Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: JackFB on June 25, 2024, 12:15:22 pm

Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on October 17, 2024, 05:46:10 pm
They have refused a review.

I asked them to consider my representation as evidence - and sent them the text you provided.

They referred me to the original decision. He's not accepting the use of the red route camera is a procedural impropriety.

'It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage that shows the vehicle parked in a red route loading only bay.
It is the Appellant’s case that he wished to purchase a mattress, and he had been informed that there was a mattress for sale in a nearby charity shop. He parked in the loading bay with the intention of purchasing the mattress, but it had been sold. He was intending to attach the mattress to the roof of his vehicle using roof straps and he has provided a photograph of the unopened pack of roof straps in his boot.
The Authority maintain that the activity described by the Appellant does not amount to loading. They say in their appeal summary:
”It is clear from Mr Wills statement to the Tribunal that the mattress he was going to collect had not been purchased by him and was not ready to collect. He parked with the intention of purchasing the mattress. Motorists are only permitted to stop in the loading bay to load or unload. This does not extend to making purchases. We contend that Mr Wills should have found a legal place to park whilst going to make the purchase.”
Loading can be defined as the activity of moving goods to or from a vehicle which, due to their weight or bulk, require the use of a vehicle to transport them. The goods must be ready for collection when the vehicle enters the bay, and the vehicle must be moved from the bay as soon as the loading is complete. Whilst a vehicle would be required to transport a mattress, the Appellant cannot be said to have been collecting the mattress as there had been no arrangement with the shop to do so. He was simply hoping that the mattress would still be available for sale, but this proved not to be the case as it had been sold. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the said definition of loading has been met. It therefore follows that there was a contravention.
The Appellant also argues that the PCN refers to a parking contravention, namely: Code 25: “Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading”, when the correct contravention was Code 46, namely: “Stopped where prohibited (on red route or clearway)”. Furthermore, he maintains that as Code 25 has been used the Authority were not entitled to issue the PCN by post. He says in his representations:
“I refer you to the High Court decision in Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunal’s (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”.
The purpose of the contravention codes is to adequately describe to the motorist the nature of the alleged contravention in order to meet the requirement in the regulations that the PCN includes “the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that the penalty charge is payable”. As a matter of fact, in this case, the Appellant was parked in a designated loading bay, which was situated on a red route. In those circumstances, I take the view that the PCN adequately describes the nature of the alleged contravention. The fact that the loading bay was situated on a red route and was part of the red route means that, pursuant to the said authority and in accordance with paragraph 11 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and Gen Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, “...notification of a penalty charge for a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area may be given otherwise than by fixing a notice to the vehicle” ie it may be given by post, on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that there has been a procedural impropriety by the Authority and I am satisfied that the PCN was valid and that service by post was effective.
In all the above circumstances, I must refuse the appeal.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: H C Andersen on October 16, 2024, 07:42:26 pm
They don't get Red Routes.

It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage that shows the vehicle parked in a red route loading only bay.

FFS.

You were parked on a Red Route in an area exempted from the prevailing stopping restriction(subject to restrictions), it is NOT a designated loading or any other type of bay.

If it were a designated parking bay then IMO it could not be enforced using cameras.

You've applied for a review so let's see what happens.

But IMO the adjudicator was correct in that you were shopping as you had not purchased the item, you stopped in order to prospectively load, this being contingent upon the item still being for sale. But it wasn't.


Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: MrChips on October 16, 2024, 07:25:37 pm
It's best to get input here before you submit anything.  Can you show us what you sent?
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on October 16, 2024, 05:44:32 pm
So I've asked for a review from the Tribunal - two days from the deadline for reviews - to include the representation I made to the council - being the original letter regarding the red route - as evidence, and they have accepted it... watch this space I guess...

thank you for the prompts
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on October 16, 2024, 02:28:27 pm
Thank you, if my memory serves I did send your letter original to the council, not the tribunal
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: MrChips on October 16, 2024, 11:45:47 am
I think you get a two week window to apply for a review of the decision but this is only possible in restricted circumstances and I don't know if any of the grounds apply.  This isn't my area of expertise so see if any other posters think this might be viable before you give this one up.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on October 16, 2024, 11:28:22 am
Oh I see, I've just got that.

Thanks for your help, but I wasn't switched on enough to emphasise that as I was fixated on why I couldn't use it to get my mattress.

I guess there's no way back now I have argued for loading.
Yes I should have posted what you wrote verbatim. My bad.

Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: MrChips on October 15, 2024, 06:39:46 pm
Where's the bit emphasising the key argument, as per cp8759?  I can only see the improper use of cameras for the alleged contravention as an afterthought in 'evidence one'?

