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.

Messages - Spinstorm

Pages: [1] 2
1
The Flame Pit / Wrong way down bus lane in central!
« on: December 02, 2024, 06:21:28 pm »
I very stupidly due to traffic and a bus blocking me went down a one way filter lane in Piccadilly Circus. I know it says no entry and there are signs but I couldn’t see them due to the bus blocking me. I just thought it was a filter lane to the right.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/CAUcLWYSYWSsbceJ7

The bus driver pulled up along side me and was very rude to me. Unfortunately I had no where to go. Couldn’t reverse due to traffic so I just went to the right which was my direction when the light turned green. No excuse - I simply become confused.

Considering how many cameras are in the middle of London I can’t imagine any situation where I don’t get a SJP notice and have to name the driver.

What is the penalty I’m looking at here? I have zero points on my licence currently. Thanks. 


2
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: July 19, 2024, 12:13:05 pm »
I haven’t heard anything yet but granted I don’t know if there is a time limit on how long they would take to contact me if they did decide to take action. And that’s assuming the person who took the photo submitted it right away. I assume he could send it off at any point even next year?

3
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: July 07, 2024, 12:58:43 pm »
I’m not going to risk court if I got an offer because I agree that it’s too much of a risk to take in terms of a fine. I certainly cannot afford a massive fine like that.

However, I was at the side of the road, hand brake on. I wasn’t even wearing my seat belt as I took it off. I was indicating for safety (although it appears that isn’t in the Highway Code) but the engine was on.

I don’t see how that can be considered driving. But I’m not risking it equally.

4
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: July 07, 2024, 11:10:29 am »
I was indicating the side I was parked on.

I was indicating becuase I didn’t want someone to come along and not see me even though I was very visible I was being safe.

I adjusted the camera and used my phone to check the angle. Once I was happy I put the phone down and I started driving again. I had zero intention of driving with the phone in my hand or using it. And I stopped to adjust it and pulled over and parked as far as I was concerned for that reason.

The only issue here is the fact I had the engine on. And I didn’t turn it off and truthfully that’s because I wasn’t thinking about the engine. I wanted to stop and be safe before I adjusted the camera.

From my perspective I wasn’t driving. I was being safe and conscientious. Even if the engine was off I’d have left the indicator on.

The car does have start/stop but I can’t tell you if the engine was running the entire time or not as that wasn’t what I was focussed on. Logically it should have turned off after several minutes stopped with the handbrake on but who knows.

I think the irony here is that IF he reports me and IF the police did decide to give me 6 points and a fine it would be because I was being safe and careful. I could have totally adjusted the camera while driving but I didn’t. I stopped and it is only because I stopped that this person was able to see me and take photos.

5
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: July 07, 2024, 10:28:16 am »
I was stopped for several minutes adjusting the camera.

He took a photo when I first stopped and as he walked past. I can’t say exactly the timings here as I wasn’t staring at him walking down the street. I was adjusting the camera. But it seemed like a long time as the reason I noticed him was the fact he was going so slowly.

As with everyone on this thread I will just have to wait and see if I get anything in the post. And hope that he was just a strange person who thought I looked suspicious.

But really what kind of person takes photos of someone in a car stopped at the side in a residential street (with no road markings such as yellow lines) minding their own business to report to the police? It seems like unusual behavior. Whereas someone adjusting a camera in front of expensive houses could be looking suspicious and make someone want to take photos. But equally what criminal indicates while scouting for places to target 😂

6
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: July 07, 2024, 07:50:06 am »
Because it was an empty road and I was being extra safe as the engine was on.

There are quite a lot of older people who live around here and I’m not totally confident that they are the best drivers so I thought I’d indicate to be safe.

I didn’t need to indicate. And I didn’t need the engine to be on. But both were because I stopped to adjust the camera for a short time.

7
The Flame Pit / Re: Have I been caught?
« on: July 07, 2024, 12:13:48 am »
You will have to wait and see what comes through the post. It might be a good time to get out the V5c and make sure it has the correct address. Or if the vehicle is leasedor similar that they have you correct address.

Whether you committed an offence depends on whether what you were doing is driving. Or rather whether you want to defend a charge on the basis you were not.

I was parked. I wasn’t going anywhere. I’d like to think if they did report it to police that the police would realise that and not punish me. But that’s the whole point of the question.

Having said that, maybe it was that I looked suspicious. Why would someone walking down a residential street spotting a car not moving and for all intents and purpose parked start taking photos to send to the police. That seems like the least likely scenario in hindsight. More likely wanted to make sure he had photos in case something did happen in the area as he was suspicious. Although even then you have to be super paranoid to do that… but maybe my initial thought was the more likely one.

8
The Flame Pit / Using Phone while Parked with Engine on?
« on: July 06, 2024, 06:50:10 pm »
I was parked in my car, hand brake engaged and indicating that I was by the road. But the engine was on.

