traffic penalty notice by cctv camera

[Carefulbloke]

These forums are a great roller coaster ride! You go up with the thoughts that the PCN is defensible and then down as the learned brains shoot down the mitigating factors.

• Fair-Parking (#35 and 39) hints that “This PCN was issued under RTA 1991 and thus appears to be outside the council's terms of reference and authority.”
  

This is shot down by Patdavies in #40.

• Ting (#45) suggests:
  

a) They fail to inform you of the period in which you may make representations. For this particular legislation LLA &TFL Act 2003 the deaedline for this is '28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is erved' ( the date you received it).

They have failed to tell you that. This is prejudicial since you may believe, as they say, that the deadline is the same 28 period that they described which is 'beginning with date of this notice' (a shorter period).

Spunkymonkey (#68) points out that the 28 day period is clearly defined. So how important is the difference between the 28 days starting on the “Date of this notice” as opposed to 28 days starting on the date that the PCN was received (in my case 1 day later). I cannot see that this adds much weight to the defence. NBeee (#70) how would you actually put this point in a letter to Camden, and what section of law statute would you quote?

b) A recipient of such a PCN may not have been the driver. In my view, they obstruct your ability to formulate an appeal by appearing to suggest you may not consult the driver about the circumstances or elect them to make representations. In my opinion this is prejudicial.

One could argue that it is reasonable for the registered owner to canvass all the evidence and present it as one voice to the Council. How would NBeeee phrase the ‘prejudicial’ response?

Would anyone modify the letter that Cocorans1 wrote to the council (thread 174358 #1) to improve the thrust?

• Did my daughter actually commit an offence? I have asked her to take a picture of the blue sign.
  

PCN says “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction) in Shaftesbury Avenue WC2”

I am not sure exactly where the offence occurred (daughter will advise) but the reference to Shaftesbury avenue I guess is a rough reminder location. An inaccurate location description probably does not negate that an offence did occur as per video evidence.

Fair-parking (#41) says not a council matter.

Patdavies (#52) says yes, it is an offence

Iamma (#53 ) says no offence

Patdavies (#56 ) says ahead means ahead only. No contest.

So, should the offence itself be kept out of representations or is there any mileage in pursuing this point?

Sorry to be so rambling and repetitive. Absolute legal precision seems to be the key for successful representations, so any further thoughts on exact wording in a suitable letter?

[NBeeee]

The answer to a general theme in your post is that you should include all angles.

 

on the dates issue the definitive part of legislation is Schedule 1 - see the link posted by Jasmin2008 earlier.

Notice that my big issue with the Camden rejection is that he quotes back the legislation in some detail with the last thing being a reference to Schedule 1 - then fails to show that at all. Odd - don't you think?

This why Spunky described it as fraudulent and I agree.

 

I can't say too mch more because i'm making a formal complaint. i've had a verbal kinda explanation from Camden and to be honest I don't know whether to laugh, cry or leave the Country for good, LOL!

-

[Spunkymonkey]

These forums are a great roller coaster ride! You go up with the thoughts that the PCN is defensible and then down as the learned brains shoot down the mitigating factors.

 

Spunkymonkey (#68) points out that the 28 day period is clearly defined. So how important is the difference between the 28 days starting on the “Date of this notice” as opposed to 28 days starting on the date that the PCN was received (in my case 1 day later). I cannot see that this adds much weight to the defence. NBeee (#70) how would you actually put this point in a letter to Camden, and what section of law statute would you quote?

 

 

 

• Did my daughter actually commit an offence? I have asked her to take a picture of the blue sign.
  

PCN says “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction) in Shaftesbury Avenue WC2”

 

I am not sure exactly where the offence occurred (daughter will advise) but the reference to Shaftesbury avenue I guess is a rough reminder location. An inaccurate location description probably does not negate that an offence did occur as per video evidence.

 

Sorry, Carefulbloke, I didn't mean to add to the confusion. In pointing out that they clearly define the appeal period incorrectly, the important bit is incorrectly

 

Regardless if it's a week's difference or a day, the legal point is that they've been untruthful about your rights. That's not only enough to have the PCN cancelled but, potentially, to have the person responsible for the misleading statement charged with fraud.

 

 

 

As to the matter of position. Your daughter may well have committed an offence, but she can't possibly have commnited the offence they're accusing her of unless there's a blue sign in Shaftsbury Avenue at the point she was observed.

 

You've got the accusation and the evidence the wrong way round. Put simply, the evidence must support the accusation made and a court cannot (and will not) invent an "alternative" accusation which fits the evidence. Hence the (I believe antiquated) phrase "Guilty as charged"!

 

What they have accused her of doing is driving the wrong way, contrary to a blue sign, in Shaftsbury avenue - if there isn't a blue sign that part of Shaftsbury then that's an impossible offence to commit.

