Massive PaTAS Win For The MOB. 200+ Westminster Fixed Cameras Uncertificated!

[Esinem]

If you have had a CCTV PCN in Westminster, appeal and you will win! Their CCTV systems are uncertified

 

See PATAS adjudication or here for the full story.

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In this case, NoToMob and the unstoppable Mr Wise!

Edited November 22, 2011 by Esinem

[Tony P]

I have a strong feeling of deja-vu reading this.

 

Is this a different news story from this thread of yours?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?326860-Westminster-s-CCTV-system-non-compliant-Appeal-now!

[Esinem]

It is a follow up on that thread as the PATAS appeal was won last weekend. Westminster have been unable to substantiate their claim that their system is certified, in spite of having time to submit additional evidence.

[green_and_mean]

it is a follow up on that thread as the patas appeal was won last weekend. Westminster have been unable to substantiate their claim that their system is certified, in spite of having time to submit additional evidence.

 

case number?

[Esinem]

How many d'ya need??

 

Patas case ref:2110291617

Patas case ref:211029245A

Patas case ref:2110398428

Patas case ref:2110443001

Patas case ref:2110443555

Patas case ref:2110377199

Patas case ref:2110374893

Patas case ref:2110374860

 

 

 

Quote:

 

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours when in Bryanston Street on 17 June 2011 at 16:54. The authority's case is based on closed circuit television evidence.

 

This Penalty Charge Notice was served by post under Regulation 10(1) (a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 on the basis of a record produced by an approved device.

 

The Appellant's case is that no VCA Approved Device Certificate for this particular camera has been produced.

 

I refer the authority to a recent review decision of my learned colleague Adjudicator Verity Jones in the case of Allen -v- City of Westminster (PATAS 2110147916) in which Mr Fitsall, appearing on behalf of Westminster City Council, conceded that without a copy of the Approved Device Certificate, there is a missing evidential link. In that case, Mr Fitsall asked for the review application to be withdrawn.

 

A letter forming part of VCA Approved Device Certificate has been produced in this present case and also the schedule to which it refers. The schedule should relate to the specific device by number and location.

 

The certificate states 'Camera: DVTel 9840'. However, as the Appellant Company's representative points out, the Schedule refers to camera model '9840A'.

 

The authority has sent a further submission on this point. Unfortunately, the submission only consists of the first page indicating the case reference numbers and I have had to rely on a copy sent to Mr Segal.

 

I find the explanation that DVTel 9840 is merely an abbreviation of DVTel9840A to be weak and unconvincing. I find that there can be no reason why the full camera details cannot appear on the certification.Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that there is a VCA Approved Device Certificate for this particular camera.

 

The appeal is allowed.

[Esinem]

Another appeal won at PaTAS 12 Nov for no certification:

 

2110417034

 

"A letter forming part of VCA Approved Device Certificate has been produced in this present case and also the schedule to which it refers".

 

"The schedule should relate to the specific derive by number and location. The certificate refers to camera 9840. However, as the Appellant's representative points out, the Schedule refers to the camera 9840A. No explanation has been provided".

 

It appears that Westminster did not supply their 'additional certification evidence' for this appeal. This is the evidence that Westminster said that they would supply from Sat. 12 Nov.

 

This 'additional evidence' was rejected by two Adjudicators at PaTAS on Sat. 12th Nov.

 

The moral of the story seems to be: Appeal and you will win. There will be many more councils in the same boat. Watch this space ;-)

 

BTW, the DVTel 9840 and DVTel 9840a are different models and thus have different specifications. You know, like the difference between, say, a Porsche Carrera 911 and 911S? Certification applies to a make and model. DVTel is the make, 9840 or 9840a are models of this make. Simples! Otherwise, it is like saying that since I have road tax for a Honda m/c thus I can use it on either of my Hondas. What the adjudicator called "weak and unconvincing".

