Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking Contravention code 46 (on a red route or clearway)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
crf
Parking Contravention code 46 (on a red route or clearway)

Received pcn from the good people of tfl, stopped in loading bay

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment


Two lines of thought issue of cab and loading/waiting being dealt with elsewhere.

I had come down old Brompton rd (which is not a red route) previous sign is a controlled parking zone ending 6:30pm. Then there is a line of parking places before the unmarked on road “loading bay”

Click to view attachment

The sign by the bay is a red route sign denoting no stopping which I do not dispute.

Click to view attachment

My question is when does a red route start ? Is the sign by the bay sufficient, or in order to begin a red route does it not have to start out red so you know that the route has begun all official markings show red line either side of bay. Bearing in mind this according to traffic order is a side road the red route is Earls court rd.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

My argument is that there is no distinction between the bays or between the cpz and start of red route and precisely where does it start and what denotes it?
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 minimise 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.

Also
10.2 A relatively new type of control is the red route,
first introduced in London. This prohibits stopping,
much like the rural 24-hour clearway (see section 9),
but is more flexible as it does not need to operate for
the whole day and provision can be made for parking
and loading at certain times. Red routes are intended
to be used strategically to deal with traffic problems
assessed on a whole-route basis, not to deal with
issues on relatively short lengths of road.

Signs need to be sufficiently
frequent for drivers to be clear what restriction
applies.

Just wanting advice whether to proceed on this front or not or anything else I can add

thanks in advance




SchoolRunMum
There's the fact it was issued via camera enforcement so you could just deliberately ask 'Please explain why was this PCN issued by post, relying on camera enforcement?'

The reason is explained here but I don't recommend you tip TFL off by citing the guidelines, just ask the vague question in the hope they dig a hole:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=867.0

Read he whole excerpt to understand the points in there but there is this case to cite:

'In E105062C the PCN was issued for stopping on a red route clearway. The photographs showed the vehicle stationary in a bus stop in a lay-by to the side of the red route. It seemed that the CCTV vehicle was not programmed to recognise adjacent restrictions and the appeal was allowed because the authority was endeavouring to impose a penalty for the wrong contravention.''

Also if you can, go and see the video because if you were loading/unloading then the footage should show you leaving/arriving laden with items. You need to know what evidence they have, and you should also be looking to see whether the camera zooms in on clear signs/lines denoting the restriction (or not!).
crf
More advice needed!

I cannot find the tfl sign in the approved sign manual

Click to view attachment

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2552.pdf

Does the sign have to match exactly one of the signs in dft authorisation??



crf
Hoped for a few replies sad.gif

Anyhow on deeper inspection of regs regarding signs they have that covered I believe.

A survey of site shows the markings to be incorrect, tfl dft approved regs state 600mm lines and gaps

Click to view attachment

survey shows average of line is 750mm and gap 420mm Is this enough regarding de minimis?

Also how should the representation be worded need to send this in tomorrow

Thanks

crf
Ploughing a lone furrow here!

Nevermind hoping I have done everything correctly.

Tried to make online representation today but have now given up with that route as it keeps failing anyone else had this problem?

I rang them up option given was send email to enquiries so have sent it off with points from schoolrrun mum included (thanks)

Have recieved automated response but gives 15 days for it to be answered !!!

DastardlyDick
While Old Brompton Road is not a Red Route, Redcliffe Gardens (which is the crossroads just in front of where your car was parked) most certainly is. It's not unusual for Red Routes to continue into side roads as this one has. The Red Route begins/ends at the end of the TfL Loading box you parked in, where it meets the Local Authority Box.

Could you clarify which box you were actually parked in? If you look on Google Street view the TfL Box is the one with the dark grey GTI parked in it, and the Local Authority Box starts in front of the silver Audi.

When you go to view the video evidence, in addition to the points raised by SRM, you also need to check that TfL gave 5 minutes "continuous observation" during which "no loading activity" is seen i.e the camera should remain focused on your vehicle for a minimum of 5 minutes. It's not the Law, but it is TfL Policy, as it makes them more credible to adjudicators - if you google "Packer v Flowers" you'll see what I mean.
crf
Hi DD

it is the tfl "loading" bay

I quoted this in rep as well

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 minimise 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 distinction between the two whereas a red line at start of box would eradicate any ambiguity between the two bays.

I have a foi outstanding on that spot because I believe its a nice earner I stopped 3 vehicles from parking there when I did measurements. More about money than adequate signage


There is also this

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 Brom

the box does not start/end at this point but don't know as yet how exact this has to be, also how up to date that order is.

Will investigate Packer vs Flowers. I was there for a while with a passenger who says we are picking someone up here but never showed he was walking up and down and in shop on phone which should be seen on vid finding out where she was. I as an upstanding member of the community would never have parked there and did not know it was going to be a saga.

Any cases on measurements?



DastardlyDick
I don't think you will find reference to that prticular Loading Bay in "The Road Traffic (Special Parking Area) (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) Order 1994" because that is for the Parking Areas enforced by Kensington & Chelsea Council - where you were parked is TfLs "property" and is covered by different Legislation.

