Unmarked camera cars in Lambeth

[Big Nick]

Lady I work with was picked up after work late at night by her son in his car. To do this he pulled into a coach only parking bay for less than 2 minutes. Two days later Lambeth sent him a PCN with photo evidence which could only have been done from an unmarked car. She also said the picture was rubbish quality cos of a branch blocking views of the drivers seat.

 

Tonight I saw the car again parked in the middle of said "coach only" bay presumably quietly catching people out. It's a silver Smart car with a roof mounted camera, looks like it has a large baked bean tin on top.

 

I thought this style of catching was illegal unless they had signs out but is this negated by Lambeth borough being a Controlled Parking Zone?

 

How can I get copies of the legal parking orders for the street in question to see what restrictions are in place? The coach bay is 15 or 20 minutes stay only but I've never seen wardens give tickets there in daytime when it is busy.

[Conniff]

I remember you were allowed to stop to let someone alight or pickup. If the sign only says no parking and not no stopping, then I would challenge.

[Fair-Parking]

Doesn't it make you wonder why TV now blots out all registration numbers and people's faces when private citizens employed by councils can cruise round completely reversing that philosophy?

 

I presume that the old bureaucratic addage of 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide' applies - in stark contrast to the fact that we can never now see the faces and registration numbers of those people who are entirely innocent of anything.

 

Such ID is now only open to those self appointed private citizens cruising around taking pictures of others and yes I do believe that this is why a court ruled such an intrusive practice to be illegal.

[green_and_mean]

Doesn't it make you wonder why TV now blots out all registration numbers and people's faces when private citizens employed by councils can cruise round completely reversing that philosophy?

 

I presume that the old bureaucratic addage of 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide' applies - in stark contrast to the fact that we can never now see the faces and registration numbers of those people who are entirely innocent of anything.

 

Such ID is now only open to those self appointed private citizens cruising around taking pictures of others and yes I do believe that this is why a court ruled such an intrusive practice to be illegal.

 

Anyone can take pictures of cars in the street.

TV does not generally block out number plates or faces

No Court has ruled it illegal.

[scousegeezer]

There was a recent case on Wirral, Merseyside. A lady took a PCN to court for appeal. The appeal was allowed, as the court stated that there had to be signs clearly visible stating that camera srveillance was in use. If no signs then ticket is illegal.

 

Cheers - Scousegeezer

[Fair-Parking]

Green & Mean - You have a long track record of being argumentative for no good reason. I feel that the problem here may be that your bureaucratic brain is too highly tuned to have realised that the purpose of my post was to bring to the forum's attention the complete irony of the official mind that edits all this, but then goes out to actively flount the rules they impose on us mere plebs.

 

We all know that we can take pictures on the street thank you very much, and if your TV is not showing blocked out faces and number plates then I must get mine changed.

 

As scousegeezer has pointed out, it has been ruled that it is deemed illegal for councils to deliberately set out to photograph people in an autocratic and surreptitious manner with a view to extracting money from them.

 

Oh and please don't try to educate me and the difference between a PCN appeal and a High Court ruling.

[Conniff]

Have we got any links to this court ruling ? as I would be very interested in reading it.

[Fair-Parking]

It wasn't a County Court or High Court, it was a court of appeal for a PCN. But a court nevertheless. Reported in the Daily Mail sometime last week.

[Conniff]

How can an appeal tribunal make something illegal if they are not a court, I'm a bit lost now.

 

Ah! right, I just read the article, thanks. So it's not actually a precedent that it is illegal, just that the one ticket was issued incorrectly. It doesn't affect any other tickets unless everyone who has had one appeals in their own right.

I understand now, it's not actually been made illegal, but an appealant will probably have the pcn quashed if they appeal.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Conniff

[green_and_mean]

How can an appeal tribunal make something illegal if they are not a court, I'm a bit lost now.

 

Ah! right, I just read the article, thanks. So it's not actually a precedent that it is illegal, just that the one ticket was issued incorrectly. It doesn't affect any other tickets unless everyone who has had one appeals in their own right.

I understand now, it's not actually been made illegal, but an appealant will probably have the pcn quashed if they appeal.

 

Exactly! To be illegal would be contary to law and the issuing of PCNs under the TMA 2004 by an approved device is perfectly legal. I'm not being argumentative but correcting an inacurrate post by yourself. There are no laws stating a PCN is void without signage for the cctv.

The guidelines from the DofT says

8.79 The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.

 

It merely states to meet the 'primary objective' signs and publicity would be needed. It does not state enforcing without publicity of signs is against the law. What is publicity, an ad in the local rag, radio campaign, TV ads? What is lawful signage, a sign in every street, every 15 metres, entry to a CPZ, entry to a town? Who knows? It is impossible to comply or break a law that does not exist. The Wirral car was publicised widely in the local press and had CCTV enforcement in 2 foot high letters on the side which is not exactly covert. Just because a single adjudicator ruled on two PCNs from the same person does not make it 'law'. There have been numerous adjudications on non compliant bays, missing T-bars etc all going in favour of the Council does this mean that it is now legal to use these bays because the Council won??

[lamma]

guidelines from the DfT.

lets use the Statutory Guidance from the Secretary of State which has much more weight.

6. Where the Guidance says that something must be done, this means that it is a requirement in either primary or secondary legislation, and a footnote gives the appropriate provision. In all other instances, section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must have regard to the information

contained in this Guidance. ...

 

50. The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.

[green_and_mean]

guidelines from the DfT.

lets use the Statutory Guidance from the Secretary of State which has much more weight.

6. Where the Guidance says that something must be done, this means that it is a requirement in either primary or secondary legislation, and a footnote gives the appropriate provision. In all other instances, section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must have regard to the information

contained in this Guidance. ...

 

50. The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.

 

Very helpful maybe you could post a link to the signs and information regarding their size, location and frequency?

[lamma]

I don't need to - the council does. The Secretary of State says so. Councils need to take it up with the Sec of State if they have an issue - maybe you could volunteer to be their front man ? Adjudications already found in favour of this so maybe you should ask the adjudicators as well.

[green_and_mean]

I don't need to - the council does. The Secretary of State says so. Councils need to take it up with the Sec of State if they have an issue - maybe you could volunteer to be their front man ? Adjudications already found in favour of this so maybe you should ask the adjudicators as well.

 

I think you will find the number of adjudications is very small compared to the number rejected. CCTV has been used in London for ages with no complaints from adjudicators, DofT or the secretary of state himself.

[Recycler]

remember TPT is the provincial version of PATAS - case load split nationally 10% TPT / 90% PATAS (London)

 

The London adjudicators have not (yet) followed Mr Binns lead at TPT...

 

The argument needs developing into a stronger piece of work - relying on the statutory / operational guidance is probably not going to be sufficient (IMHO) as there is no MUSTS only SHOULDs......

 

Suggest you look at Lambeths 2009 parking report "The council operates the CCTV cameras in accordance with London Councils’ CCTV Code of Practice"

 

& importantly when you check the CCTV Code of Practice out you need an original version - not the latest as the signs requirement seems mysteriously to have dissapeared....

[lamma]

Statutory Guidance has plenty of 'must's but I get your point. Operational guidance can be 'signed up' to by councils but I don't know of any that have. On this issue the Statutory Guidance, which the TMA S.87 says council must have regard to is quite clear. It is a 'need' not a 'should' - so it is a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation. So thats a 'must' and a requirement.