Edited November 22, 2011 by Esinem

[green_and_mean]

How many d'ya need??

 

Patas case ref:2110291617

Patas case ref:211029245A

Patas case ref:2110398428

Patas case ref:2110443001

Patas case ref:2110443555

Patas case ref:2110377199

Patas case ref:2110374893

Patas case ref:2110374860

 

 

 

 

 

One that was actually last weekend as stated in your post would be nice, 12th Nov isn't last weekend is it all you have done is bump up your thread from the 14th Nov.

[tomtubby]

There were quite a few cases decided last weekend (19 November) on this same matter. Three cases that I know of are: 2110402467, 211040265A and 2110402547.

 

The wording from one of the other Judgments is as follows;

 

 

Case Reference:2110402682

 

Appellant:Mr Paul Silverman

 

Authority:Westminster

 

VRM:LB07KJY

 

PCN:WM6793013A

 

Contravention Date:12 May 2011

 

Contravention Time:10:43

 

Contravention Location:Palace Street

 

Penalty Amount:£130.00

 

Contravention:Parked in a restricted street

 

Decision Date:19 Nov 2011

 

Adjudicator:Carl Teper

 

Appeal Decision:Allowed

 

Direction:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

 

Reasons:Mr Vigus appears on behalf of the Appellant.

 

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours when in Palace Street on 12 May 2011 at 10.43. The authority's case is based on closed circuit television evidence.

 

This Penalty Charge Notice was served by post under Regulation 10(1) (a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 on the basis of a record produced by an approved device.

 

The Appellant's case is that no VCA Approved Device Certificate for this particular camera has been produced.

 

I refer the authority to a recent review decision of my learned colleague Adjudicator Verity Jones in the case of Allen -v- City of Westminster (PATAS 2110147916) in which Mr Fitsall, appearing on behalf of Westminster City Council, conceded that without a copy of the Approved Device Certificate, there is a missing evidential link. In that case, Mr Fitsall asked for the review application to be withdrawn.

 

A letter forming part of VCA Approved Device Certificate has been produced in this present case and also the schedule to which it refers. The schedule should relate to the specific device by number and location.

 

The certificate states 'Camera: DVTel 9840'. However, as the Appellant Company's representative points out, the Schedule refers to camera model '9840A'.

 

Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that there is a VCA Approved Device Certificate for this particular camera.

 

The requirement for correct approved camera device certification has been a live issue for some considerable time and has still not been satisfactorily resolved by the authority.

The appeal is allowed.

 

Edited November 22, 2011 by tomtubby

[tomtubby]

There are LOADS more being heard at PATAS this weekend !!!

[Esinem]

I seem to recall WCC had to replace 100 fixed cameras not so very long ago because they were not up to the required standard...a comedy of errors springs to mind. It looks like they need to learn to comply with the law before they start enforcing it! It seems Cllr Rowley is too quick in calling others "muppets". Pot, kettle, black!

[tomtubby]

Here is a list of the PATAS case numbers for the wins on 19th November 2011 against Westminster City Council on the grounds that their CCTV is not certificated for parking enforcement.

 

2110402682

211040265A

2110402547

2110402467

2110402456

2110402445

2110402434

2110402423

2110402412

2110402401

2110402398

2110402387

 

2110325650

[tomtubby]

I have no doubt that G & M will have a proper read of the Judgment first and then offer his opinion. I would be interested in what he has to say.

[tomtubby]

G & M will be along soon....

[green_and_mean]

WCC have done nothing illegal they submitted the specifications of their device to the VCA and in return were told it was approved, as Nutsville are fully aware the VCA have even confirmed this and confirmed the device being used is the one tested. There is no requirement under the statute to have a physical 'certificate' and WCC have submitted their equipment for approval as required and had it approved. WCC have complied with the law if the adjudicator doesn't beleive WCC and the VCA there is little they can do. The device on the certificate doesn't exist it is the name for a series of device suffixed A, B, C etc how could WCC submit a technical file to VCA for approval for a device that a) they never owned, b) doesn't exist.

