Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: CCTV Smart cars
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
M3Power
Hello

Having a bit of a battle with my local council over being sent a PCN via a mobile CCTV unit

They (of course) rejected my appeal.
The appeal was based on the guidance of 08 which basically is :
* Not putting signage up = Which they said there is signs at borough boundaries
* They should use CCTV enforcement sparingly or on sensitive roads where a CEO can not easily get too = which they said its just guidance not legislation
* CCTV must be an approved device = Which they said they are approved.
* Did the CCTV operator have the reverent qualifications to man CCTV = to which they completely ignored my request for this information.

My question is does the CCTV operator have to have to be certified? I think the guidance states BTEC. If he is not certified surely this makes the PCN invalid?
Also they did not answer my request, surely to this is also grounds for the adjudicator to rule against them as the authority as a duty to address your concerns.

Thanks very much

Mike
(posted in this section because this is an individual case, if in wrong section mods please move)
EDW
post all docs.

M3Power
Okay mate will do.

I'll snap all the docs with my phone and dropbox it and post from there tonight.

Thanks
Incandescent
QUOTE
They should use CCTV enforcement sparingly or on sensitive roads where a CEO can not easily get too = which they said its just guidance not legislation


A lot of councils seem to think they can just ignore statutory guidance and up to the present have got away with it. They are legally obliged to have regard to the guidance, the exact words being "must have regard to". If a council does not follow guidance, it must be able to show it had regard to it, and where it is not following guidance, the reasons for not following it, and this should be on public record. Without this, they have ignored the guidance which is illegal and open to challenge in a court, (although most citizens cannot afford this, hence they get away with it). So any council employee stating it is only guidance (so it can be ignored) is acting illegally, the guidance cannot be ignored, it must be considered, and if not followed a council must be able to demonstrate why it has not followed guidance. So we must see that rejection letter !

The Chief Adjudicator of NPT, the adjudicators for other than London and Scotland made some excoriating comments on CCTV parking enforcement in her annual report for 2008/9.

QUOTE
While there have been examples of PCNs being correctly issued and served under
Regulation 10(1)(a) and the ensuing appeals dismissed, there are also examples of
successful appeals where enforcement by camera was found to be wrong in principle,
ill considered in the circumstances or the evidence inadequate. In some of these cases,
adjudicators have criticised quite severely the approach of councils involved.

M3Power
Ok just sorting it now.

Didn't know the site didn't allow photobucket content/ So just signing up with imageshack.
Friendly71
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/images
M3Power
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/images


Yes 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.us

Here 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.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Then 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
Hippocrates
Leaving aside camera enforcement and approval for the time being, I cannot see all the PCN but it is flawed because it does not contain mandatory information. PATAS: 2120293222 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Unlike the TPT, PATAS are openly against the Statutory Guidance re CCTV Enforcement in its decisions but, if you wish to pursue this angle, ask for the VCA Certificate, confirmation that the name and model camera used is the same as employed in the car on the day and the full technical construction file of the approved device. Unless there are substantial mistakes or a failure to supply DfT approval, frankly, after the Pools Motors debacle/case, PATAS are now saying that they have no jurisdiction, basically, to question such approval and that one has to go to the High Court.
M3Power
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 20:59) *
Leaving aside camera enforcement and approval for the time being, I cannot see all the PCN but it is flawed because it does not contain mandatory information. PATAS: 2120293222 http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Unlike the TPT, PATAS are openly against the Statutory Guidance re CCTV Enforcement in its decisions but, if you wish to pursue this angle, ask for the VCA Certificate, confirmation that the name and model camera used is the same as employed in the car on the day and the full technical construction file of the approved device. Unless there are substantial mistakes or a failure to supply DfT approval, frankly, after the Pools Motors debacle/case, PATAS are now saying that they have no jurisdiction, basically, to question such approval.


Hi

The only thing i have missed out on the PCN are literally just my name and address, the penalty charge notice number and my reg.
What do you mean mandatory information?

What is the best route to take?
Hippocrates
This. Read the decision and the legislation.

