1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: April 03, 2024, 06:41:14 pm »
@cp8759 thank you have replied to your PM.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: April 03, 2024, 05:04:03 pm »
@cp8759 original notice of rejection below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqih7JW5IFSVIQp2roxN3kUByAU4kk8g/view?usp=sharing
is there a flaw in it?
Thank you
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eqih7JW5IFSVIQp2roxN3kUByAU4kk8g/view?usp=sharing
is there a flaw in it?
Thank you
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 26, 2024, 06:55:12 pm »
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
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
4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 26, 2024, 11:32:03 am »
Yes of course:
GX13013442
GX13013442
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 11, 2024, 05:17:37 pm »
Have confirmed in writing.
Status on hold: SUS26
Status on hold: SUS26
6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 11, 2024, 02:57:47 pm »
Thank you, have requested copy of video footage.
Any opinions on the disparity between camera make/model?
Any opinions on the disparity between camera make/model?
7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 11, 2024, 12:25:01 pm »
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?
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?
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 08, 2024, 07:20:51 pm »
bump
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 05, 2024, 06:24:16 pm »
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?
"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?
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: March 05, 2024, 06:08:09 pm »
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.
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.
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: February 19, 2024, 12:40:32 pm »
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
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
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
« on: February 16, 2024, 06:47:22 pm »
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.
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.
13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 52M Wandsworth Hillbrook Road Jct. Brudenell Road charge cert
« on: February 16, 2024, 04:29:20 pm »
The PCN was cancelled due to time delay!
Thank you to all concerned - cp8759 you are an angel.
Thank you to all concerned - cp8759 you are an angel.
14
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 52M Wandsworth Hillbrook Road Jct. Brudenell Road charge cert
« on: September 18, 2023, 02:29:43 pm »
Thank you Sir!
15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 52M Wandsworth Hillbrook Road Jct. Brudenell Road charge cert
« on: September 15, 2023, 05:44:53 pm »
Kindly advise on amendments needed:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: PCN WA87399625
I would like to appeal the above PCN on the following grounds.
1. The PCN states a penalty charge of £110 for contravention code 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles).
Wandsworth Council's website lists 52M under "moving traffic contraventions all charged at the band A higher rate."
Source:
https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking/pcns-and-parking-fines/pcn-contravention-codes/#:~:text=If%20you%20receive%20a%20Penalty,%C2%A360%20(Band%20B).
Band A higher rate is stated as £130. The above PCN meanwhile states the penalty charge for a 52M contravention as £110 meaning it is invalid.
2. The grounds of appeal on Wandsworth Council website do not match statutory grounds.
There are eight statutory grounds of appeal (plus one more for PCNs served by post which isn't stated below) for appealing PCNs:
The contravention did not occur
The penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount
The Traffic Regulation Order was invalid
The motorist was not the owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention
The vehicle had been taken without the owner's consent
The owner is a hire company and have supplied the name of the hirer
There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority
Penalty charge notice was paid either in full or at a discounted rate within the discount period.
Wandsworth Council's website meanwhile only gives the following grounds:
The contravention did not occur
The vehicle was on hire
The vehicle was sold
Other
3.The time delay between charge certificate and order for recovery.
The charge certificate is dated 22nd February 2023 whilst the Order for Recovery is dated 31st August 2023. This equates to a period of 6 months and 9 days between postal dates of both documents.
The time delay falls well outside of code of practice timeframes and constitutes further procedural impropriety on behalf of the Council.
Yours sincerely,
Name
Registered keeper.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: PCN WA87399625
I would like to appeal the above PCN on the following grounds.
1. The PCN states a penalty charge of £110 for contravention code 52M Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles).
Wandsworth Council's website lists 52M under "moving traffic contraventions all charged at the band A higher rate."
Source:
https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/parking/pcns-and-parking-fines/pcn-contravention-codes/#:~:text=If%20you%20receive%20a%20Penalty,%C2%A360%20(Band%20B).
Band A higher rate is stated as £130. The above PCN meanwhile states the penalty charge for a 52M contravention as £110 meaning it is invalid.
2. The grounds of appeal on Wandsworth Council website do not match statutory grounds.
There are eight statutory grounds of appeal (plus one more for PCNs served by post which isn't stated below) for appealing PCNs:
The contravention did not occur
The penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount
The Traffic Regulation Order was invalid
The motorist was not the owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention
The vehicle had been taken without the owner's consent
The owner is a hire company and have supplied the name of the hirer
There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority
Penalty charge notice was paid either in full or at a discounted rate within the discount period.
Wandsworth Council's website meanwhile only gives the following grounds:
The contravention did not occur
The vehicle was on hire
The vehicle was sold
Other
3.The time delay between charge certificate and order for recovery.
The charge certificate is dated 22nd February 2023 whilst the Order for Recovery is dated 31st August 2023. This equates to a period of 6 months and 9 days between postal dates of both documents.
The time delay falls well outside of code of practice timeframes and constitutes further procedural impropriety on behalf of the Council.
Yours sincerely,
Name
Registered keeper.
Pages: [1] 2