Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

thanks for the quick response, i've just attached the enforcement notice. its been a 100 days since the contravention date.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

thanks @Hippocrates, I've looked at previous examples on FTLA for TWOC grounds and I will add the following to my original appeal:


Further, I argue that the PCN issued is unenforceable due to a misinterpretation of the "vehicle use without consent" clause. The current grounds limits this clause to theft cases only, as evidenced by the requirement for a police report or insurance claim. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not recognise other valid scenarios of unauthorised use, such as when a vehicle is used without the owner's consent by a friend or relative, in which case reporting to the police may not be relevant. The PCN's reliance on this incorrect understanding of “used without consent” makes it invalid in situations where the vehicle's use falls outside the strict definition of theft. Therefore, making this PCN unenforceable.

if that's ok, I will send out the response today.

thanks

ahh yes, of course. i'll wait.

thanks again

Hi all,

not sent anything over yet, however i have been looking around the forum and found the following template: "Camera authorisation representation". using this i have drafted a representation, shall i send this off:

Dear London Borough of Newham

I challenge liability on the basis that the contravention did not occur.

Under section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, a PCN may only be served "on the basis of information provided by the use of a prescribed device", section 3 (1) defines a prescribed device in the following terms:

“Prescribed device” means a device prescribed under section 20(9) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 or a device of a description specified in regulations made for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State.

In addition to being prescribed, the camera must also be approved, as sub-paragraphs 7(2) & (3) of Schedule 1 to the Act provide that:

(2) A record produced, or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless—

(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State; and

(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

(3) Any approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph may be given subject to conditions as to the purposes for which, and the manner and other circumstances in which, any device of the type concerned is to be used.

In the case of the alleged contravention recorded by a TES camera (Model: Small Blue) against my vehicle, KU09KHA, I request the council to provide evidence that this camera has been approved for the purposes of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act, in line with the requirements for devices certified under Certification of approved devices for parking and Bus Lane only: EADM049.

The council will appreciate that if its camera is not both prescribed under section 3(1) and authorised under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, then its video is not admissible in tribunal proceedings, and therefore no contravention could be proved.

Finally, I draw the council’s attention to the key case of Davy Duthieuw v London Borough of Ealing, which is listed at https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases.

Yours Faithfully

Total bolleaux!

Outcome.