The PCN should inform him of his rights to specify an office of his choice, time and date, and that they must "comply" with that request. It doesn't!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/2/made

(4) A penalty charge notice served under regulation 10 of the General Regulations must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under paragraph 2 of the Schedule to those Regulations, include the following information—

(e)where the penalty charge notice is served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations (evidence produced by an approved device), the effect of paragraphs (5) and (6).
(5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it—
(a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(b)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.
(6) Where the recipient of the penalty charge notice makes a request under paragraph (5), the enforcement authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.
Incandescent
The only thing now I have seen the PCN is that the Statutory Guidance and the Operational Guidance arise from the TMA2004, whereas the PCN is apparently based on LLA 2000, to which the guidances do not strictly apply. Makes you wonder why any London councils continue to use CEOs when cameras are so much cheaper and no restraints apply.
M3Power
Hippocrates

So basically the PCN does not inform me of my rights to specify a time, place, office of my choice nor that that HAVE to comply. Which is legislation.

Is this the basis of me taking my appeal to PATAS?
Like in the case you posted?
Hippocrates
The PCN is nothing to do with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Acts. It is for a parking contravention. TMA. I need time to read through all this and would appreciate better images of the PCN so I do not have to turn my head and I assume all correspondence is attached?

QUOTE (M3Power @ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 21:52) *
Hippocrates

So basically the PCN does not inform me of my rights to specify a time, place, office of my choice nor that that HAVE to comply. Which is legislation.

Is this the basis of me taking my appeal to PATAS?
Like in the case you posted?


Yes. But, bear in mind, PATAS adjudicators are a law unto themselves - they do not have to follow another decision. Just hang on a minute or two while I digest the documents. What do you feel they have not answered?
M3Power
I am not sure why it rotated, I made all the images the right right way. I will try again on the on the first 2 images.

The only correspondence not attached is the standard PATAS appeal document and the 15 page of 'The waltham forest (waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation order 2011' and the back of the original PCN which has how to pay details on it.
I'll include the back of the original PCN



I feel they did not answer my request for proof that the CCTV operator was certified.
Hippocrates
Where is the rest of the Notice of Rejection?
M3Power
Give me 2 mins mate.
Hippocrates
Me, too! OK, you have cited 8.78 from the Operational Guidance. So, in a sense, their response is ok; but, they must have regard to the Statutory Guidance as per Section 87 of the TMA.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-...atutoryguid.pdf
M3Power
Here is the rest of the notice of rejection:







sad.gif So sorry, i cant seem to rotate the bloody images. :/
Hippocrates
OK. They have messed up the TWOC ground and limited it to theft. Case coming in a minute...2110212199.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Some might disagree as they state "e.g.". But, worth a shot at PATAS. And to see what they have to say. So, what do you want to do? Pay at the discounted rate or register your appeal at PATAS?
M3Power
Okay thanks, i'll go into the case now and have a look.

To be honest I am a little lost at the moment.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (M3Power @ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 22:33) *
Okay thanks, i'll go into the case now and have a look.

To be honest I am a little lost at the moment.


Not surprised. Hang on......problem with the ownership ground, too, apart from typo "brought"!

Not good or full enough:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/2/made

Regulation 4:-

(4) The grounds referred to in paragraph (2)(b)(i) are—

(a)that the alleged contravention did not occur;
(b)that the recipient—
(i)never was the owner of the vehicle in question;
(ii)had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred; or
(iii)became its owner after that date;
M3Power
So really its the wording that they are using isn't correct?
As legislation states it must be?
Hippocrates
QUOTE (M3Power @ Thu, 10 Jan 2013 - 22:41) *
So really its the wording that they are using isn't correct?
As legislation states it must be?


In my opinion - and I fight parking tickets every day - it is inadequate and, if this were mine, I would be fighting it all the way and using my knowledge and tactical skills to achieve success.

One can argue about TWOC and, to a lesser extent, the ownership grounds; however, they have not included mandatory wording as per the Reg 10 legislation re viewing the video evidence. Basically all this=procedural impropriety. See what others think.

As for the camera angle, pardon the pun, that is worth pursuing under the guise of you want further evidence before you decide to appeal or pay them.

There is also another tactical possibility of getting them to dig a hole re not showing they have had regard to the Statutory Guidance. Member interlog may have some ideas in this regard.
M3Power
I appreciate the help, seems I have a lot to go on.

