Jump to content


traffic penalty notice by cctv camera


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5292 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Possibly because, by pointing out that you can't access the footage, they can see a get-out by claiming that the footage happens to have "gone missing" and they'll cancel it as a goodwill gesture in this case rather than having to accept your points about the PCN.

 

Or am I being unduly cynical? :p

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

i have received a similar PCN today. With exactly all the same facts. infact the camera number is also the same 229. Its seems the Council is intentionally utilising this to make money instead of ensuring signs are clear and ensure people don't accidently make a traffic offence.

 

What is the latest state of the appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Finally, and after a reminder letter from me, Camden Council wrote back as follows:

 

“Penalty Charge Notice

Date Issued

Location of Contravention

Vehicle Registration

PCN Processing

London Borough of Camden

P0 Box No. 20217

London NW1 9GH

Tel 020 7974 4646

Fax 020 7974 4610

camden.gov.uk

 

 

 

16th March 2009

 

 

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE - The London Local Authorities Acts 1990 - 2003

Thank you for your representations received on 09/03/09 (no, it was 12.01.09). We issued the Penalty Charge Notice as your vehicle was seen Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction). Following my investigation I have decided to formally reject your representations for the reasons detailed below.

I have reviewed the full CCTV footage and your vehicle can clearly be seen executing a prohibited left turn despite the blue signs directing traffic straight ahead. Please also find enclosed a closer image of the signage at this junction, which I am satisfied is clear, and a VHS copy of the CCTV footage. Not enclosed

Same photos reproduced here as in original PCN

I am satisfied that due procedure was followed in the issue of the notice and that it complies with all of the relevant legislation and that it clearly refers to the date on which the notice is served.

The registered owner may allow another party to make representations on their behalf as long as it is submitted with a signed statement from the registered owner.

I have considered the comments that you have made in accordance with the requirements of

schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 - 2003 and for the reasons outlined above I am satisfied that a contravention did occur. We will accept the discount rate of £60 if received within 14 days from the date of this letter. After this period the charge will revert to £120 and this amount will apply to any further correspondence or an appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.

Details of how to pay Here

If you do not accept this decision you can submit an appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service by following the instructions on the accompanying leaflet that forms part of this Notice Of Rejection. An appeal must be submitted before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which you receive this letter. An appeal submitted after the end of the 28-day period may be considered at the adjudicator’s discretion if it can be shown that there is good reason why it could not have been submitted earlier.

An independent adjudicator will consider your appeal based on the evidence provided by both sides before making a final decision. Any evidence that we supply will also be sent to you before your appeal is heard. You should be aware that the adjudicator can award costs in favour of either party if it is deemed that a party has acted in a vexatious, frivolous or wholly unreasonable manner. if you would like to speak to someone about the appeals process you may contact the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service on 0207 747 4700.

It is important that you either pay the penalty or submit an appeal before the end of the 28-day period. Failure to do so may result in a Charge Certificate being issued and the penalty charge being increased by 50% to £180. If the increased charge is not paid within a further 14 days we may apply to the county court to recover the charge as if it were a debt payable under a county court order and this may result in bailiffs being used.

Yours sincerely”

They have completely ignored the points raised in my original letter. They are obsessed with whether the contravention occurred or not, rather than the legalities of a non-valid PCN.

The next step is the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service with postal decision.

Can any of you learned guys offer any more advice, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I assume that their rather vague reference to the LLLA is to the LLLA 1996. That's the only one with a relevent Sched.1:

 

SCHEDULE 1Enforcement Notices, etc, under Part II (Bus Lanes) of this Act

 

 

Sections 4, 6

Enforcement notices

1

(1) Where—

(a) a penalty charge notice has been served with respect to a vehicle under section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of this Act . . .; and

(b) the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without that charge being paid; . . .

© . . .

 

 

 

[the enforcing authority] may serve a notice (in this Schedule referred to as an “enforcement notice”)—

(i) on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the conduct giving rise to the service of the penalty charge is alleged to have taken place; . . .

(ii) . . ..

 

 

 

(2) An enforcement notice must state—

(a) the amount of the penalty charge payable;

(b) the grounds on which [the enforcing authority] believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the enforcement notice is served;

(d) that failure to pay the penalty charge may lead to an increased charge being payable;

(e) the amount of that increased charge;

(f) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 2 below; and

(g) the effect of paragraph 6 below.

 

 

 

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe additional matters which must be dealt with in any enforcement notice.

 

Representations against . . . enforcement notice

2

(1) Where it appears to a person on whom . . . an enforcement notice has been served under paragraph 1 above (in this Schedule referred to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to [the enforcing authority].

(2) Any representations under this paragraph must be made in such form as may be specified by [the enforcing authorities], acting through the Joint Committee.

