Thread: New cctv parking fines.

Nothing has changed....you park illegally you risk getting a pcn as has always been the case. The only real difference is the chances of getting caught are higher than before. Councils are responsible for ensuring that parking is enforced so surely using the most effective means is in the interest of law abiding motorists? Compliance in bus lanes rocketed once they got enforced by camera so hopefully the same will happen on yellow lines once people realise its not worth the risk of parking illegally.

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Councils are responsible for ensuring that parking is enforced so surely using the most effective means is in the interest of law abiding motorists?

Cameras don't tell the whole story and are very impersonal. Besides there have been occassions when the operators of the cameras have been overzealous and that sometimes contraventions have been alleged when the actual footage reveals no contravention takes place (right turns on (money) box junctions are a good example).

What needs to happen is that the footage needs to be made available online at the time the pcn is issued so that those being accused can see if there really is a case to answer.

The cynic in me says that the councils have pushed for these powers under the guise of efficiently enforcing parking in order to extract further revenues from the law abiding motorist.

To my mind it's like speed [problem]eras - more often than not they don't encourage safer driving rather the opposite. But how many motorists have been caught for doing a small amount of the limit and fined while the there is sweet f.a. being done to catch the drunk drivers and the idiots who cut you up.

Why is it there's never a traffic cop around when you need one - only when you're speeding?

CCTV will show far more than a few notes in a pocket book or a photo which could have been taken anywhere, so in many ways if benefits drivers who always accuse PAs of lying. CCTV is generally only used for short stay contraventions where tickets normally would be hard to issue, such as school zig zags or loading restrictions on busy roads where people park up and pop into shops or wait in the car to pick people up or people stopping on bus stops. Situations such as parking bays will not be done by CCTV but will still be done on foot. A good example is outside the station where I get the train to work is a pedestrian crossing with zig zags (the rest of the street is a SYL) every day whilst I wait for my bus there is a constant flow of cars stopping on the zig zags to drop off or pick up from the station because they are too lazy to walk 25 m from the SYL. In this situation cctv would be ideal as it would catch everyone because they don't obviously stop if a PA is there and just return when he's gone.

So what about situations where someone stops by the side of a road to check their A-Z or map, or they ask for directions? With CCTV, people in London have been receiving pcn's when doing just that, with little or no discretion being shown by the local authorities. Not surprising really given that their primary object with the "enforcement" of traffic and parking regs is to raise as much revenue as possible.

There is also a worry about how the local authorities use the footage. Lambeth Council for example have come unstuck over a particular junction where they were using footage where the operator had zoomed in to pick out an alleged infringement. The zooming in effect made it look a contravention had occurred but when viewed from a normal distance it showed the alleged contravention had not taken place.

A scheme to allow councils to use CCTV footage when issuing parking tickets was in chaos after it emerged just one local authority has permission to operate the new system.

CCTV parking fine councils fail to get permission to use new system - Telegraph

Originally Posted by Rob S

So what about situations where someone stops by the side of a road to check their A-Z or map, or they ask for directions? With CCTV, people in London have been receiving pcn's when doing just that, with little or no discretion being shown by the local authorities.

Sometimes PCNs may be given out when not due but they are by far outweighed by the majority that are correctly issued. Stopping to use a mobile or read a map is not actually allowed on many restrictions despite what some drivers seem to think, you wouldn't stop on a motorway to read a map so why would you expect to stop on a red route for example? People get accused of all sorts of things despite being innocent even murder which is why we have a system in place to give everyone a chance to contest their charge.

Originally Posted by nigel_bytes

A scheme to allow councils to use CCTV footage when issuing parking tickets was in chaos after it emerged just one local authority has permission to operate the new system.

CCTV parking fine councils fail to get permission to use new system - Telegraph

If only one Council has applied how can it be in chaos? The law allowing Councils to enforce by CCTV has only come into force today! Councils have to get approval from their elected Council to change policy, find money in the budget for scheme, tender for camera suppliers, survey locations and get planning permission if required, install cameras, recruit staff, train staff etc etc! Anyone journalist who thought cctv would just pop up overnight needs their head tested.

Originally Posted by nufsaid

Despite the reluctance of councils to capitalise on the new powers, a significant increase in the number of parking fines is still expected as, in a change from today, parking attendants will be allowed to issue tickets even when the motorist has driven off.
As a result the first millions of motorists will know about a parking fine is when the penalty notice arrives by post.
In the case of the ticket being contested, an adjudicator will have to decide whether the driver or attendant is telling the truth.
Motoring groups claim the delays will make it almost impossible for a driver to gather the evidence needed for a successful appeal, especially if the ticket arrives some time after the alleged offence.
"We are really worried this will lead to a surge in 'ghost tickets', where someone receives a notice weeks after the event and has no idea what they were doing at the time," said Edmund King, the president of the AA."

"This is just terrifying isn't it. You have to hope they haven't just had a bad day.

