Free Traffic Legal Advice

Camera enforcement signs are not a legal requirement.

Normally, they wouldn't be able to enforce using cameras a loading bay, but I see double-red lines on the photo, so they may be trying to "fiddle it". A recent High Court judicial review ruled that councils can enforce Red Routes using CCTV, but specific signs have to be in place to make it a Red Route.

Best if you wait a bit until our administrator has had a look because he was involved in the original red route case.

Please post up a GSV link to the exact location.

Camera enforcement signs are not a legal requirement.

Normally, they wouldn't be able to enforce using cameras a loading bay, but I see double-red lines on the photo, so they may be trying to "fiddle it". A recent High Court judicial review ruled that councils can enforce Red Routes using CCTV, but specific signs have to be in place to make it a Red Route.

Best if you wait a bit until our administrator has had a look because he was involved in the original red route case.

Please post up a GSV link to the exact location.

Here is the streetmap view of the space - taken before the red lines put in. . Streetmap view

So here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5LqGynUHbsxX9veF6

Unfortunately GSV is out of date, but the information here and the video confirm this is all part of a red route:



Shopping isn't loading, so we'll have to go for a technical appeal. Here's a draft representation:


Send this online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page, in the meantime I'll get hold of the traffic order.

Thank you, will follow up all the appropriate advice. Meanwhile I went to the site and took some pics, just in case they are of any use. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/arosipg3x7jmcjmi4w9wl/AGFCNUgp0QVz-dWDfSeLdkY?rlkey=5sqng0rbd4yvmfdndtsrdh0rd&st=sd7ld17u&dl=0

The photos confirm it's not a loading place, so the contravention alleged cannot have occurred.

The photos seem to confirm the restriction IMO.

It is a length of 24/7 red route where there is a marked area where loading is exempted from the prohibition 24/7, hence marked in white.

Any issues please let me know.

Yes, what are the objective events shown on the video? You park, leave the vehicle, return X minutes later empty-handed and then drive away?

So here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5LqGynUHbsxX9veF6

Unfortunately GSV is out of date, but the information here and the video confirm this is all part of a red route:



Shopping isn't loading, so we'll have to go for a technical appeal. Here's a draft representation:

Dear Brighton & Hove City Council,

The alleged contravention did not occur, because my vehicle was not stopped in a designated parking place, rather it was stopped on a red route so the contravention should have been 46 - Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway).

In the alternative, if I was not stopped on a red route, then there is no power to serve a postal penalty charge, service of which is a procedural impropriety.

I refer you to the High Court decision in Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) where it was held that service of postal PCNs is permitted in bays located along a red route, but only if the bays are part of the red route itself. A designated parking place cannot be a red route and a red route cannot be a designated parking place, as the two are mutually exclusive.

It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Send this online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page, in the meantime I'll get hold of the traffic order.

Hi CP

I posted your reply online under the PCN and they just sent me back a PDF Notice of rejections of Representations by email. This can be seen here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/arosipg3x7jmcjmi4w9wl/AGFCNUgp0QVz-dWDfSeLdkY?rlkey=5sqng0rbd4yvmfdndtsrdh0rd&st=2rdpbd78&dl=0

They are not citing it as a red route contravention, more a 25 - Loading bay one/

Kind regards
Jack

Hi Guys

I've now been sent a Charge Certificate after responding to the council with the above advice.

I didn't receive an NoR by post with the tick box options to send to an adjudicator, it was just the PDF by email.

So far this is the history:
09/09/2024 07:20   Charge Certificate Issued
06/09/2024 11:33   Off hold no compensate
06/09/2024 11:33   Go to TPT
09/08/2024 17:33   On Hold: Representation Received
29/07/2024 13:56   Notice of Rejection discount CCTV
29/07/2024 13:52   Representation submitted Under review
29/07/2024 13:52   Representation Rejected
29/07/2024 13:50   Off Hold Compensate
29/07/2024 13:50   Representation submitted Under review
29/07/2024 13:50   Representation Rejected
05/07/2024 15:25   On Hold: Representation Received
17/06/2024 07:11   PCN Issued

I feel I should appeal now to the Traffic Penalty tribunal online immediately citing there was no posted NoR and I am surprised at the jump to Charge Certificate.

I responded online to the council so they would have received my argument.
The Charge Certificate cites contravention 25. Obviously they have used a camera and I'm citing contravention forty-six.

I will forward on a pic of my boot where I keep my roof straps for picking up a mattress. I'm not convinced this counts as shopping, as this is an in ordinate weight needing the benefit of a loading bay. the fact the mattress was no longer there was frustrating to me, plus it happened before in London - so I'm annoyed at myself for assuming the mattress would not be sold.

Anyway, your thoughts and advice would be greatly welcome as usual. And is there a place where I can make donations to help with running this website, thank you?

Kind regards
Jack