I don't think that there's much mileage in the road markings argument simply because TfLs road markings are different to the Local Authority's you can see that TfLs lines are much thicker than the Councils. The placing of signs back to back would also be difficult, as Councils are (I believe) allowed to have their signs parallel to the kerb, but TfLs must face on coming traffic, again, due to different pieces of Legislation.

Unfortunatley, I don't have any cases regarding the measurment of the box/bay etc., but PaTAS are increasingly going for "substantial compliance" when it comes to 'signs and lines' and disregarding small differences between the actual measurements "on the ground" and what is defined in the Regulations.

You do realise that in your reply, you've admitted that you weren't "loading" but waiting to pick someone up, thus proving the contravention did take place as alledged?

The only other thing I can think of at the moment is for you to check the date on the PCN/NtO against the postmark on the envelope it came in (if you still have it) - if they're different that's a "procedural impropriety" which would invalidate the PCN/NtO.
crf
Hi DD

Take your points but been looking at white bays and have seen many that are marked correctly according to dft approved markings this box is not. There's and my definition of substantial compliance is the key, will be photographing more bays for evidence

Video itself shows what happened so I was stopped on an invalid loading bay (just for the tfl trolls lol)

Rep in so will wait and see

cheers
crf


Wow 4 days for rep rejection is that a record?
SchoolRunMum
Fairly quick! Let's see the rejection letter please.
crf
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_signs

You 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 attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

The 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

SchoolRunMum
Very similar threads just posted (different loading bay but same issues with a postal PCN):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81118

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80883

You may want to compare notes and see who wins first!
crf
Formulating my patas appeal

Was wondering if this is an avenue to explore further

Rejection letter states foi (which I did not ask for) will take 20 working days and and appeal within 28 days from beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection. Dates worked out mean they both finish on same day.

In theory then if I want to post appeal to patas within 28 days how long do I leave before posting if I have not received anything. Is this a procedural impropriety
crf
Patas appeal sent on Tuesday to make sure it got there before 28 days

Wednesday the foi "request" came !! perfect timing

lets see what happens

Found this on my searches maybe of use regarding how tfl process the pcn



Click to view attachment
DastardlyDick
Probably a bit late, but which box are you measuring - the one with the thin lines where the Audi is parked or the one with the thick lines where the Golf is?
crf
Thick lines with golf in it
Hippocrates
You, the appellant, specify the office and time and they must comply. All this is missing and, if you make further "enquiries", they will tell you which office, which is wrong in law. Mr B. O. Locks drafted their PCN.
crf
Thanks for clarification will include it in Patas appearance
crf
Received the evidence pack from TFL and requested more info separately which I also have received wanted the authorisation for red routes at location asked for rta act 1984 special authorisation and site plans and drawings (part of appeal is markings are wrong, I know could be a sticky wicket regarding Herron case but believe he was quoting tsrgd and tsm I am quoting direct from rta)

Here is reply
Click to view attachment

They believe it is compliant with tsrgd !
Also site plans lost?

I am struggling with bit marked out in tfl evidence pack as well could someone put that into laymans terms so I understand
Click to view attachment

Continuing with the camera enforcement side as well and put in a freedom request via whatdotheyknow about loading bay and received this information

First camera pcn
Click to view attachment

second warden pcn

Click to view attachment

Does the code of practice say camera enforcement is not to replace ceo?

Any views please


DastardlyDick
This is what the Statutory Guidance says about CEO v CCTV enforcement:-

"The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where
enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical."

Unfortunatley, AFAIK, no Adjudicator has given his/her interpretation of "difficult or senstive" or "not practical" (which is what TfL are saying)

I believe that they are also saying that the fact there isn't a CEO on the spot to enforce gives them the right to use CCTV instead (to be fair, they only have 100 - 150 CEOs to enforce all the Red Routes in London).

This was the only reference I could find to CEOs in the Code of Practice:-

"to enable the despatch of a Civil Enforcement Officers and / or a secondary enforcement team for targeted enforcement of vehicles contravening traffic regulations."
Incandescent
The law is that TfL "must have regard to the guidance". So if you challenge them on not following guidance they should be able to tell you why enforcement at the location they videoed you for a PCN is "too sensitive or impractical" for CEOs to be used. In other words, they should be able to demonstrate they "have had regard to the guidance".

But in their letter they just bluff their way, and baldly state they have had regard to the guidance. So how do you, or the adjudicator know they have had regard ? Where is the public record of the study and decisions on where they consider guidance cannot be followed ? You will search in vain, because they have NOT had regard to the guidance. However PATAS are curiously insouciant about this.
crf
Went to PATAS

Unfortunately for tfl they lost!

It was won on using Makda in the High Court case, not much use for everyone else unless a licenced taxi.

I had put a lot of effort into the markings and signage even though advised here it would not be "substantial" alas that was the case, he noted my remarks but came back re Heron and compliance, and doubted he would allow on that alone.

Never went as far as other concerns regarding cctv, as after we discussed Makda he went into how this was a difficult one to call as he had never allowed on such a long time but the principles of the Makda case swung in my favour.

Adjudicator was nice very professional explained everything clearly, even with me fluttering around all the papers I had.

crf


me 2 the man 0
SchoolRunMum
Well done you!
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.