Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Ken Masters on February 16, 2024, 06:47:22 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AdU7zilYOYsaYYMbi9P7aMDVYUsAHQ1R/view).
-
@cp8759 thank you have replied to your PM.
-
The notice of rejection has the same flaw as the ones in these cases:
Nayeem Haque v Transport for London (2220767288, 15 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KavlK0nNvWS2eI9ICkqjBQRg9-L-2mHc/view)
Mike Welch v Transport for London (2230428700, 18 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ijJW4O3zHz-LOkVRi4QHmdf983n1yyJ8/view)
Lubavitch Synagogue v Transport for London (2230535074, 5 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xokOkjdoJf0e5CBjBP7smnErCrMxps0m/view)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Transport for London (2240018512, 12 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qwj3XYfPvFZBh-ag3HYuQEUHtFXwxvHf/view)
Mathew Mathai v Transport for London (2240062219, 15 March 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QoDnU5djhqtHMDDHbPiHIhVOC7KmHxIZ/view)
It does seem that by repeatedly chasing the video you have stopped TFL from increasing the penalty sooner, which is both good and bad. On the one hand the you can't show that the ambiguous wording has put you at a clear-cut disadvantage, but that does not wholly negate the argument because as Mr Chan said in the review of the Commercial Plant case, a motorist reading your rejection might think the full penalty amount is £80 and might pay that amount on day 28 and then end up with a charge certificate.
The positive news is that if an appeal is received when the penalty is at the £80 rate, TFL only seek £80 at the tribunal stage, so you might get a free roll of the dice.
The only risk is that the penalty might go up to £160 between the time when you file an appeal and the time when the tribunal notifies Transport for London of the appeal, one way to mitigate this issue would be to pay £80 today but appeal anyway, knowing that in all likelihood if you lose TFL would not seek the additional £80, but if you win you'll get the £80 back.
The real problem you have is that the tribunal deadline to appeal is midnight tonight, so you only have a few hours left to make a decision.
I'm going to send you a PM with some options should you wish to engage me as your representative.
Incidentally if you appeal you ge the video as part of the appeals process, which might be the quickest way of getting it given the delays you've encountered.
-
@cp8759 original notice of rejection below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqih7JW5IFSVIQp2roxN3kUByAU4kk8g/view?usp=sharing
is there a flaw in it?
Thank you
-
@Ken Masters let us know if you get a rejection, there's a flaw in the rejection which means we can almost certainly beat this.
-
Have received DVD.
The way the camera zooms in and out at crucial times does not help my case.
I'm unable to demonstrate the fact that my partner got out of the car and then got back in a little while later having walked the road to look for the sign.
here is the vid:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/116gFf_bqIBY71C6vRVYf8z7c9zldlJ5c/view?usp=sharing
If any suggestions please chime in. I was hoping to be able to rely on the video and/or raise the variance between the camera model used and the camera cetified..
Thanks
-
And still no DVD?
-
Yes of course:
GX13013442
-
@Ken Masters can we have the PCN number please.
The Lambeth red route traffic orders are here (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GPcgrFEhG5NaACnr2seWwSD77wizaetV).
-
Have confirmed in writing.
Status on hold: SUS26
-
Date of issue of PCN: 12 Feb.
Date served: 14 Feb. (OP, this is a legal presumption);
Last day of 28-day period for making reps: 12 March.
So, you just made it. But how did the conversation go? Have you confirmed in writing?
-
Thank you, have requested copy of video footage.
Any opinions on the disparity between camera make/model?
-
Should the video of the alleged contravention not be made available at notice to registered keeper stage and on the TFL website?
If a video is not on the TFL web site can one be relied on at later stage where it has not been presented to the defendant?
Not mandatory.
Yes, it IS their evidence ('on the basis of a record produced by an approved device..') as the PCN tells you. It also tells you how to request a copy and that progress would be put on hold pending it being served.
If, as you say, the CCTV shows you stopped solely for the purpose of checking the signage then there's no contravention.
-
Mr Anderson, firstly thank you for your reply.
This forum is a wealth of information - thank you to all of you who take the time to help. I am learning all the time.
Should the video of the alleged contravention not be made available at notice to registered keeper stage and on the TFL website?
If a video is not on the TFL web site can one be relied on at later stage where it has not been presented to the defendant?