On the notice of rejection letter it does not make it clear that I can actually view evidence after they rejected my appeal to them.

Procedural impropriety seems to be what I can go on.
Hippocrates
Sleep on it as you have 28 days beginning with the date of service of the NOR to register an appeal. Usually 2 working days after date of issue, excluding weekends. Get back tomorrow. I would certainly appeal it and make enquiries in the meantime of the camera certification etc as suggested.

Legal date of service is tomorrow, BTW! Fun, innit? Regulation 3:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/part/1/made
M3Power
lol.

I will definitely appeal it, just need to come up with something good and put all the suggestions here into good wording.

My NOR actually says
'Pay the discounted penalty charge of £65.00 within 21 days of when this letter was served and the case will be closed.

Thanks anyway, We'll come up with something.
Hippocrates
Get the camera cert. details etc.
M3Power
Hi not sure how to do that now, the NOR kind of makes it clear I only contact them to pay in 21 days or appeal it to PATAS.

Its actually written really badly!!
Hippocrates
QUOTE (M3Power @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 15:59) *
Hi not sure how to do that now, the NOR kind of makes it clear I only contact them to pay in 21 days or appeal it to PATAS.

Its actually written really badly!!


As before, you want the information so as to reach a decision to appeal or pay. Simple. Post up or copy and paste what I wrote.
M3Power
'Following the Notice of Rejection I received from you dated 10/01/13 I now would like the camera certification of the CCTV unit that captured me before I make a decision to further appeal or pay'

This is a rough draft that I put on the online appeal submission form. Anything else I should add. I haven't sent it yet and don't even know if it will in fact even send as it might be flagged they have already issued a NOR on my reference number.
EDW
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004
CERTIFICATION OF “APPROVED DEVICES” UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS (APPROVED DEVICES) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2007
Certification Number: PAD025 issue 2
Technical Construction File: Version 2.0.0 with updates until 20/1/2012
Camera: Philips LTC0600, Bosch LTC610, JVC TKC 920, Ernitec ECB282DP-D, Plettac FAC830, Vista VC422, Trinus PCC-6P/PCC-7, Won Woo WCC-E261,
Forward Vision MIC1-400.
System: Zenco Zengrab and Mobile Enforcement Vehicles
Council: London Borough of Waltham Forest
Effective from date: 23rd January 2012
Hippocrates
QUOTE (M3Power @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 16:25) *
'Following the Notice of Rejection I received from you dated 10/01/13 I now would like the camera certification of the CCTV unit that captured me before I make a decision to further appeal or pay'

This is a rough draft that I put on the online appeal submission form. Anything else I should add. I haven't sent it yet and don't even know if it will in fact even send as it might be flagged they have already issued a NOR on my reference number.


VCA certificate, proof that the camera used was the one in the car and full technical construction file.
M3Power
'Following the Notice of Rejection I received from you dated 10/01/13 I now would like the VCA certificate, proof that the camera used was the one in the car and full technical construction file before I make my decision on whether to pay or appeal further. '

Better?

And thanks EDW, i guess that means that waltham forest does have approved devices?
EDW
QUOTE (M3Power @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 17:18) *
'Following the Notice of Rejection I received from you dated 10/01/13 I now would like the VCA certificate, proof that the camera used was the one in the car and full technical construction file before I make my decision on whether to pay or appeal further. '

Better?

And thanks EDW, i guess that means that waltham forest does have approved devices?



Yes, mobile enf. etc.
M3Power
Thanks

What do you think of my options EDW based on what has been posted thus far?
EDW
QUOTE (M3Power @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 17:25) *
Thanks

What do you think of my options EDW based on what has been posted thus far?



pay the 50%.

I see nothing wrong with the PCN that is worth gambling at appeal.

There is a 'live' argument as to whether mobile cameras should be used in the way you were done.

The picture is not clear.