There's no exemption for shopping, so you would have been expected to have completed the purchase before coming to load it into the car.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on October 15, 2024, 06:25:24 pm
Date of the decision: Adjudicator Dodd | Decision date: 04/10/2024

Evidence One:
Photo of my boot showing the roof straps I purchased specially for the sole purpose of loading and unloading a mattress. My bed is falling apart and I keep having to repair it, my body posture at night I feel is key to my improvement from CFS and anxiety. Having been unlucky securing the mattress I need at a price I can afford the straps remain unused but ready for use.

This would have been a difficult operation for one and i would have sought help from the shop anyway, so I believed using the loading bay was appropriate. The loading bay directly by the shop was busy. I have challenged the argument that I wasn't using it for loading - it just so happened the mattress wasn't in the charity shop anymore. I have also challenged the use of red route cameras as I believe this has not been upheld in a higher court. Thank you.

Evidence Two:
Picture of Fit Note proving my Fatigue/Anxiety.

Evidence Three: Informal Challenge
I would like to make an informal challenge on Brighton & Hove City Council's assumption about the loading bay. It doesn't say on the sign 'for guaranteed purchases only', nor does it say 'Loading Bay Camera in Use'. I'm sure there are many delivery people that brought the wrong things or found what they're picking up isn't there any more.

Perhaps I should have - in hindsight - rang the shop to check and made a deposit, but that would be to assume, a - it was the correct mattress to make the deposit on, b - that I was pre-empting any five to ten-minute parking issues. I think most people would assume that a loading bay is the best place for the safe movement of a mattress, counting as something that is a large and heavy burden that the word 'loading' applies to. My usage doesn't assume it will be either be 'caught' in the act of 'illicit behaviour' by a Red Route camera, the use of which has been proven invalid, nor by said camera replacing a warden.

Most wardens in Brighton are friendly and will explain what you should do instantly, even the ones on mopeds. A warden on site would at least have had a narrative to impart and decide for or against at the time it happened, rather than a delayed, protracted and unexpected fine, after the event by a device where the use has not been signposted for the purpose I'm being charged. Instead the sign seems to want to be a Red Route and a Loading Bay with the ability to use a undisclosed Red Route camera.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: John U.K. on October 04, 2024, 11:59:42 am
Date of decision?

Please post up a copy of exactly what you wrote as the appeal.

Was it a personal hearing or on papers?
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay PCN BH84771802
Post by: JackFB on October 04, 2024, 11:16:53 am
It may be best if I pay the 70 pounds - some you win....

I've lost the appeal with the adjudicator on the following grounds:
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage that shows the vehicle parked in a red route loading only bay.

It is the Appellant’s case that he wished to purchase a mattress, and he had been informed that there was a mattress for sale in a nearby charity shop. He parked in the loading bay with the intention of purchasing the mattress, but it had been sold. He was intending to attach the mattress to the roof of his vehicle using roof straps and he has provided a photograph of the unopened pack of roof straps in his boot.

The Authority maintain that the activity described by the Appellant does not amount to loading. They say in their appeal summary:
”It is clear from Mr Wills statement to the Tribunal that the mattress he was going to collect had not been purchased by him and was not ready to collect. He parked with the intention of purchasing the mattress. Motorists are only permitted to stop in the loading bay to load or unload. This does not extend to making purchases. We contend that Mr Wills should have found a legal place to park whilst going to make the purchase.”

Loading can be defined as the activity of moving goods to or from a vehicle which, due to their weight or bulk, require the use of a vehicle to transport them. The goods must be ready for collection when the vehicle enters the bay, and the vehicle must be moved from the bay as soon as the loading is complete. Whilst a vehicle would be required to transport a mattress, the Appellant cannot be said to have been collecting the mattress as there had been no arrangement with the shop to do so. He was simply hoping that the mattress would still be available for sale, but this proved not to be the case as it had been sold. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the said definition of loading has been met. It therefore follows that there was a contravention.

The Appellant also argues that the PCN refers to a parking contravention, namely: Code 25: “Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading”, when the correct contravention was Code 46, namely: “Stopped where prohibited (on red route or clearway)”. Furthermore, he maintains that as Code 25 has been used the Authority were not entitled to issue the PCN by post. He says in his representations:
“I refer you to the High Court decision in Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunal’s (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”.

The purpose of the contravention codes is to adequately describe to the motorist the nature of the alleged contravention in order to meet the requirement in the regulations that the PCN includes “the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that the penalty charge is payable”. As a matter of fact, in this case, the Appellant was parked in a designated loading bay, which was situated on a red route. In those circumstances, I take the view that the PCN adequately describes the nature of the alleged contravention. The fact that the loading bay was situated on a red route and was part of the red route means that, pursuant to the said authority and in accordance with paragraph 11 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and Gen Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, “...notification of a penalty charge for a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area may be given otherwise than by fixing a notice to the vehicle” ie it may be given by post, on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that there has been a procedural impropriety by the Authority and I am satisfied that the PCN was valid and that service by post was effective.
In all the above circumstances, I must refuse the appeal.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: mickR on September 10, 2024, 02:24:52 pm
no mention in their NOR of your red route claims
so I would suggest their failure to consider to add to the list.