 

What they have evidence of is her (possibly) driving the wrong way (contrary to the arrow) in the street she turned off to get into Shaftsbury Avenue. This doesn't prove what they've accused her of and should be thrown out in court if challenged.

[NBeeee]

Nope, hadn't seen it, but it makes a damn good fantasy novel.

 

Not only that, if it was me I'd now be notifying my MP, putting a complaint into the Local Government Ombudsman and a fraud complaint into the local plod for criminal investigation.

 

i'm on it geezer!!! Obviously quite serious so can't discuss further. PM coming.

[adamna]

NBeeee, can't send you a PM, I wonder why

[adamna]

It says:

The following errors occurred with your submission:

1. NBeeee has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.
    
   If you are trying to send this message to multiple recipients, remove NBeeee from the recipient list and send the message again.
   

I really don't like this. What the hell has NBeeee done to deserve this? First Ting and now NBeeee. Seems like control freakery to me, and I'm not comfortable at all. I assume it is a moderation as there was no indication that NBeeee was about to remove themselves. Please NBeeee, was this your choice or theirs?

[crem]

lol @ adamna

[NBeeee]

Ooops! LOL

Edited January 7, 2009 by NBeeee
unnecessary

[NBeeee]

Nope not me. Chill though.

 

I can't actually even see the PM records. Perhaps you would like to reassure them and say what my initial approach was?

-

[Spunkymonkey]

Guys, whatever issues people have and whatever may be going on behind the scenes, maybe it could be cooled off on here?

 

This thread has raised a couple of (potentially very) interesting points re the PCNs involved and it'd be a shame to have it trashed to the point it's locked / deleted or whatever. In any case, discussing site matters here makes it a hell of a lot harder to see what's happening with the actual cases

[Carefulbloke]

Update.

 

The offence occurred in Shaftesbury avenue that is the southern extension of Bloomsbury street, south of New Oxford Street. My daughter took the next left at crossroads into a road also known as Shaftesbury avenue, also 2-way. Link:

Google Maps

 

At that junction, there was no road sign plate of any kind. Instead the green of the traffic light displayed a straight ahead arrow, and below that was a similar sized but blue light (traffic light-like) which also displayed a straight ahead arrow.

 

There was also a straight ahead arrow painted on the road.

I cannot see the point or advantage of these traffic directions….

 

Interesting that my contravention was described as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign rather than a blue light (which I cannot find in the TSRGD).

Edited January 7, 2009 by Carefulbloke

[Spunkymonkey]

Ok, not knowing London well, from the map I'm getting a little confused.

 

From where you've placed the marker in that link, moving north we get Bloomsbury Way heading east, which seems to run into New Oxford St heading west. Shaftsbury Avenue (A401) appears to meet these two at the point they change.

 

There is also Bloomsbury Street (the A400) which comes from the North, and is marked as one-way travelling south. That appears to cross New Oxford Rd and then also cross Shaftsbury Ave.

 

1) Are you saying that, after it crosses New Oxford Street, Bloomsbury Street (A400) is also called Shaftsbury Ave? Is that definate?

 

2) In which case, was her route south along Bloomsbury Street, across New Oxford Street and then the sharp left into the "other" Shaftsbury Ave back towards Bloomsbury Way?

[Carefulbloke]

Ok, not knowing London well, from the map I'm getting a little confused.

 

So was I initially!!

 

There is also Bloomsbury Street (the A400) which comes from the North, and is marked as one-way travelling south. That appears to cross New Oxford Rd and then also cross Shaftsbury Ave.

 

1) Are you saying that, after it crosses New Oxford Street, Bloomsbury Street (A400) is also called Shaftsbury Ave? Is that definate?

 

I believe so.

 

2) In which case, was her route south along Bloomsbury Street, across New Oxford Street and then the sharp left into the "other" Shaftsbury Ave back towards Bloomsbury Way?

 

Absolutely right.

 

I could not find a way of placing the marker exactly over the junction!

[Spunkymonkey]

Ok, I know it's not conclusive because it doesn't specifically mention the bit that Bucknall Street joins (just north of the "real" Shaftesbury Avenue) but the GLA certainly consider the bit south of the A401 to still be called Bloomsbury Street.

 

This is shown in Para 22 of this Planning Report prepared by them which clearly identifies the "junction of St Giles Street and Bloomsbury Street".

 

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/2006/20060223/st_giles_court_report.pdf

 

It would be unusual (to say the least) for an A classified road to change it's name to the same as an adjoining A classified road only to change back again a hundred yards or so later

 

So, it's quite possible they've got the street signs wrong as well .....

[RichardM]

I've had a look on Google Earth, and the only junction with yellow box markings of that shape and a less than right angle turn is the junction of the A400 and A401, Southbound from Bloomsbury Street INTO Shaftsbury Avenue.