I would like to see it if it exists. It will bear out my appeal. The car was running (headlights are on in all the pics) and my partner got out of the car to look for the sign)
Secondly in response to FOI request TFL confirm that the camera in use is a "Siqura HD16AWDR/P External analogue PTZ dome camera."
The accompanying VCA certificate meanwhile certifies a "Siqura HD62."
It looks like the certified camera whilst being of the same manufacturer is of a different model.
Is there any scope of appeal here?
-
Why have you not asked for the video?
You imply that you were only stationary for long enough to read the signs and then leave, but is this what would be shown on the CCTV?
The photos are NOT their evidence, nor what an adjudicator would see, it's the video. So if you've been re-offered the discount, why would you risk this by appealing if the CCTV shows you left the parking place?
-
bump
-
The notice of rejection states amongst the usual bumpf:
"The vehicle was observed as stationary between 16:22 and 16:24."
The photo evidence shows 16:22 32s to 16:23 55s which is around 1 minute and 23 seconds.
Question 1 how long is reasonable to get out and have a look at the relevant signs under the relevant case law?
Question 2 the NoR states the Freedom of Information info will sent under separate cover. Also, "CCTV cameras are not individually subject to Type Approval but under the terms of the Traffic Management Act 2004, our CCTV camera enforcement system is fully certified on behalf of the Secretray of State."
What do you wizards think?
-
My appeal:
Dear Sirs,
Ref: PCN XXX
I note x3 photographs only are being relied on as evidence of alleged contravention on the TFL website. I challenge PCN XXX on the following grounds:
1. I hold you to strict proof with respect to camera approval as per the case of Anish Raj Shrestha Vs TFL (case ref: 2230256263). The camera used must be cerified as an “approved device” by the Secretary of State before a PCN can be issued. Only when the device is certified by the Secretary of State can it then be used for the civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions.
I herein make a freedom of information request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for information regarding the camera used to gather the evidence being relied upon for the aforementioned PCN. This should include make and model of camera in the form of written description plus photographs of the camera which pictorially illustrate the make and model. Further, I request the Secretary of State approval certificate that the camera used has been certified for the use of civil enforcement of road traffice conventions. Pleae provide this information in writing to my postal address below within 28 days of the date of this challenge.
2. On the day in question, the car was in the bay for a very short time as can been seen in the time stamps of the photographs being relied upon as evidence of the alleged contravention.
We were unaware of the parking restriction until getting out of the car and finding a sign a short while later. Upon noting the restriction we departed.
The above scenario parallels that of Mr Simon Wright - v - NEPP - Essex County Council (Case number:ID00131-1812) in that a brief but reasonable time is allowed to read signs that impose stopping restrictions.
3. Please note attached blue badge.
I therefore request you to cancel the aforementioned PCN.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dFUa8HEcUh2HyuDprMyvoP1NZ67kMZWA/view
Put them to strict proof re camera approval.
-
Hi both,
Thank you for your replies.
There isn't any CCTV/video evidence on TFL, only the three photos.
I'm getting this from GSV:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oMTugnNbMj4FUNHDA
This is from May 2023 which leads me to believe the bay was put in recently.
The sign is facing oncoming traffic so that is a no go.
I'm putting together a defence, please let me know your thoughts if any.
TIA
-
The Red Route prohibition is part-time. There aren't parking places as such, there is a red-lined area exempting vehicles for the purposes of loading and displaying a BB for periods less than the prohibited hours(which are obscured by a lamp column.)
I'm unsure on the merits of the evidence provided by the council camera operator..
Photos aren't required, CCTV is the primary evidence.
Given that the car was there, was it there during prohibited hours, was it engaged in loading or did it display a BB?
If not, then on the face of it the contravention occurred.
-
I've had a quick look on GSV, and can't see any parking bays at all outside 24-36 Streatham High Road. Please post a GSV link by telling us exactly where you stopped.
-
Dear All,
Please see below PCN and evidence in the form of 3 photos:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Xu7Y3tJEJYSNLMslaWLhe4c-CYTjHC5/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hc_vzBjTn8GW_W3aPip0y7l1wNZ-IB-q/view?usp=drive_link
Have been researching recent decisions and note template red route defences seem to have gone with approved camera and postal.
I'm unsure on the merits of the evidence provided by the council camera operator - please let me know your thoughts on this and possible defences?
Will go back and look into the signage.
Thanks in advance.