(3) [The enforcing authority] may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the . . . enforcement notice in question was served.

(4) The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

(a) . . . that the recipient—

(i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or

(iii) became its owner after that date;

 

 

 

 

 

(b) that there was no breach of an order or regulations of the type described in subsection (2) of the said section 4; [or]

[© that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner].

 

 

 

(5) Where the ground mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(a)(ii) above is relied on in any representations made under this paragraph, those representations must include a statement of the name and address of the person to whom the vehicle was disposed of by the person making the representations (if that information is in his possession).

(6) Where the ground mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(a)(iii) above is relied on in any representations made under this paragraph, those representations must include a statement of the name and address of the person from whom the vehicle was acquired by the person making the representations (if that information is in his possession).

(7) . . .

(8) . . .

(9) . . .

(10) It shall be the duty of [the enforcing authority] to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

 

 

 

So, what they seem to be saying is that your appeal doesn't fall in any of the grounds specified in Part 2(4).

 

 

 

What they're not taking into account is that, for there to be any case for you to appeal, they must have issued an enforcement notice that complies (fully) with Part 1(2)

:!:Nothing I post should be taken as legal advice. It is offered as an opinion only.:!:

 

This warning is in my signature because I'm not organised enough to remember to type

it in every post.

 

And you're considering trusting me????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that you have good cause to go to PATAS, since as well as we know that the offence did not occur in the location stated on the PCN. They have failed to provide evidence to back up their refusal of appeal despite requesting it several times, in that if they only provided the original photos, they do not show the signing of the junction, because the camera shows the side angle of the lights. They also failed to provide the video.

 

One other thing to check, is if there is a TRO in existance for that junction, prohibitiing left turns from Bloomsbury Avenue into Shaftsbury Avenue. If a TRO does exist, then the blue straight ahead arrows are insufficient to enforce the TRO. In that case, there must be a prohibition sign placed at the junction (blue signs are not prohibition signs). In that case you can also claim that the signeage at the junction was non compliant with the TSRGD.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

RichardM, I think the contravention details are correct. It was Shaftesbury avenue as shown in the link below, and the traffic light has a green arrow as well as a straight ahead blue sign below.

4shared.com - photo sharing - download image Contravention1.jpg

as provided by Camden council. So they have the "offence" clearly defined and watertight.

So, the only way forward is to consider:

1. The date on which the notice was served rather than the date of the notice. "What they're not taking into account is that, for there to be any case for you to appeal, they must have issued an enforcement notice that complies (fully) with Part 1(2)". Spot on Spunkmonkey!

2. The failure to produce video evidence (website access to the video still does not work).

3. Less powerful: driver v registered owner ability to make representations = prejudicial.

 

Keep the ideas coming!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't seen that photograph before,

 

but having seen it now, it does confirm that the offence DID NOT take place on Shaftsbury Avenue.

4shared.com - photo sharing - download image Contravention1.jpg

 

The traffic lights shown there are in Bloomsbury Street. In order to access Shaftsbury Avenue, you have to turn right or left. The camera which took the initial photos on the PCN (camera 229) were in Shaftsbury Avenue, but they recorded the event after you had passed the lights.

 

If you go onto Seety.co.uk, and place the cursor on Bloomsbury Street, between New Oxford Street and Shaftsbury Avenue and orientate the camera to look South East, you will see the same Subway's as shown in your photo, in exactly the same place. Shaftsbury Avenue is the road running from right to left across the bonnet of your car.

 

I don't know if this will work, but this is the link that seety provide.

seety - home

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted Pat! The vehicle registration document V5 talks about a registered keeper but at the top of the PCN it says"....Only the owner of the vehicle can make representations.........So I guess the name and address obtained from the DVLA on the PCN refers to the keeper.

Can I use this to my advantage in some way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To RichardM: Good thought! Unfortunately that small road just south of New Oxford street which appears to be an extension of Bloomsbury street is in fact Shaftesbury avenue as well! Shaftesbury avenue is street-signed on 2 sides of that triangle ie both in the one way street as in my link (#107) and the road to the left (in front of Subway). All part of Camden's artistry. My daughter checked this point carefully on going back to the scene of the offence. Strange that no map of London makes this clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted Pat! The vehicle registration document V5 talks about a registered keeper but at the top of the PCN it says"....Only the owner of the vehicle can make representations.........So I guess the name and address obtained from the DVLA on the PCN refers to the keeper.

Can I use this to my advantage in some way?

Er, no.

 

Whilst there is no such animal as a registered owner - only a registered keeper - the TMA 2004 specifically defines owner as the RK; for purposes under the TMA 2004 alone.

 

From TMA2004 s.92

 

“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;
Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucial post because it seems someone is being advised to go to PATAS on completely the wrong grounds.