If a Parking Attendant was that bothered about issuing tickets he was going to make them up he could do that before the law changed nothing is different apart from now you will get a PCN posted to you rather than a NTO claiming a ticket was served. A PA cannot issue a PCN once you have driven off the PCN has to have been started to be issued BEFORE you drive off, just seeing a vehicle parked illegally is not grounds for issuing a PCN after the driver has gone. It therefore follows some 'proof' will be required that the PA was at the car ie a photo or tax details for the case to be proven.

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

If a Parking Attendant was that bothered about issuing tickets he was going to make them up he could do that before the law changed nothing is different apart from now you will get a pcn posted to you rather than a NTO claiming a ticket was served. A PA cannot issue a PCN once you have driven off the PCN has to have been started to be issued BEFORE you drive off, just seeing a vehicle parked illegally is not grounds for issuing a PCN after the driver has gone. It therefore follows some 'proof' will be required that the PA was at the car ie a photo or tax details for the case to be proven.

The issue here is that if the ticket is debateable (signage, permit display, whatever), then the warden can issue the ticket and the first thing you actually know about that ticket is the letter in the post. You have no opportunity to collect your own contemporaneous evidence of your own. And I am dubious about the level of 'proof' which the wardens will need to supply.

Originally Posted by Agrajag

The issue here is that if the ticket is debateable (signage, permit display, whatever), then the warden can issue the ticket and the first thing you actually know about that ticket is the letter in the post. You have no opportunity to collect your own contemporaneous evidence of your own. And I am dubious about the level of 'proof' which the wardens will need to supply.

Best plan would be not driving off then I guess, if you are parked legally you are not likely to get a pcn after all.

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Sometimes PCNs may be given out when not due but they are by far outweighed by the majority that are correctly issued.

That wasn't the case with the London Borough of Barnet when all their pcn's were declared invalid after the Moses v Barnet case. I would suggest that far more are given out that are not due, but I don't have anything to back up my view on that. But neither do you have anything to back up your claim that the majority are issued correctly. Given the incentives offered to PA's by some employers it does make you wonder.

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Stopping to use a mobile or read a map is not actually allowed on many restrictions despite what some drivers seem to think, you wouldn't stop on a motorway to read a map so why would you expect to stop on a red route for example? People get accused of all sorts of things despite being innocent even murder which is why we have a system in place to give everyone a chance to contest their charge.

What a stupid comparison! People won't stop on motorways, but they will stop in strange cities where the speed limits are set at 30 mph when they are looking for an unfamiliar location.

Let's face it, the majority of us here know the only reason that CCTV enforcement is now going Nationwide is to allow the cash registers to ring in the local authorities and bring loads more cash from hard pressed motorists, and bugger all to do with keeping traffic flowing. People would be far more supportive of the system if the local authorities acted correctly.

while in some cases cctv has helped in fighting illegal parking,i do now feel that largely it is indeed only a revinue generating machine, after my friends experience i have come to loath and despise the people who run this system and not the system itself. he had to make a stop in a loading bay as his 13 month old son began having a fit, only a month earlier his son had nearly died of meningitus , he climbed in the back and supported his sons head and called an ambulance which arrived within 6 minutes , within 2 minutes after this his son was transfered to the ambulance which blue lighted to hospital as my friend followed in his car. About 9 days later he recieved his fine, he sent it back and explained the situation only to recieve another letter saying if he didnt pay he would be proscecuted and have to pay costs too. he asked to see the footage which at first was refused then after some perciverance he was allowed, it clearly showed his son fitting, the arrival of the ambulance and the departure under blue light, this all took 8 minutes 4 seconds. the letter with the footage said that the personal health of any occupant of the offending vehicle was not the concern of 'them' and did not alter the the fact a traffic offence was commited. they also reinforced this with the fact the driver was not in the drivers seat and so was no longer in control of the vehicle thus making it parked.
my freind payed the fine just to end the matter as he had more important issues.

by the way if anyone from the local authority recognises this story, his son survived however is now partially sighted and has sustained possible long term brain damage. THE DOCTORS SAID IT WAS LUCKY HE STOPPED WHEN HE DID AND THE PARAMEDICS COULD DO SOMETHING QUICKLY AS HE MAY HAVE DIED.

please someone tell me that the people running these systems are only interested in money at any cost isnt true, i am a serving soldier and have more respect for the taliban than these people .

Rob M's story just shows the jobsworth mentality of these people and their lack of common sense in his awful situation. Even with the CCTV confirming what happened they still insisted he paid up. Disgraceful!

Originally Posted by Rob S

Rob M's story just shows the jobsworth mentality of these people and their lack of common sense in his awful situation. Even with the CCTV confirming what happened they still insisted he paid up. Disgraceful!

Absolutely agree. What a pack of merchant bankers.

I'd be inclined to take this to the adjudicator and at least ask the question why they haven't applied mitigation to the decision as they are supposed to?

I might even go as far as to put this one to the media - it should at least make the local press.