Case Number MW 06379E
Page 1 of 4
Adjudicator’s Decision
J. Hubbard
and
Medway Council
Penalty Charge Notice MW99504164 £70.00
Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged contravention did not
occur.
I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to
Owner.
Reasons
The PCN is dated 11 May 2011 and was issued by post in respect of a
contravention on 7 May 2011 at 13:01 relating to vehicle S46MJU in Ordnance
Street for being parked on a taxi rank.
This case was originally listed before me as a personal appeal hearing. In
advance of the hearing there was no indication from the appellant as to the basis
for her appeal. Mrs Hubbard attended the hearing and confirmed that she
authorised Mr Nigel Wise to conduct the appeal on her behalf. Mr Wise submitted
a folder of detailed submissions and evidence which caused me to adjourn the
hearing to enable the council to have a proper opportunity to respond.
Subsequently both parties have made further submissions and produced evidence
which I have considered.
At the hearing Mr Wise briefly identified his two main submissions. The first was
that the Penalty Charge Notice had not been issued on the basis of a record
produced by an approved device as required by section 72(4)(a) of the Traffic
Management Act 2004 and the Regulations made under that Act. In particular Mr
Wise challenged the validity of the Approved Device Certificates and their alleged
failure to certify the system used. The second submission was that a procedural
impropriety had occurred because the council had failed to comply with its own
Code of Practice in particular paragraph 2.4.5. which prohibits the studying of
pre-recorded video images to identify contraventions committed at some earlier
time.
Before the hearing was adjourned it was confirmed by Mrs Hubbard and Mr Wise
that it was not intended that the appellant would give any evidence as to the
circumstances of the alleged contravention and that the appeal depended wholly
upon the technical submissions made by Mr. Wise. In the light of this, I have
Case Number MW 06379E
Page 2 of 4
reviewed the evidence submitted by the council. In particular I have looked
closely at the sequence of nine still photographs [timed from 13.01.20 to
13.02.19] taken from the video recording which starts at 13.01.18 and concludes
at 13.02.21 and I make the following findings of fact:
a. When first observed the vehicle is parked on a taxi rank adjacent to the
front door of a private residence and the nearside indicator is on.
b. The driver remains in the vehicle throughout the period of observation.
c. The nearside indicator is flashing.
d. Two people emerge from the adjacent front door and get into the rear of
the car.
e. The maximum period during which the vehicle was stationary is between
59 and 63 seconds.
f. There are bags of shopping on the pavement but it is not clear where they
have come from or what happens to them.
Having considered the evidence of this alleged contravention, I have decided to
allow this appeal and I give my reasons below.
1. For a restriction to be enforceable it must be authorised by the relevant
Traffic Regulation Order. I am satisfied that the car was stationary in a part
of Ordnance Street which is a taxi rank authorised by the Medway
(Prohibition of Stopping on Hackney Carriage Ranks) Traffic Order 2003.
Article 3 provides as follows:
No person shall cause any vehicle to stop in a hackney carriage rank
specified in the Schedule to this Order at any time.
Article 4 lists a series of exceptions, none of which applies in this case.
2. For a restriction to be enforceable, the restriction authorised by the Order
must be properly signed. The evidence of signage in this case is to be
found in still photographs provided by the council which do not form part of
the material generated by the mobile camera. This shows that the taxi
rank is signed by road markings conforming to diagram 1028.2 of the
TRSGD. These road markings must be accompanied by the appropriate
sign which must conform to one of five diagrams listed. The photograph of
the sign at page 30 of the council’s original evidence bundle shows that the
sign reads “No waiting at any time except for taxis” above which is a no
waiting sign. This sign corresponds with diagram 650.2. In my view it is
the wrong sign. The correct sign which corresponds to the restriction
created by the Order is diagram 650.1 which reads “No stopping except
taxis” below a no stopping sign. This is not a minor technicality because No
Waiting and No Stopping are two different restrictions and the latter is
significantly more restrictive than the former. On this basis I allow this
appeal but I am fortified in this decision by two further factors.
Case Number MW 06379E
Page 3 of 4
3. Approved devices should not be used for routine enforcement. In the
Operational Guidance issued by the Department for Transport at paragraph
8.78 the following appears:
The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only
where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not