 

LLA 1996 has nothing to do with moving traffic contraventions. It only applies to bus lane contraventions.

 

MTC is enforced by LLA &TFL Act 2003 and THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT NOTICE!!! It is a one stage appeal process just like TMA postal Reg 10 PCNs.

 

The reference made to 'Schedule 1' is in relation to that being the part of LLA 2003 where the appeal period is defined - '28 days beginning with date of service.' It is this that Camden fail to advise on their PCNs.

 

Now - In the original poster's rejection Camden claimed that there is no requirement to include this on the document. They were being pedantic and misleading.

 

On the latest rejection to 'carefulbloke' they contradict that and say something entirely different. One sentence clearly says that it DOES make reference to date of service. Ridiculous because it clearly does not and that is an easy win IMO at PATAS (but certainly don't go to patas quoting entirely the wrong legislation!). I have seen Camden say this once before on a rejection.

 

Have fun. I'm out again but had to post to prevent that mistake being made.

 

Regards.

Edited by HSBCrusher
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for interest, I see that Google Street View (on Google maps) has been launched and is much better than Seety in picture quality. Looking at the site of the contravention you can distinguish the road sign that says Shaftesbury avenue even though Google's overlay says Bloomsbury Street!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google earths traffic directions also refer to that street as Bloomsbury Street as well. Try getting directions from New Oxford Street to High Holborn and it will tell you to turn right from NOS towards Bloomsbury Street/A400

 

On the corner of Shaftsbury Avenue there is a Shaftsbury Avenue street sign on both sides of the building. Could it be that one of those signs was incorrectly placed many years ago and nobody has noticed?

 

I suppose that only someone like Ordinance Survey could answer that for definate.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this be sufficient to have the PCN thrown out? It is unfair to bump the fine up to £120 simply because I am appealing (largely because Camden have not properly addressed the representations in my initial letter).

 

Parking and Traffic Appeals Service

PO Box 279

Chertsey

Surrey

KT16 6BU

26th March 2009

Dear Sirs,

Formal Appeal against PCN xxxxxxxxxx (Camden Council)

I have enclosed the PCN dated 02/01/2009, my letter of representations to Camden Council dated 10/01/2009, the notice of rejection of representations dated 16th March 2009 from Mr Sturrock, and the notice of appeal for PATAS.

The notice of rejection failed to properly address 3 fundamental points raised in my letter. Most importantly, Mr Sturrock ignored the fact that the issued PCN was non-compliant and therefore unenforceable. In his 3rd paragraph, he says “ that it clearly refers to the date on which the notice is served”. It does not. It refers only to the “date of this notice” (02/01/2009). The date that the PCN was served was the actual date of receipt by me (04/01/2009). Hence it did not comply “with all the relevant legislation”, particularly the legal reference set out in my original letter.

I have been denied the opportunity of seeing the video footage of the alleged contravention. It remains inaccessible on the website address quoted on the PCN. Mr Sturrock failed to enclose a VHS copy of the CCTV footage with his rejection letter.

I should point out a small error in my original letter of 10/01/2009 in which I am signed as the registered owner. I am of course the registered keeper of the vehicle, with the assumption by Camden Council that I am also the owner. Technically the term ‘registered owner’ has no legal meaning yet this phrase is used twice in the rejection letter.

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well!!!!!

 

sorry not been on for a while studying and essays, not too easy for a mature student!

 

Yes you all know i paid it! would have gone on further with it but was threatened with the increase of charges if I fought the case. I think it should be put on hold till the case is investigated.

 

I couldnt afford to pay the extra money unfortunately

 

kindest regards

corcorans1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

4 days before the PATAS adjudication comes the evidence from Camden for driving (moving traffic) appeal. A stash of documents was received. I have copied their summary below. In addition, I received 10 pages of the GLC Traffic Management Order (1985 No. 281) which describes the junction of the alleged offence and the associated traffic restrictions, more colour pictures and a site plan, and the authorising officer statement showing 15 offences (including my case) captured digitally between 16.04 and 17.39hrs. I love the way the operator zooms in on the number plate as soon as the car turns left (Gotcha)! Potentially, 15 x £60 in 95 minutes is nice income for the council.

What is amazing is the fact that Camden council refuse to look at page 24 of LLA and TfL Act 2003 “The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN in question is served”. Will the adjudicator look it up? Is this the evidence I need to win this case? Any last minute advice or submissions before the hearing on 27.04.09? Help please!!

The hearing for your appeal is due to take place shortly. In preparation for the hearing, we have prepared a full case file for the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) Adjudicator. I have selected items from this file that you will not have seen before, and enclose copies for your reference. Please note that I have not sent you a complete duplicate file, as you will already have a number of the documents (such as your correspondence with our PCN Processing team). I trust that the enclosed documents will be of interest to you.