 

If you look on Google Earth the centre of the junction is at

N51,30,58,58 W0,07,34,94

Google Maps

 

You can see that the road markings on the approach to the junction travelling South East on Bloomsbury Way do indicate that the two lanes are from "straight on" traffic only. If it is the case that the traffic light was fitted with a green direction arrow, only indicating a straight course, then it would indicate that a left turn was prohibited. This may be something to do with pedestrian requirements, as on the photos you can quite clearly see a pedestrian crossing ahead of the vehicle turning left.

 

That said, if this is the correct junction and direction of travel, I would suggest that the offence did not take place in Shaftsbury Avenue, but in Bloomsbury Way since the driver only entered Shaftsbury Avenue AFTER the contravention took place.

[Spunkymonkey]

Also, this is an AA route from Store Street (which joins Bloomsbury Street to the north) and Endell Street which is to the south of St Giles High Street:

 

0.00Start out on Store Street,Bloomsbury.

Central London Congestion Charges Apply Mon-Fri 7am-6pm

0.000.09Turn right onto the A400

0.090.28At traffic signals continue forward onto Bloomsbury StreetA400

0.370.08At Shaftesbury Theatre, traffic signals bear left onto Endell Street - B401

0.450.05Finish on Endell Street,Bloomsbury

 

Compare with the map and note the third instruction:

 

At traffic signals continue forward onto Bloomsbury Street

 

Not a mention of Shaftesbury Ave in sight.

 

Also, exactly the same instruction if you're going to Bucknall Street, stopping short of Shaftesbury Ave (the real one):

 

0.00Start out on Store Street,Bloomsbury.

Central London Congestion Charges Apply Mon-Fri 7am-6pm B506

0.000.09Turn right onto the A400A400

0.090.28At traffic signals continue forward onto Bloomsbury StreetA400

0.370.02Turn right onto Bucknall Street Bucknall Street

0.390.01Finish on Bucknall Street,Bloomsbury Unclassified

 

So the AA clearly consider that you cross New Oxford Street and continue into Bloomsbury Street, not Shaftesbury ave

Edited January 8, 2009 by Spunkymonkey
Sorting out the AA's formatting

[Carefulbloke]

Here is an interesting link taken from seety - home looking back at the site of offence:seety - home

and here are the traffic lights in question: seety - home I have looked up and down the street but seety's resolution is not good enough to read street signs

It's fun going for walkabout!

 

My daughter seemed certain that the road south of Bloomsbury street was identified by a road sign saying Shaftesbury Avenue.

 

edit note: I have just seen the pictures taken by my daughter this evening. They confirm that the street in question is definitely Shaftesbury avenue and that the green traffic light has an upright arrow, and the blue background with white upright arrow light is round and roughly the same size and mounted below the green traffic light.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Carefulbloke
Further information added

[RichardM]

Just had a brain wave.

 

The camera used to record the events is located on Shaftsbury Avenue. Located on the South West corner looking in a North Easterly direction. The photos produced by Camden would undoubtedly have Shaftsbury Avenue as their location even though they are recording traffic turning left out of Bloomsbury Street.

Edited January 8, 2009 by RichardM

[crem]

Here is an interesting link taken from seety - home looking back at the site of offence:seety - home

and here are the traffic lights in question: seety - home I have looked up and down the street but seety's resolution is not good enough to read street signs

It's fun going for walkabout!

 

Interestingly I noticed using the 2nd seety link if you spin it around, there is a set of lights outside a shop called "London Paint" that clearly shows a No Left/No Right sign. If they can use it on that light, why not o the light that is catching people out, or are they worried they will loose their revenue income? (opps did I just think they want to make money, as if they would)

[patdavies]

Update.

 

The offence occurred in Shaftesbury avenue that is the southern extension of Bloomsbury street, south of New Oxford Street. My daughter took the next left at crossroads into a road also known as Shaftesbury avenue, also 2-way. Link:

Google Maps

 

At that junction, there was no road sign plate of any kind. Instead the green of the traffic light displayed a straight ahead arrow, and below that was a similar sized but blue light (traffic light-like) which also displayed a straight ahead arrow.

 

There was also a straight ahead arrow painted on the road.

I cannot see the point or advantage of these traffic directions….

 

Interesting that my contravention was described as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign rather than a blue light (which I cannot find in the TSRGD).

 

It's not a blue light; it's a backlit blue sign - which is permitted in TSRGD. In fact, where the sign is attached to traffic lights, it must be illuminated to comply.

 

Despite the blue sign; the directional arrow of the green traffic light and the large arrow painted on the road, it would appear that she did make a prohibited turn - or am I missing something?

