First a copy of my rejection letter.
"The contravention did not occur the traffic order was invalid
Firstly may I ask why are you going against the guidelines?
Section 48 of the The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions states “The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical”. Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance. Old Brompton Road does not fall under this description.
A CEO would be more appropriate in this location with regard to
PATAS case No. 211001669A as well.
The DfT Operational Guidance to Local Authorities (Revised Edition November 2010) states:
Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and authorities should use them sparingly.
The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions.
2.3.1 The primary objective of any CCTV camera enforcement system (‘the 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.
2.3.5 Relevant camera enforcement signs should be displayed in areas where the system operates. The signs will not define the field of view of the cameras but will advise that CCTV camera enforcement is taking place in the area.
I saw no signs at all along the whole of Old Brompton rd and in the general area, according to a recent foi regarding signs
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_warning_signsYou do not know if you have signs, how many have been stolen, defaced, fallen down, moved of the “number” that you state? How can you be sure that you have visible and readable signs if you have no record at all of how many you have and where they are situated?
Travelling down from the start of Old Brompton rd the one sign that you can see is a controlled parking zone (junction of Drayton Gardens) sign which gives a finish of 6:30pm As Old Brompton rd is not a red route this is the sign I was under direction from. Further down we have parking places with white lines where I had parked because it was outside the cpz and residents restrictions.
According to Traffic Signs Manual
7.51 Where two different parking bays are side
by side (e.g. a loading bay adjacent to a disabled
badge holder bay), consideration should be given to
mounting two signs side by side, preferably on a grey
backing board, at the changeover point. Each sign
should include an arrow pointing in the direction of
the respective bay. This should minimize the risk of
drivers parking in the wrong bay by mistake and
incurring a penalty. Where the assembly would not
be too tall, the signs could be mounted one above
the other. The sign with the left-pointing arrow
should be at the top.
There is no sign denoting end of parking places and start of red route regulations As this is the start of red route from Old Brompton rd, the red route has to start with a red line.. All diagrams denoting white box have red line either side. Thereby drawing a distinction and no ambiguity between the different regulations and bays
According to Traffic Signs Manual
10.7
Where drivers are likely to approach the bay from the opposite side
of the road, a sign should also face in that direction.
This could be achieved by placing a sign at each end
of the bay, facing outwards towards approaching
traffic.
There is only one sign. What evidence do you have that the sign was in good condition? Where does your video evidence show the contravention sign?
The “bay” itself is not correctly installed, thereby invalidating the contravention.
Please could you supply the relevant traffic order (dft approved) with regard to this location?
I quote from:
The Road Traffic (Special Parking Area) (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) Order 1994 exemptions
(iii)(south side) between its junction with Redcliffe Gardens (A3220) and a point opposite the west wall of 219 Old Brompton Road;
The “bay” does not start or end at a point opposite the west wall of 219 Old Brompton rd.
The markings are incorrect
(small diagram of bay not copied in for some reason)
average line mark 750mm average gap 420mm
The dft approved markings are 600mm for lines 600mm for gaps, even with the permitted variations these are still incorrect.
If you decide to not cancel this pcn please forward to me all relevant dft approved traffic orders, signs and markings for this location in case there is something more to add further down the procedure.
Yours Faithfully
And the reply
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentThe issuing officer incorporates a guideline about the observation. Follows guidelines here but not regarding use of cctv?
They have said bay has been installed correctly but asked for relevant documentation none recieved apart from their statement "you have made requests for information under the freedom of information act" I have not asked for anything under the freedom of information act? Just wanted to see same document that they have seen regarding traffic management order. Until I see them and can say yes or no to the bay being correctly installed I cannot go further. Yet foi request they say can be up to 20 working days, which may put me out of discount period (procedural impropriety?).
Stock answer to the cctv part. I provided link to foi request but appears to have not been read as concerns over "number" not replied to.
The onus is on the driver to adhere to signs etc he can confirm they meet statutory requirements? We are not seeing the same tmo if the document he has, states that markings are different to the one's I have then I need to see them. Substantial compliance would mean within the permitted variant ?
Anyhow lets enjoy weekend
crf