Does the video show the camera type? But we can't see it without the DVD?
I have drafted an appeal @cp8759 but I have not sent this yet, would love some feedback from anyone here:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I was the driver of this vehicle on the date of the PCN and was authorised to both use the vehicle and represent this matter to TFL.
I am appealing this PCN for three reasons:
Mitigating Circumstances
I do not live in the area and I am not familiar with the area I was driving. I stopped as I was feeling nauseous and I was lost. I pulled over into what appeared to be a parking space as there was a car parked behind me and the road was clear. I spent about 10 minutes there trying to get my Sat Nav to work and giving myself time to feel better as continuing to drive in that state would not have been safe.
Once I was feeling better I continued on my way. I respectfully request that this PCN is cancelled on the basis that it was an honest mistake caused by feeling unwell at the time and I would not make that mistake again. I am very sorry for stopping in a location I was not meant to stop and I consider it a learning opportunity.
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority
I do hope that you accept my appeal and apology on the above basis however in case you do not there are two further grounds for my PCN to be cancelled.
I base my first reason on:
2230060716 Commercial Plant Services Ltd
2230177189 Commercial Plant Services Ltd
2230154456 Mr. Krzyztof Burger
2230173982 Mr. Richard Jackson
2230087392 Mitchell Perry
2230006834 Mr. Raja Miah
2230149387 Mr. Muhammad Asif
2220794881 Mr. Muhammad Aslam Appellants
v. Transport for London Respondent
In the London Tribunals, I will state the facts below but I am sure you are aware of this matter as I am too and to cut to the point the Tribunal found that you may not enforce a PCN in a red-route zone using CCTV, and it is in fact only enforceable with a CEO.
“The question before this specially-convened panel concerns the circumstances in which the relevant enforcement authority, Transport for London (TfL), is permitted by Regulations 9 to 11 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022 Regulations”) to serve a penalty charge notice (PCN) by post, on the basis of a record produced by an approved device, namely a CCTV camera, rather than by a civil enforcement officer (CEO). In particular, we are asked to determine whether a PCN may be so served in circumstances in which the contravening vehicle is stationary on part of a road that is a ‘red route’, in its general sense, but which is not marked with double or single red line markings on the carriageway. The cases before the panel principally concern PCNs served by post in circumstances in which, based on evidence from an approved device, a vehicle was in contravention whilst stationary on a red route, as defined in the applicable traffic management order (TMO) and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016), but on that part of the carriageway only marked so as to indicate bays in which a vehicle may stop subject to conditions.”
CONCLUSION ON THE CORE ISSUE
59. Whether on the basis of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used as a whole in Regulation 11(2), in and of themselves or in the context of other regulations, or on the basis of a purposive construction of the regulation, informed by its genesis and other external aids, the panel is unable to accept the construction of the Regulation contended for by TfL.
60. The panel finds, having analysed the extensive submissions and materials with which we have been provided, that parking contraventions on a red route enforceable on the basis of a record produce by an approved device are confined, in the context of Regulation 11(2) to those where the vehicle is stationary on a length of road marked with double or single red line markings. There is a material distinction between the definition of a red route for the purposes of the TSRGD 2016 and the definition in Regulation 11(2) governing the circumstances in which camera enforcement of parking contraventions is permissible. That is to say, the contexts are different.
61. No-one suggests that contraventions of red route parking bays marked with the ‘item 6 bay marking’ are not enforceable at all. They are enforceable but, the panel finds, the meaning of the 2022 Regulations is that they are not enforceable on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. They are enforceable by CEO’s and, in the event the CEO is unable to effect service of the PCN in the circumstances described in Regulation 9(4) to (6), by post.
62. The panel therefore finds itself in agreement with Mr. Chan and his decision in Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Transport for London (2220896928, 2 March 2023).
63. In respect of those cases below in which the PCNs did not comply with Regulation 11(2) as we construe it, we find there was a procedural impropriety and we direct those PCNs to be cancelled. The other points will, therefore, be dealt with more briefly.
2230060716 Commercial Plant Services Ltd 65.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a (red) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this was a procedural impropriety.
2230173982 Mr. Richard Jackson 77.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a (red) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this was a procedural impropriety.
2230087392 Mitchell Perry 79.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a (red) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this was a procedural impropriety.
2230006834 Mr. Raja Mian 80.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a suspended (white) marked bay on a red route. The fact that the bay was suspended does not alter the fact that bay markings, and not single or double red line markings, were present. Yet the PCN was served not by a CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this was a procedural impropriety.
2230177189 Commercial Plant Services Ltd 71.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a (white) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this was a procedural impropriety. 72. Given that we are allowing the appeal we deal only briefly with the issue concerning type approval, which might need to be dealt with more extensively on another occasion.* 73. Taking the evidence as a whole we would have been minded to find that there was, on the balance of probabilities, certification and approval in place for the device in question at the relevant time.
———
In light of these cases, there is no reason to assume that an appeal to the London Tribunal would result in a different outcome. I am aware that TFL has taken this matter to Judicial Review - however, as TFL is no doubt aware Judicial Review does not mean that the tribunal would have to change their decisions if you were to win in court. It would simply mean that the London Tribunal would have to review their decision making process but can still come to the same conclusion, which based on the above cases seems very likely.
I would therefore suggest that if there any doubt in your decision process over this particular appeal reason that should accept it and cancel the PCN, as I would intend whatever the outcome on this ground to take this to tribunal.
———
The next ground for appeal is if the device used was an authorised camera device, this ground was also mentioned above in 2230177189 Commercial Plant Services Ltd 71.
This matter is relevant in:
Ahsan Raza v. Transport for London Respondent &
Anish Raj Shrestha v. Transport for London Respondent
In both these cases at the London Tribunal the declarant did not challenge the legality of enforcement by CCTV as the above cases, but rather if the device used was an authorised device.
Anish Raj Shrestha v. Transport for London Respondent
I have allowed this appeal for the following reasons, which relate to the requirement for certification of an "approved device" by the Secretary of State before a Penalty Charge Notice may be issued.
It is only when the device is certified by the Secretary of State that it can be used for the civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions. In this case there is no evidence of which device the Secretary of State was asked to consider. The only reference to a device is recorded in the certification letter authorised by the Secretary of State is that it is a "Digital Traffic Traffic Enforcement System".
On a Freedom of Information request, made by the Appellant's representative, the Authority confirmed that the relevant camera used in this case was a Predator HD/Ultra - H264. I find that there is no evidence to show that the camera device in question is of a make and model covered by the certificate.
Without evidence that the camera device is covered by an approval certificate, the Authority has not established that it was entitled to serve a PCN. I find this to be a procedural impropriety.
———
I make the same request here; that you provide me with the camera type for the purposes of establishing if it is certified by the Secretary of State as per the Freedom of Information Act and I also request a copy of the CCTV footage to inspect myself.
As summary of these cases and the three grounds for appeal, I would hope that you will accept my mitigating circumstances of stopping due to being nauseous and lost and accept my apology for the mistake of stopping in that location but the CCTV reason is valid and should result in cancellation of the PCN regardless and the question about camera type and certification may also provide another reason for cancellation of the PCN.
