QUOTE (Friendly71 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 19:32)
QUOTE (M3Power @ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 19:25)
Ok just sorting it now.
Didn't know the site didn't allow photobucket content/ So just signing up with imageshack.
I trust you have already looked at this post:
How to prepare and post photographs/imagesYes i did, I am sure it used photobucket last time though last year. Okay my next message will be the docs.
Okay here is the original letter from council.
Uploaded with
ImageShack.usHere is my appeal to the council.
I am in receipt of the above which you have sent by post following the capture of my vehicle by a hidden CCTV camera/CCTV vehicle.
Firstly I should not have received a penalty charge notice issued by a CCTV camera at this location because you have issued it contrary to the statutory guidance issued to all local authorities 31st March 2008 on the use of CCTV. This is guidance to which local authorities “MUST” have regard to and states as follows. -
At clause 1.4 “wording in this document in bold and comic sans ms typeface is part of the secretary of state for transport’s guidance (often referred to as the statutory guidance) which is published under section 87 of the traffic management act 2004 section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must have regard to the information contained in that guidance, which is available as a separate document.
At clause 8.78 "The secretary of State recommends that approved devices [CCTV ENFORCEMENT] are only used where enforcement is difficult or sensitive AND CEO enforcement is not practical”,
At clause 13.17 the general guidance gives an example of where CCTV enforcement may now be used. It states "It has, in the past, been considered inappropriate for local authorities to use their enforcement powers on high speed roads (including trunk roads) because of the dangers to CEO’S. However, the power given in the TMA [traffic management act] to use approved devices, which are best suited for use in situations such as on high speed roads where stopping and parking are banned, makes local authority enforcement on these roads more practical. Some authorities may now wish to include some high speed roads in their designation orders”.
It is not impractical to use CEO enforcement on High road Leyton because it is not a trunk road, stopping is not banned, it is not a dual carriageway with no pavements so there is no danger to CEO’s. It is a road with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour and a road where CEO enforcement has been used for many years. In fact CEO enforcement continues to be used in High road Leyton, No penalty charge notice should therefore have been issued to me.
I should also point out the Adjudicator's decision in the case of Sainsbury's VS Camden Council (case number 211001669A) where the adjudicator allowed the appeal as the council had not demonstrated that it had had regard to the statutory guidance and why they thought enforcement by an approved device was appropriate.
Secondly, and without prejudice to the above, I should not have been issued with a penalty charge notice issued by a CCTV camera because you have not installed the legally required compliant signage warning of such enforcement. I should point out that. -
The code of practice issued by the information commissioner’s office states “You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area”. It also states “Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV”
I have seen specific written confirmation from the information commissioner’s office which confirms that “compliant signage is compulsory” [a legal obligation].
Also at clause 8.79 of the statutory guidance issued under the 2004 TMA it states "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”.
You have no signs at the location where you captured my vehicle warning of CCTV enforcement.
It makes a mockery of the statutory guidance which local authorities must have regard to and the code of practice issued by the information commissioner’s office if councils like Waltham Forest simply ignore it. It is all very well to penalise a motorist for any minor transgression of your strict rules but you should also abide by the rules for CCTV enforcement.
I would hope that under these specific circumstances that you will on this occasion cancel the penalty charge notice.
If you reject my appeal please send with your response a copy of the relevant traffic order and proof that the camera in use is an approved device used by a certified CCTV operator. Please consider this a request under the freedom of information act.
Regards
This is there rejection letter in 4 parts:
Uploaded with
ImageShack.usUploaded with
ImageShack.usUploaded with
ImageShack.usUploaded with
ImageShack.usThen sent me a booklet 'The waltham forest (waiting and loading restriction) Consolidation order 2011.
So my original question stands, they totally ignored my request to have proof a certified CCTV operator took the footage which in itself is grounds for cancellation as authority are not addressing my concerns. And I wonder if the royal mail van got a ticket too.
Thanks