3. TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1  (Read 668 times)

0 Members and 141 Guests are viewing this topic.

TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« on: »
Where it happened. Chapel Street in Westminster. GSV link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qLuT2dm9mRoMm2u99?g_st=ac (right behind the parked car/ controlled zone sign shown in GSV)

How it happened. I picked up a rental car from two blocks away with no passengers. When I reached Chapel Street, the car started to flash the seat belt warning light with a beeping sound even though I was wearing my seat belt. So I stopped at the nearest safe location (as captured on the PCN) and moved my backpack from the passenger seat, which stopped the warning light. I then continued with my journey.

I only stopped there for a very short period of time, as the CCTV stills from the PCN website show:
 
- First still (12:06:43, photo 2 of 3) shows the vehicle stopped at the location.
- Second still (12:07:25, photo 3 of 3) shows the vehicle stopped at the location with left indicator on.
- Third still (12:07:34, photo 1 of 3) shows the vehicle merging into traffic with right indicator on.

Procedural history. On 15 May, the rental company emailed me stating that they received a PCN and would share my details with TfL. On 9 July, I received the PCN below issued to me. On 10 July, I requested the CCTV footage from TfL by phone, however I have yet to receive this.

Grounds of challenge.

1. I could make a representation on the basis that the vehicle was stopped because the driver was alarmed by an "onboard noise or alarm", but I have no proof of this. So it seems unlikely that TfL will find in favour of me on this ground.

2. Is there a technical ground based on the Commercial Plant Services case from last November? In paragraph 16-17, the judge held that a red route required both an upright sign and a painted red line for CCTV enforcement, and it does not appear the upright sign was present at the location.

I would be grateful for your advice on how to proceed.

Attached: PCN




Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #1 on: »
Update - still no DVD, but I see the PCN status has changed to this:

25 July 2024
On Hold: SUS54 - DTES Footage Request (09/08/2024)

Any thoughts on what I should do next? Thank you!
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #2 on: »
The August date would seem to be the end of the period of freezing enforcement of the PCN, so if the DVD has not arrived a few days before, you need to again contact TfL to find out when it was sent. You may need to submit a "holding" representation to preserve your adjudication option, making it clear that in the absence of the promised DVD, you are unable to present a full argument for cancellation,
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #3 on: »
I have received the DVD. The footage is here:



As the video shows, I only stopped for a minute (12:06:16 to 12:07:27). Grateful for any advice on grounds of challenge.

Thank you!
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #4 on: »
Hi everyone, I am planning to submit representations this weekend. I would be grateful for any advice or recommendations. Thank you!
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #5 on: »
You weren't in a bay, but on the double-red lines adjacent to the bay. As it's a no-stopping contravention, you'll struggle to get this PCN overturned, I'm afraid. Of course there may be other more "technical" arguments for cancellation based around the PCN and the info on it, and also their administration of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what the others say.
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #6 on: »
Quote from: Incandescent on July 31, 2024, 05:25:46 pm
You weren't in a bay, but on the double-red lines adjacent to the bay. As it's a no-stopping contravention, you'll struggle to get this PCN overturned, I'm afraid.

I don't think that's right, Mr Justice Swift said at para 17 of his judgment that:

The starting point for the adjudicators' apparent conclusion that this was so, was that there was an error in the definition in regulation 11(2) of the 2022 Regulations because the drafting rested on a misunderstanding of the meaning of its predecessor in the 2007 Regulations, as amended (i.e., regulation 9A(7) in the 2007 Regulations, set out above at paragraph 12). That rested on the view that the definition as stated in regulation 9A(7) of the 2007 Regulations had distinguished between roads with double red lines (Diagram 1018.2 at paragraph 6 above) and roads with single red lines (Diagram 1017.1, also at paragraph 6 above), and only applied the requirement for a sign to the latter and not the former. That view is wrong and would itself depend on an argument that the definition inserted into the 2007 Regulations itself contained a drafting error insofar as it had omitted a comma (after the words "diagram 1018.2 at item 11"). There is no reason to think that the definition inserted into the 2007 Regulations should be understood in this way. It should be understood as enacted: i.e. that the signage requirement applied regardless of whether the road was marked with a double red line or a single red line. There is nothing inherently illogical or obviously wrong with the position that the signage requirement should apply regardless of whether the red line was single red line or a double red line. Since that is so, the suggestion that the definition of red route in regulation 11(2) of the 2022 Regulations itself contained an error, or for that matter perpetuated some previous error in the Regulations as they were in force from June 2020, is baseless. The court can only be concerned with obvious drafting errors in the sense explained by Lord Nicholls in his speech in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1WLR 586 at page 592 C-H. There is no such error in the definition of red route, whether one looks at the definition put into the 2007 Regulations with effect from June 2020, or the definition at regulation 11(2) of the 2022 Regulations. It follows that the correct conclusion is that the definition of red route requires that both condition (a) and condition (b) are met.

In this case condition (b) is not met because there is no evidence of an upright sign, so as far as the High Court is concerned there is no power to serve a postal penalty charge notice in these circumstances. It follows that service of a postal penalty charge notice is a procedural impropriety.

@sktm1 you will have seen my PM but I'm posting on here for the benefit of all members.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #7 on: »
As a matter of interest, what sign would one expect to see, so I can look out for it in future on GSV ?

So it looks as if TfL's "win" at judicial review isn't quite in accordance with their wishes ! Putting up signs is quite an expensive operation; I believe it's about £1000 just for one sign on one pole.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2024, 12:23:06 am by Incandescent »
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #8 on: »
Thanks, @cp8759! I have submitted my representation and will let you know when I hear back.

@Incandescent, I imagine the sign shown at the link below would suffice, although I'm not sure TfL have a practice of installing these for double red lines.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4n1z7dp09no.amp
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #9 on: »
Good news - TfL cancelled my PCN!

TfL first sent me a letter late August seeking further evidence. I responded that I had already shared the evidence available to me and reiterated the grounds in my representation, including that there was procedure impropriety due to the missing upright sign. After almost two months, TfL accepted my representation and cancelled my PCN.

Thank you everyone for your help!  ;D
Logged
Re: TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1
« Reply #10 on: »
Well done ! Persistence pays off
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. TfL, Code 46 Stopping on Red Route, Chapel St NW1