Because we have both sent our evidence to the PATAS, the appeal now rests in their hands. So, if you have any further evidence or arguments that you want the Adjudicator to take into account before deciding your appeal, you should send it directly to the PATAS. Any such additional material is automatically copied to us by the PATAS so you do not need to send us a copy.

If you have received a Charge Certificate from us after submitting your appeal to the PATAS I can confirm that it has been cancelled and you may ignore it. If your appeal is refused and no payment is made within the timeframe specified by the PATAS then we may issue you with another Charge Certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDER AND CASE SUMMARY

This contravention is covered under The Camden and City of Westminster (Prescribed Routes) (No.1) Traffic Order 1985, Article 20 where traffic travelling along the northwest to southeast arm of Shaftesbury Avenue, northwest of its junction with the south-west to north-east arm of Shaftesbury Avenue can only do so in a south-eastward direction across the junction. The London Borough of Camden is authorized to carry out enforcement of this legislation under Schedule I of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act (LLA) 2003.

The camera operative observed the vehicle at 16:41 on xxxxxxxxxx failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign. The arrow is located on the traffic lights and follows the form of diagram 606 in the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. The sign instructs all traffic to proceed straight ahead. Site report photographs enclosed under Section H shows the location of the sign. The appellant’s vehicle is seen to make left turn on to the southwest to northeast arm of Shaftesbury Avenue. A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 02/01/2009 by first class post. The appellant submits their appeal on the grounds that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant made formal representations against the PCN stating the PCN does not conform to the LLA 2003 nor did it advise them of our legal position. The representations were rejected on the basis of the CCTV footage. The appellant now submits their appeal stating their points were not fully addressed within their letter.

The council is satisfied the PCN conforms with the requirements of Part II Section 4 (8) of the LLA 2003, as follows,

(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a) state—

(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified

proportion;

(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi) the amount of the increased charge;

(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

The council is satisfied the representation procedures are clearly explained on the PCN. In addition the council takes into account any postal delays with the service of the PCN and receipt of representations when processing representations or payments against the PCN.

The appellant also makes reference that although they are the owner of the vehicle they were not the driver at the time of the contravention. They believe the statement on the PCN that instructs the owner not to pass the PCN to the driver obstructs their ability to formulate an appeal. The council advise that representations can be made by ‘the person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served.’ This is in accordance with LLA 2003 Schedule I Section 1)1). The council does not believe this dissuades the owner from allowing the driver to send in a written statement. The council will only respond to the owner when responding to representations as they are ultimately responsible for payment, as the appellant acknowledges.

The appellant makes reference to the Notice of Rejection not fully addressing their points. The council is satisfied the contents confirmed that the PCN complied with the relevant legislation and we are satisfied this is the case. We acknowledge the correspondence officer used the description of ‘registered owner’. Although this is an error and not a legal definition we do not believe it confuses the appellant as to who is being addressed.

The council notes the appellant claims the CCTV footage was not included in the Notice of Rejection. The council expects a high level of customer service and apologizes if this was not fulfilled. Accordingly, if the appeal is refused then we will reinstate the discount period.

The penalty charge is set to the amount set by the London Councils and agreed by the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State.

The council remain satisfied that the PCN was issued and served correctly and we do not believe that there were sufficient grounds to have withdrawn the PCN. We do not believe that the appellant has provided adequate grounds for appeal and submit that the appeal should fail. I confirm the contents of the case file which the Appellant has not yet seen have been sent to them by First Class Post on the date shown below.

Ian Vail

Adjudications Officer

21/04/2009

Link to post
Share on other sites

First reaction here is that there is a traffic order in place for the junction. If that traffic order specifically prohibits the turn that you made, it MUST be indicated by a prohibition sign attached to the relevent traffic signal. From what I've read in guidance to councils an instructional (diag 606) sign in not sufficient.

 

It does raise concerns as well that Camden freely admit that there were 15 such contraventions in a 90 minute period. That alone would suggest that they are fully aware that the junction is not properly signposted, yet are doing nothing to prevent contraventions such as reinforcing the current signage.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Richard. In actual fact my specific offence (320) was committed 9 times in that time span observed on camera 229. Perhaps more time should be invested in prevention rather than 'cure' by fine.

Looking at the video which was included in the package, my daughter turned left and went 15 yards into the 'illegal access' road before reversing into a parking spot.

I fear that there is nothing else that I can do at this stage (out of time with appeals/further info). The Camden information is voluminous and impressive. I do hope the adjudicator does not fall for it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The appeal application was received by PATAS at the end of March and was due for listing for decision one month later. The decision was due to be notified to me by post. Nothing heard back yet. Although it is tempting to demand a decision, Camden have not asked for any money since, so I will just sit tight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...