practical.
The council recognises is its later submission that it must justify the use of
an approved device in Ordnance Street. At page 11 of an additional
submission the close proximity of John Fisher Secondary School and
instances of verbal abuse to CEO’s are given as the justification in this
case. I am not satisfied that this is capable of amounting to an adequate
justification. It is unclear why the proximity of a school should be of any
relevance to this issue. Also, there is no specific evidence from which one
could properly conclude that verbal abuse, which sadly occurs all too
frequently in all kinds of locations, is a particular hazard for CEOs in the
Ordnance Street area.
4. As indicated in my findings of fact above, this vehicle was stationary for a
maximum of 63 seconds during which the driver remained in it throughout
and two people got into the vehicle. At the time the visible part of the taxi
rank was empty and no obstruction was caused. In MW06157C, a decision
issued in July 2010, the Chief Adjudicator allowed an appeal on the
principle of “de minimis non curat lex” (the law will not concern itself with
trifles) where a vehicle had stopped in a bus stop for 46 seconds to enable
the passengers to change places. The Chief Adjudicator also criticised the
council’s Code of Practice for failing to deal with the issue of fairness. I can
see no evidence in this case that the council has genuinely considered the
issues of fairness and proportionality in deciding to enforce a PCN where a
vehicle had stopped for just over a minute with the driver remaining in the
car throughout and where no obstruction was caused.
5. Having thus allowed the appeal, it is not necessary for me to make further
findings of fact in this case. However, in deference to the quantity of
submissions made by the parties, I am prepared to make the following
observations.
6. Paragraph 2(1) of the Approved Devices Order 2007 provides that a device
is an approved device for the statutory purposes if it is of a type which has
been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets the schedules
requirements. It follows that the enforcing authority must prove that the
particular camera used to record the alleged contravention is of a type
approved by the Secretary of State. This is a two-stage process. Firstly,
the council must prove what camera was used. Secondly, it must prove
that it is of a type certified as approved by the Secretary of State. It will be
necessary to examine the certification carefully so as to be satisfied that it
confirms that the particular camera is of the relevant type. But I doubt that
it would be appropriate for this Tribunal to entertain challenges to the
Case Number MW 06379E
Page 4 of 4
validity of the Secretary of State’s certification. Contrary to what may have
been suggested to the appellant, other public law remedies would have to
be considered in the event of a substantive challenge to the Secretary of
State’s certification of an approved device.
7. I am not persuaded that the Approved Device Certificate issued by the
Secretary of State is defective because it allegedly fails to certify the
‘System’ employed. I note that one of the certificates cited with approval
by the appellant describes the system as “Mobile enforcement vehicle”. I
can see little difference in substance between this description and the term
“Smart Car” used in this case. I accept the council’s submission on this
point that the term “Smart Car” would be understood to mean the system
of enforcement using such vehicles.
8. The appellant submits that there has been a breach of the Council’s Code
of Practice amounting to a procedural impropriety. My attention is drawn to
paragraph 2.4.5. which provides that contraventions must be identified at
the time when they are committed and prohibits the studying of prerecorded
video images to identify earlier contraventions. It is argued that
this has happened twice in this case after the contravention has occurred
when the footage has been reviewed by council operatives. In my view this
submission confuses the original identification of the contravention with the
later review. The original identification was recorded on a log in accordance
with paragraph 2.4.6., a copy of which has been supplied by the council.
Although the evidence captured at this time is subsequently viewed as part
of the process of issuing the Regulation 10 PCN [and on this occasion was
viewed twice], I am satisfied that the contravention had already been
identified at the time that it occurred. However I suggest that since in
accordance with paragraph 2.5.1. “the operator’s observation of a
contravention is the primary evidence of the contravention”, it would be
helpful if the evidence of the operator’s observation in the form of an
extract from the log could be provided in each case in the council’s
evidence bundle.
9. This appeal is allowed for the reasons given above.
John O'Higgins
Adjudicator 5 June 2012
M3Power
Any other opinions?

