No sign of any fluorescent dots anywhere. So I am left just to surmise that a PCN that reached me first class on 22 June was NOT posted on 17 June three miles away! Anyway, that has formed part of my appeal.
bama
mashkiach,
any further info on getting RM to decipher the barcodes ?
mashkiach
First make a scan of the envelope. Make the necessary adjustments that best bring out the dots. Send it than to foi@royalmail.com. If you have a better contacts within RM send it direct to him. I understand that you can not give out his name on this forum without his consent.

Chaseman
Update. I sent in my formal appeal against the NTO on Monday 18 July. It would be deemed delivered on 20 July. To stay within at least some of various deadlines set or implied by Wandsworth I had to post it before I had seen the video evidence - which did not really add anything to or subtract anything from my case.

I have heard nothing since. We are now well outside the 56 day time limit for response to a formal appeal. Is it better now to just keep quiet or should I write to Wandsworth drawing their attention to the lack of response and stating that as they are out of time I consider the appeal has been formally allowed? What if they produce a NoR "which must have got lost in the post"?
Enceladus
Do you have a Post Office Proof of Posting certificate or receipt? Or a recorded delivery receipt? Or what?

If you have a recorded delivery receipt, have you checked online to see was the letter delivered?

Opinion is split on this issue. Some say do nothing and wait and see what appears, if anything, in the post.
Some say, that once the 56 days have elapsed, you write to the Council, point out the failure to carry out their statutory duty and demand the PCN be cancelled.

I am in the latter camp. I usually wait till about 14 days after the 56 have expired.

Neil B
QUOTE (bama @ Tue, 19 Jul 2011 - 18:04) *
mashkiach,
any further info on getting RM to decipher the barcodes ?


This is not much help - but I recall a member here being able to do it. just off the cuff was it Bagshot? Really not sure.

QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 19 Sep 2011 - 19:30) *
I am in the latter camp. I usually wait till about 14 days after the 56 have expired.


Is there a 56 days for LLA 2003? Not being funny just don't have time to check - but I don't think so.
Enceladus
QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 19 Sep 2011 - 20:57) *
QUOTE (bama @ Tue, 19 Jul 2011 - 18:04) *
mashkiach,
any further info on getting RM to decipher the barcodes ?


This is not much help - but I recall a member here being able to do it. just off the cuff was it Bagshot? Really not sure.

QUOTE (Enceladus @ Mon, 19 Sep 2011 - 19:30) *
I am in the latter camp. I usually wait till about 14 days after the 56 have expired.


Is there a 56 days for LLA 2003? Not being funny just don't have time to check - but I don't think so.

Whoops. Failed to read things properly again. 56 days is RTA 2004. No idea with LLA 2003.

Apologies,

Chaseman
Funnily enough I received a letter yesterday cancelling the PCN "because we did not respond to your request soon enough to view the video evidence". IN fact I never complained about this. What they have completely ignored is my point about the lack of signage to warn of the camera and their effective setting of four diffferent dates for representations to be made. And their rather lax attitude to posting letters. The one just received was dated 15 September, posted second class on 16th and received on 19th. So a cop-out.

Does the 56 day rule not apply to ALL responses to formal appeals against NTO, whether arising from parking or moving trafffic offences?
Chaseman
I am minded to write to Mr RJ Long "Head of Frontline Services" [presumably Wandsworth considers itself at war with motorists and hence the military terminology] and ask why he did not address any of the points in my formal appeal, including the disparities in dates of letters and dates of posting, perhaps also adding that his letter to me, had it been an NoR, would have been out of time. Is someone able to give me chapter and verse on the 56 day rule as it applies to Moving Traffic Offences?
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.