Free Traffic Legal Advice

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RfLfX3vRAjR4KZx56



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

@Iaali2 well that was a terrible representation as you shouldn't have admitted to ever being in a bus lane in the first place.

That being said, Waltham Forest have never been able to prove their CCTV camera is approved by the Secretary of State, see these cases:

Mohammad Ayub v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210767543, 7 February 2022)
Fahmim Chowdhury v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2210847074, 25 April 2022)
Nazma Yaqoob v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2220271919, 13 June 2022)
Nazma Yaqoob v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2220271919, 2 July 2022)
Furzana Yasmin Alvi v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2220749639, 15 December 2022)
Irfan Iqbal v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2220793845, 17 December 2022)
Fawaz Mohamed v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2240089033, 27 March 2024)

For now just wait for the enforcement notice and let us know when you've got it. Also going forwards please don't make representations against anything without getting advice from us first.

as cp8759 says, wait for the Enforcement Notice.

I have a case pending next month and they are not attending. I will draft some stronger representations later. If they do not attend, much to the annoyance of two adjudicators, they lose.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uab63buwUh-wfCy2LJpBi028uWzHIekb/view

I did this one and the hearing went on far too long as the adjudicator was not au fait with the finer detail of the law.  I even joked that, if the same caveat re evidence were incorporated into moving traffic law, a lot more appeals would be allowed.  para. 7(6) Schedule I: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted

(6)Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.

****

Currently, their witness statements do not cover even 7(2) because they do not name the camera:

(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.

@cp8759 please feel free to tweak:

Dear WF

Ref PCN...........EN...........

I make these formal representations against the Enforcement Notice.

1. The video evidence does not show any bus lane warning signage allegedly passed.
2. You must provide strict proof that the camera used to capture this alleged contravention has VCA approval for any evidence to be admissible at the Tribunal.
3. The PCN does not identify with sufficient clarity where the said bus lane is located.
4. I retract my previous challenge.

In light of the above please cancel both documents.

Yours

Registered keeper

That will do for present purposes, @Iaali2 please send the representations via https://walthamocm.itsvc.co.uk/PCN/ and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Amazing, Thank you, I have sent that through to the above email address. I have a screenshot of the confirmation too.

I say it is Tribunal time. If you want me to represent you, I am happy to do so and please drop me a PM. They lost a few weeks ago as they did not turn up and for other reasons:

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference   2240194118
Appellant   Ryan Howells
Authority   London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM   CV10ZZK
PCN Details
PCN   FR61312456
Contravention date   19 Dec 2023
Contravention time   16:58:00
Contravention location   Whipps Cross Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Being in a bus lane
Referral date   
Decision Date   11 Jun 2024
Adjudicator   John Lane
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
Mr Morgan attended.

The allegation is that there was a breach of bus lane regulations.

Mr Morgan stated that the local authority had not considered the appellant’s representations and the local authority’s evidence was inadmissible because their witness had not attended.

Paragraph 2(10) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 states that it shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are made to consider them and any supporting evidence, which the person making them provides and to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground has been established.

In their notice of rejection, in one particular sentence, the local authority stated that they had an approved device by 31st March 2009. The approval certificate they rely on is dated 6th March 2023. I find the sentence to be misleading in what is an important document in these proceedings.

As far as the inadmissibility is concerned, Mr Morgan cited three cases: 2240089033, 2230465818 and 2240093336.

In this case, I am satisfied that Mr Morgan gave sufficient notice under paragraph 7(6) of the schedule to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 that he required the attendance of the authority’s officers, who have not attended. I find therefore the evidence is inadmissible. In all the circumstances I will allow the appeal.