I was in a residential street near my house. I was adjusting a go pro using my phone to check what I could see.

I wasnt moving, or attempting to move.

I noticed someone walking their dog taking photos or maybe a video of me. At first I thought nothing of it. But as I lifted my phone to check the angle I then saw him get his phone out again. I don’t know for sure he was taking photos of me. But the fact that he seemed to be hanging around and taking them suggests he was doing that.

Now it may be that he thought I looked suspicious or something like that but I can’t help but think it was the fact I was in the car holding my phone. So if he was someone who happened to like reporting people for using their phone in the car am I in trouble?

Did leaving my engine running mean I’m going to get lots of points even though I was parked, indicating and had the hand brake on?

9
TFL accepted my appeal.

I would love to tell everyone if it was due to them being reasonable as I felt unwell, or due to the CCTV camera type or some other policy but I have no idea as they emailed the company the car was borrowed from and not me… even though I am the one who appealed.

I had an email from the car company saying it was cancelled. Bit odd they didn’t email me directly…

10
The Flame Pit / Re: Car damage from railway crossing barrier
« on: November 23, 2023, 11:56:17 pm »
The reason the scratches are quite long is because the bottom section of the barrier moves so when it hit my car it moved sideways causing it.

On the white lines point I accept I should have waited but honestly I didn’t expect to get stuck where I was as there was no traffic the other side of the crossing. I’m still not sure why there was a traffic jam where I was as it was!

However I do accept that crossing past the line was my fault and that may well be the argument they use against me assuming they even do respond to my complaint.

If that crossing is CCTV controlled then that means the operator chose to bring it down - not only 4 minutes before the train arrives but on top of my car.

The question about what else would they be able to do is a good question. I don’t know if each side of the crossing it able to be  lowered separately or not. But I was stationary and there was a queue of cars behind me. If that barrier had stayed up no one would have gone ahead of me. And they could maybe have still lowered the other side. But regardless of if each side was able to be controlled separately I’m sure the operator decided that they would be in more trouble NOT lowering the barriers than hiting my car.

The only good side of this is the damage isn’t in a super obvious place and it might be repairable by smart repair (but if it isn’t then it would cost 1000s as it’s the whole roof assembly would have to be removed to re-spray it). In the meantime I had blue touch up paint so I’ve covered the area temporarily.

11
The Flame Pit / Re: Car damage from railway crossing barrier
« on: November 23, 2023, 09:55:33 pm »
As far as I’m aware it was off when I was stationary. To be clear when I was sitting there behind the car in front the lights were not on. As I was waiting it changed Amber and I had no where to go. The car in front decided to chance it by driving through (no doubt worried about the barrier hitting them although there were still behind the train line  safely in my option).

I was not moving while the lights were on as I was in sat in stationary traffic.

Could I have stayed behind the white line? Maybe. As the lights were off when I stopped I didn’t expect to be stuck there when the barriers came down. Nevertheless surely the barrier should not lower when a vehicle is there.

This was just a question of bad timing. I do not know if there is CCTV of the crossing and if it will support my account but the train didn’t show up for around 4 minutes after the barrier landed on my car. That to me suggests it was lowered too soon and maybe even manually lowered by an operator not paying attention (although I cannot see anywhere a person could be present looking at Google maps).

12
I take it that based on TFL losing the Judicial Review is that unless they allow my appeal on mitigating circumstances that my only remaining grounds to appeal is the camera type now.

13
The Flame Pit / Car damage from railway crossing barrier
« on: November 23, 2023, 07:37:46 pm »
Tonight I have encountered a very annoying and unexpected scenario.

I was waiting in traffic by Addlestone station crossing.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZCXv6m4EFMbsg3Zc6?g_st=ic

The top of my front windscreen just after the windscreen but before the sunroof was in line with the barrier.

Maybe 5-10 meters from the track.

The lights changed to red and were flashing and the car in front of me went through.

I’m not an idiot and didn’t even attempt it but then the barrier came down on top of me. I was unable to reverse back or prepared to move forward.

I had a bystander hold the barrier up and the cars behind moved back so I was able to reverse after they saw this.

This has caused damage to my car. I’ve complained to network rail.

Any thoughts on if I can get them to pay for car repairs?

It scratched the paint in the area right through to the metal in a few places. Although the actual area of damage wasn’t massive.

14
Private parking tickets / International Driver PCN?
« on: November 21, 2023, 12:57:11 pm »
Hi,

My relative from the US was driving a couple of my cars during the end of October/start Nov and unfortunately got two PCNs from ParkingEye.

In both cases, I provided his details and US address. The first case they have sent me a letter to confirm they have reissued it to him.

Can they chase him in the US if he doesn't pay? I have removed my liability by giving his details but he wants to know if he should pay or not.

Thanks

15
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.

Pages: [1] 2