What isn't clear about the picture?

Would it make a difference that the royal mail van was not given a PCN?
bossjohnc
They have exemption from most parking restrictions
M3Power
Thank you, i wasn't aware of this.
EDW
If you want to fight these are IMHO your grounds:


The location stated on the PCN is too vague - 'High Road Leyton (cctv)

High Road, is long road, google says 1.9 miles.
http://goo.gl/maps/Z5YCV

PCN states 'this pcn also acts as a notice to owner'

This is a live issue, I say that the law does not allow it to say that.


If it were me I'd fight.
M3Power
QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 17:52) *
If you want to fight these are IMHO your grounds:


The location stated on the PCN is too vague - 'High Road Leyton (cctv)

High Road, is long road, google says 1.9 miles.
http://goo.gl/maps/Z5YCV

PCN states 'this pcn also acts as a notice to owner'

This is a live issue, I say that the law does not allow it to say that.


If it were me I'd fight.


So again my best chance is to appeal it on the premise of them getting the wording on. On a technicality so to speak?

Funny thing is I only popped into the garage to confirm i can bring my car for an MOT in an hour sad.gif

EDW
QUOTE (M3Power @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 18:01) *
QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 17:52) *
If you want to fight these are IMHO your grounds:


The location stated on the PCN is too vague - 'High Road Leyton (cctv)

High Road, is long road, google says 1.9 miles.
http://goo.gl/maps/Z5YCV

PCN states 'this pcn also acts as a notice to owner'

This is a live issue, I say that the law does not allow it to say that.


If it were me I'd fight.


So again my best chance is to appeal it on the premise of them getting the wording on. On a technicality so to speak?

Funny thing is I only popped into the garage to confirm i can bring my car for an MOT in an hour sad.gif



I cant' say what your chances are, the still images on the pcn appear to show the gps data, they might argue that this is enough to show the location.
But I say that gps data is not readily understandable.

There a lots of successful appeals based on vague location stated on pcn.
M3Power
Hmmmmm

Would it be worth pursuing what hippocrates stated in terms of certain wording not being present as legislation states. Especially in terms of your right to view the footage?
EDW
QUOTE (M3Power @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 18:42) *
Hmmmmm

Would it be worth pursuing what hippocrates stated in terms of certain wording not being present as legislation states. Especially in terms of your right to view the footage?



when you appeal to patas you can say what you want.
M3Power
?
Incandescent
What he means is you are not restricted by the NtO list, you can include collateral arguments, of which this is one, (PCN does not include statutory information), however you can put forward many points, not just one.
M3Power
God I feel so silly, lol.

Thanks so much blush.gif

I'll come up few few things and run it pass you guys. smile.gif

I will ask for the footage etc because if they do not do it its more ammo for me.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 16:31) *
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004
CERTIFICATION OF “APPROVED DEVICES” UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS (APPROVED DEVICES) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2007
Certification Number: PAD025 issue 2
Technical Construction File: Version 2.0.0 with updates until 20/1/2012
Camera: Philips LTC0600, Bosch LTC610, JVC TKC 920, Ernitec ECB282DP-D, Plettac FAC830, Vista VC422, Trinus PCC-6P/PCC-7, Won Woo WCC-E261,
Forward Vision MIC1-400.
System: Zenco Zengrab and Mobile Enforcement Vehicles
Council: London Borough of Waltham Forest
Effective from date: 23rd January 2012


So which camera was used? Where is the technical construction file? Still ask them for it, everything, as they may mess up.
EDW
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 23:22) *
QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 11 Jan 2013 - 16:31) *
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004
CERTIFICATION OF “APPROVED DEVICES” UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTRAVENTIONS (APPROVED DEVICES) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2007
Certification Number: PAD025 issue 2
Technical Construction File: Version 2.0.0 with updates until 20/1/2012
Camera: Philips LTC0600, Bosch LTC610, JVC TKC 920, Ernitec ECB282DP-D, Plettac FAC830, Vista VC422, Trinus PCC-6P/PCC-7, Won Woo WCC-E261,
Forward Vision MIC1-400.
System: Zenco Zengrab and Mobile Enforcement Vehicles
Council: London Borough of Waltham Forest
Effective from date: 23rd January 2012


So which camera was used? Where is the technical construction file? Still ask them for it, everything, as they may mess up.



How is it that they are obligated to provide the tech file?
Hippocrates
Vague locus arguments, generally speaking, are best left for moving traffic contraventions. It is quite clear that the OP knows where the alleged contravention took place. In the oft-quoted Adamou v Haringey case, she genuinely did not know and the council messed up their evidence as well as the PCN being wanting, all of which contributed to why she won.

The PCN does not contain mandatory wording.
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.