Free Traffic Legal Advice

Application filed.

Just opened up the FOIR response: complete disconnect between the VCA certificate and the actual camera used! As foreseen by Socrates. This alone should ensure a de novo hearing.

A story referencing this case was included in the appellant's evidence.

RUCA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Section 21 of the Schedule to the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication)(London) Regulations 2001
Case Details
Case reference 9180006508
Appellant Raymond Bryce
Authority Transport for London
VRM DT66HAA
Decision Cost award refused
PCN Details
PCN TZ18525198
Contravention date 16 Nov 2017
Contravention time 07:02:00
Contravention location Waterloo Bridge
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failure to pay Congestion charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 05 Feb 2018
Adjudicator Maggie Kennedy
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction TfL will cancel the PCN.
Reasons
Mr Bryce attended a personal hearing of his case; Transport for London (TfL) did not attend.


Mr Bryce works in Croydon and regularly stays in accommodation in and around the charging zone. He is particular about ensuring that he does not drive within the zone during its charging hours. He is so careful that in six months of operating in this way he has never before received a penalty charge notice (PCN).


On this occasion his vehicle was seen at 07:02:41, some two minutes and forty seconds after the charging period commenced. He was leaving the zone to go to work. He appeared to be genuinely surprised that he was still within the zone after 07:00.


One might have expected TfL to exercise their discretion in his favour taking into account the timing and also the absence of any previous incident. They declined to do this as they are strictly entitled providing that they do properly consider the representations made and do not fetter their discretion by applying an inflexible policy.


TfL are also obliged to prove the case against Mr Bryce.


They have produced an authorised officer's certificate telling the Tribunal that the clock on the camera is accurate but this appears to be in standard format and does not describe when the cameras were last checked for accuracy or how they are confirmed to be synchronised with the atomic clock. The Tribunal has generally accepted that TfL could satisfactorily produce this information if required but it is unclear when this was last examined for current accuracy.


TfL also rely upon a number of images taken by the camera apparatus. I understand that there are at least two cameras, including a monochrome camera and a colour camera. Images from both cameras are included in evidence to demonstrate the contravention.


Examination of the images shows, however, that the "Colour Contextual After" image comes from a camera located on Victoria Embankment. This incident is alleged to have occurred on Waterloo Bridge. The photograph is not only of a different location but also, clearly, taken at a different time of day. The images themselves are not timed. This significantly undermines the reliability of the principal evidence.


Taking all of this into account, including Mr Bryce's clear belief that he had left the zone before 07:00, I am not satisfied that the camera evidence is reliable in this particular case. I find, then, that TfL have failed to prove that the alleged contravention occurred.


The appeal is allowed and no payment is required from Mr Bryce.

Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 14 Mar 2018
Adjudicator Maggie Kennedy
Decision Cost award refused
Direction -
Reasons
The Adjudicator regrets the confusion caused by her mistakenly creating the wrong standard correspondence when dealing with Mr Bryce's application for costs. It was her intention to explain to Mr Bryce that his application could not succeed, for the reasons explained in her notes (and repeated below), but that message was contradicted by the covering letter suggesting that his application could be considered further. This was the Adjudicator's error and she apologises and trusts that Mr Bryce will understand that costs cannot be awarded to him.

The Adjudicator, on considering the costs application, noted:

Mr Bryce was successful in his appeal against this penalty charge notice for the reasons set out in my earlier decision. He now seeks costs against Transport for London to reimburse him for the time he has spent fighting the case.

I entirely understand the request made by Mr Bryce but must decline it. Costs are very rarely awarded in this jurisdiction and it would be necessary, for him to be successful, to show that TfL had been "wholly unreasonable" in pursuing the case. Note that mere unreasonableness will not suffice, their conduct must have been "wholly" unreasonable.

There is no evidence to suggest that TfL's conduct fell to this very low level and whilst their evidence in the case was imperfect the sanction for that was losing the case. It is not appropriate for an award of costs to be made in addition.

The Local Authority would inform the Learned Adjudicator....

Buttering up - an absolutely classic example

@cp8759 Re case 2230509438 "I was sympathetic to the ground of appeal relating to the grounds of representation presented online (i.e. that no specific grounds of appeal were available) but prefer not to express a concluded view upon it."

I have a screenshot of the same. Also, I assume you used the date of service issue?

Furthermore I dispute the validity of the PCN because the payment deadlines are ambiguous and unclear. The PCN asserts that I have 28 days from the date of the notice to make payment, but this is follow by text indicating that the date of service is considered to be 2 working days from the date of the notice. If the payment period is 28 days from the date of the notice then the date of service would be irrelevant, so is appears that the PCN should assert the payment period is 28 days from the date of service of the notice. On the other hand if the payment period is 28 days from the date of the notice, then it would make no sense to indicate how the date of service is to be calculated, as the date of service would be irrelevant. The same ambiguity and uncertainty applies to the 14 day discount period.

In the circumstances the PCN is ambiguous and confusing as to what the payment period is, so the PCN should be cancelled.

@cp8759 Yes to the no need for an approved device; but, the issue is simple as the certificate supplied refers to the wrong camera.* So, I have a chance for a de novo hearing, particularly when you read what she said about the certificate in terms of corroborating her decision. We'll see. As for the bubbly stuff, unfortunately I am on the wagon.

I have to make a decision on the evidence which clock I find the more reliable, the appellant’s or the Enforcement Authority’s on a balance of probabilities.I find on balance, when considering the summary of facts that the Enforcement Authority’s clock is the more reliable.

*
I am further convinced by the Approved Device Certification relating to the CCTV camera in question as provided in Evidence C.

@cp8759 The main issue is that it undermines the reasoning and that the camera cited in the certificate is not the one used. I have the FOIR. And the camera is just identified by a number in the WS. The council must prove its case. If a de novo hearing  is allowed, I will use everything as per usual.

@cp8759 Plus the incomplete TMO supplied.  2230528523