Tommy Zorro: Mission 10 v Hackney HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
https://youtu.be/QR_Ty703gFQ"Mayor Philip Glanville has temporarily stepped aside from his leadership of the Council."
As Chair of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee on 14/10/22:
Boroughs that enforce bus lane offences under the Local Authorities Act 1996 (LLA 1996) have been notified of a flaw in the legislation with respect to camera certification and the admissibility of evidence at appeal. Most boroughs have received FOI requests asking for evidence of their approved device certification under the LLA 1996 which cannot be provided, as approval under this Act is not currently possible. However, to enforce bus lane restrictions, the cameras only have to be prescribed, and all cameras are, so the issue is only for producing evidence at London Tribunals.
London Councils has been liaising with London boroughs and we are continuing to work with DfT and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) regarding a future legal fix to the legislation that will satisfy the evidence requirements. DfT are currently working on this and have a proposed solution in place, but progress has been delayed by the change in Prime Minister and the subsequent cabinet reshuffle. We will continue to update borough officers on the situation as soon as there are developments."
Erm?
1582 PCNs 17.11.22 to 24/03/23 raised
£39,325
Their new certificate: 17/08/23
Case 223026440A
Decision Date 22/06/23
Adjudicator George Dodd
Initially it was the Appellant’s case that the Authority could not rely on the CCTV footage because they had not produced a valid VCA certificate and therefore, the requirements under Schedule 1 paragraph 7(2) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 had not been met. Put simply, in the absence of such a certificate, the Authority were unable to prove, as required, that the CCTV footage had been produced by a prescribed device approved by the Secretary of State and hence the footage was inadmissible. Mr Morgan acknowledges that the Authority had provided a VCA certificate, but he maintains that it was wholly irrelevant as it pertained to parking enforcement. That certificate is dated 12 February 2017 and it does, indeed, relate to parking contraventions and I agree that it is not relevant. It is headed: “Traffic Management Act 2004. Certification of “approved devices” under Article 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007.
The Authority have now produced a VCA certificate (“the certificate”), which is dated 6 March 2023. This was provided to the Tribunal on 21 June 2023 i.e. yesterday. In a Late Evidence Form the Authority make an application to the Adjudicator to consider evidence at the scheduled hearing or adjourn the case. They say: “Please note that the evidence is late as there was a system error where we were unable to open the further documents that were supplied by the Appellant on 15/06/2023 and we have today now seen what was enclosed and we wish to respond as that document makes it appear that Hackney does not possess a valid certification letter under the LALA Act 1996”. The bottom of the form gives the date of service as 21/06/2023 and it says that the method of service was: “Special same-day delivery by bike courier”. The Appellant had not received the certificate and nor had Mr Morgan.
Mr Morgan made a preliminary application that the said VCA certificate should not be admitted in evidence at the hearing, and he relies upon Schedule 1 section 7 (6), which states:
“Nothing in subparagraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant….”
The certificate is clearly a document that falls within the scope of the said section. Having regard to the said email, on the Authority’s own admission it was not served on the Appellant. Even if it had been sent to the Appellant yesterday by courier, it would, of course, have been received by him within 7 days before the hearing. On the face of it, the certificate is inadmissible. There is nothing in the said section that suggests I have any discretion to admit the evidence, for example, if there was an absence of any prejudice to the Appellant. I do, however, have the power to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in which case service could then be effected 7 days or more prior to the adjourned hearing date. However, if I did so simply to enable the certificate to be admitted in evidence late then that would, in my view, go against the government’s intent behind the said section which is to ensure that evidence is served in a timely manner. In those circumstances, I do not intend to adjourn the case. This means, in the absence of any discretion to admit the certificate in evidence, it is my ruling that it is not admitted, which means that the Authority cannot rely on the CCTV footage, which in turn means that they cannot prove the contravention. The appeal is allowed.
******************
Dear Sir or Madam
I would appreciate it if you gave this your full consideration and reimburse all motorists before your VCA certificate took effect on 17th August 2023.
I would further comment, as I did not have enough space on the text facility on Youtube, that Mr Glanville’s relevant sections in his report are somewhat economical with the truth as I had made many complaints – as well as at least one other – to London Councils, I believe. As well as individual councils. Further, he seems to blame the legislation. This is for the birds. The very fact that you all applied for new certificates is significant!
I can assure you that this is just the beginning. This is not personal. It is professional. Like many councils, you employ incompetent staff. What goes around, comes around. But, someone must bear the ultimate responsibility.
Effective date of your new certificate: 17th August 2023.
Yours faithfully
Tommy Poirot
P.S.: On this occasion, as it concerns London Councils, I have copied this to Mr Stephen Boon. And Mr Ferguson. And the VCA. Heads should roll.
P.P.S.: The “joke” re the shuttle is meant to make a point. Houston we have a problem