# Do they not have to post a NOR?
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on September 10, 2024, 01:00:56 pm
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

Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: H C Andersen on July 30, 2024, 07:07:18 pm
As per cp and others, the markings show it as a red route, as do the traffic signs.

The PCN, however, alleges a different contravention.

So to consolidate what I understand are the views:

Were you on a Red Route? Yes, if the markings and signs are correct.
Can the alleged contravention occur on a Red Route? No. This is not a parking place, it is a length of RR carriageway where the prevailing RR prohibition doesn't apply if the conditions on the sign are met.

You didn't = you were stopped on a Red Route, NOT in a loading/parking or any other type of place.

And if it's not a RR, then they can't use a camera.

Hey ho.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on July 30, 2024, 02:26:54 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on June 30, 2024, 01:17:22 pm
So here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5LqGynUHbsxX9veF6

Unfortunately GSV is out of date, but the information here (https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/travel-and-road-safety/travel-transport-and-road-safety/red-routes) and the video confirm this is all part of a red route:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv0W-WSSayU

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
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: cp8759 on July 06, 2024, 06:17:49 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on July 05, 2024, 07:15:39 pm
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.
The PCN alleges a contravention in a designated parking place. The vehicle was not in a designated parking place according to the traffic order.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: H C Andersen on July 05, 2024, 07:15:39 pm
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?
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: cp8759 on July 05, 2024, 06:04:05 pm
For later:

Brighton & Hove (Red Routes) (A23) Experimental Order 2024 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zWoHJzO7ILRX9Xc3CrXVd36o2FHsd8ps/view)
Brighton & Hove (Red Routes) (A23) Experimental Order 2024 Amendment No.1 2024 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O-VE6O8LdbfyRpbdpZeaTLv-0eAFJsJS/view)
Brighton & Hove (Red Routes) (A23) Experimental Order 2024 Amendment No.2 2024 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnB_6dE1UPlbzgQjOUgs7KZPN7-Jbadc/view)
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: cp8759 on July 03, 2024, 10:28:57 pm
Quote from: JackFB on July 03, 2024, 06:06:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on July 03, 2024, 06:06:10 pm
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
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: cp8759 on June 30, 2024, 01:17:22 pm
So here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/5LqGynUHbsxX9veF6

Unfortunately GSV is out of date, but the information here (https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/travel-and-road-safety/travel-transport-and-road-safety/red-routes) and the video confirm this is all part of a red route:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv0W-WSSayU

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.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on June 27, 2024, 03:10:58 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on June 26, 2024, 08:15:52 pm
@JackFB well this is interesting because on a TFL red route, the contravention code is always 46 - Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway), but here it's code 25.

Now, if it's a red route and the traffic order only creates a stopping prohibition with an exemption for loading, then the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there is no designated parking place.

On the other hand if it is a designated parking place, then the traffic order itself says it's not a red route, so CCTV enforcement cannot apply.

In order for us to work out which one it is, please start by giving us the PCN number and the number plate and I'll do some basic checks.

Thank you
Reg: GR56HDL
PCN: BH84771802
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on June 27, 2024, 03:07:57 pm
Quote from: Incandescent on June 25, 2024, 12:59:14 pm
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8305278,-0.1360156,3a,75y,214.12h,80.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQpzYehcjNmMfYrsiGJLig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: cp8759 on June 26, 2024, 08:15:52 pm
@JackFB well this is interesting because on a TFL red route, the contravention code is always 46 - Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway), but here it's code 25.

Now, if it's a red route and the traffic order only creates a stopping prohibition with an exemption for loading, then the contravention on the PCN did not occur because there is no designated parking place.

On the other hand if it is a designated parking place, then the traffic order itself says it's not a red route, so CCTV enforcement cannot apply.

In order for us to work out which one it is, please start by giving us the PCN number and the number plate and I'll do some basic checks.
Title: Re: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: Incandescent on June 25, 2024, 12:59:14 pm
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.
Title: PCN using cameras for loading bay
Post by: JackFB on June 25, 2024, 12:15:22 pm
Hi Guys

Used a loading bay in the hope of buying a second-hand mattress from the nearby Heart Foundation.
Was told the PCN was issued using new cameras fixed on the loading bay in London Rd Brighton.

Is this normal and what can I do? Can they just use a camera? There's no signage to indicate this?

The mattress was unavailable in the end, but I had bough ratchet harnesses especially and keep them in the boot.

Kind regards
Jonny

Here is a link to the PCN https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/imtmzrc42hgzo40ywg714/PCN-new.jpg?rlkey=l2lh2x4j95dzs44cnblpzteay&st=vew83p9o&dl=0

Any issues please let me know.