 

It would appear that any defence now rests solely around the validity of the PCN (including the stated location of the contravention)

Edited January 8, 2009 by patdavies

[patdavies]

Interestingly I noticed using the 2nd seety link if you spin it around, there is a set of lights outside a shop called "London Paint" that clearly shows a No Left/No Right sign. If they can use it on that light, why not o the light that is catching people out, or are they worried they will loose their revenue income? (opps did I just think they want to make money, as if they would)

 

The difference in the signage is that an ahead only sign means just that - ahead only; combined no left/right turn signs do not prohibit a U-turn.

[Spunkymonkey]

It would appear that any defence now rests solely around the validity of the PCN (including the stated location of the contravention)

 

Agree - an offence probably did take place and, normally, I'm pretty intolerant of moving traffic offences because of the dangers involved.

 

However, this raises the question of the much greater dangers involved in having arbitrary "policing" by local authorities who seem to have neither the ability nor inclination to even get the basic facts right.

 

Especially when that policing is extended to using CCTV coverage monitored by people who seem incapable of recognising which road is which, we open the door to a great deal of injustice. To me, that's far worse than a carefully executed "illegal" turn.

 

In this case, they certainly appear to be accusing someone of an offence which it's impossible to commit because no such offence exists. In other words, what she's accused of is not "an offence known to law".

 

Also (general interest but not needed for defence), the courts have found - Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476 - that an impossible offence can't be committed even when there was a clear and acknowledged intention to commit an offence. If, as in this case, the "offence" was a genuine mistake - quite possibly encouraged by poor road signs - then it's a no-brainer

Edited January 8, 2009 by Spunkymonkey
tidy up and clarify a little

[Carefulbloke]

What a brilliant team commenting on this case! The lateral thinking and enthusiasm has been inspiring!

I have now drafted my representations (ghastly word) ready to send off to Camden council and when I have heard back, I will post the letter and response on this thread. PCN non-compliance should win the day rather than offence semantics.

Many thanks thus far to all contributors. I suspect that I will receive the standard reply quoting the wrong statute, refuting my claim. Then the fun starts......

[Spunkymonkey]

Nice one, Carefulbloke, and it's a pleasure to (hopefully) help.

 

I must admit I'm not 100% sure on the details of appeal procedure for these (no doubt someone else will be) but one point with the grounds you use for your appeal:

 

include every reason possible. Assuming it goes beyond the Council you only have to get a hearing to agree to one of them to win, but they should consider and reply to all. That can give very useful feedback for others!

 

Incidentally, looking at Seety and moving "back" from the junction a little, it certainly looks as if the blue arrow is a "one way" sign - as far as I can find there is no authorised rectangular sign for "ahead only". That means that the offence, if any, should have been failing to comply with the green arrow on the traffic lights and has nothing whatsoever to do with any blue sign or light. Would also be worth researching that a little more and including it if you have to escalate your appeal

[Carefulbloke]

This is a copy of the letter that I sent to Camden PCN processing together with their initial reply. Why might they want to see the CCTV footage which is irrelevant to my appeal?

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I am appealing against the fine you issued on xxxxx in a Penalty Charge Notice reference xxxxxxxxx because it is non-compliant.

 

You did not inform me correctly of the period in which I may make representations. The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003: SCHEDULE 1 Penalty charge notices etc. under section 4 (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act, Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 3

clearly states that the deadline is 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served. That is the actual date I received it (on xxxxxxxx), not the date of the Notice (yyyyyyy = 2 days earlier). This is prejudicial, as you have defined a shorter period than defined in the Act. You have been untruthful about my rights.

 

You quote on the PCN “Do not pass this to the driver. Only the owner of the vehicle can make representations against issuing of the PCN”. How can Camden council possibly know of the individual circumstances in this case? In fact, anyone may make representations on my behalf with my permission. The owner is only liable for payment of any resultant penalty. A recipient of such a PCN may not have been the driver (as in my case), and in my view, you obstruct my ability to formulate an appeal by appearing to suggest I may not consult the driver about the circumstances or elect them to make representations. This is also prejudicial.

 

It may have been useful and constructive to have seen camera evidence of the alleged offence on the website address quoted on the PCN. This did not work as the site reported an error when given the correct input details (at least for the duration from the receipt of this PCN to the date of this appeal letter) and the ongoing failure of the internet system was confirmed when I phoned 020 7974 4646.

 

This PCN does not comply with the law and you have failed to fully advise me of your legal position. It is technically invalid and unenforceable.

 

I would be grateful if the Penalty Charge is cancelled.

 

 

Reply:

Thank you for your representations received on xxxxxxxx.

 

 

I am currently investigating your case, but have requested to view the full CCTV footage in order to make a decision on the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice. As soon as this information becomes available, I will consider all aspects of the case, and inform you in writing of my findings.

 

I apologise for this delay. The case is on hold and the charges will not increase during this time.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Correspondence Officer

Edited February 4, 2009 by Carefulbloke
Reference and dates removed