 

Case Reference:2110571511Appellant:Mr Paul HirshAuthority:WestminsterVRM:R302YLEPCN:WM70446816Contravention Date:21 Sep 2011Contravention Time:20:52Contravention Location:Lexington StreetPenalty Amount:£130.00Contravention:Parked in a restricted streetDecision Date:21 Nov 2011Adjudicator:Edward HoughtonAppeal Decision:RefusedDirection:NoneThe vehicle is seen in the CCTV evidence to be waiting in a restricted street for a little over three minutes. Although I accept the Appellant's evidence as to the circumstances there is no exemption allowing a vehicle to wait in a restricted street for the purposes of obtaining directions or making phone calls. The vehicle was clearly in contravention, albeit fairly briefly , and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully.

Curious that this adjudicator received the same certificate and schedule in his evidence pack and didn't see anything wrong with the certification??

 

 

Edited November 23, 2011 by green_and_mean

[Tony P]

Curious that this adjudicator received the same certificate and schedule in his evidence pack and didn't see anything wrong with the certification??

 

Is an Adjudicator bound to consider every aspect surrounding a PCN - or just the specific point(s) raised by the Appellant within the Appeal?

If the latter, in the Hirsh case there appears to be no challenge about Certification but only his circumstances of being there, as this is the topic the Adjudicator addresses.

 

how could WCC submit a technical file to VCA for approval for a device that a) they never owned, b) doesn't exist.

 

Err.... is this not the whole point?

It follows that the device they do own and does exist had not been submitted for approval and therefore was not valid for the puropse being used.

[green_and_mean]

Err.... is this not the whole point?

It follows that the device they do own and does exist had not been submitted for approval and therefore was not valid for the puropse being used.

 

Why would the VCA issue a certificate for a device that doesn't exist or are they that bored they just mail out certificates randomly without bothering to test anything?

 

Adjudicators read the entire evidence pack, its unlikely unless the one here has been living on the moon that he would not be aware there was an issue with WCC cameras and would check the details.

[Esinem]

Here's further evidence of WCC's incompetence: http://nutsville.com/ Sadly, these lax procedures and bungles seem to be replicated throughout the country.

[crem]

http://nutsville.com/

 

The drop {in revenue}he refers to is from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which for yellow line contraventions fell by an amazing 46%.

 

I thought the purpose of issuing PCNs for contravention of SYL rules was to encourage compliance? So surely the council should have a target of 100% reduction in revenue from this "offence"?

[green_and_mean]

The public finally get to know that Westminster City Councils last CCTV spy camera bungle cost the taxpayer £6m when an unnamed council officer forgot to get a certificate for their spy camera network.

 

How did suspending cctv use cost the taxpayer 6 million £s? CCTV was suspended whilst they upgraded the system to meet the new standards that came in with the TMA 2004, what should they have done carried on using non compliant cameras? The article is so lacking in credibility due to its obvious bias it makes the Daily Mail look like responsible journalism.

[Tony P]

There are LOADS more being heard at PATAS this weekend !!!

 

That was post No 9 above, on 22 November, over 2 weeks ago.

Presumably referring to 26th November.

 

Any news?

[green_and_mean]

That was post No 9 above, on 22 November, over 2 weeks ago.

Presumably referring to 26th November.

 

Any news?

 

Case Reference:2110430892Appellant:Miss Ann Patricia WatkinsAuthority:WestminsterVRM:LS55FAJPCN:WM68571112Contravention Date:15 Jun 2011Contravention Time:09:17Contravention Location:Craven RoadPenalty Amount:£130.00Contravention:Parked in a restricted streetDecision Date:30 Nov 2011Adjudicator:Carl TeperAppeal Decision:AllowedDirection:cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.Reasons:The Enforcement Authority were represented by Mr James Couser of Counsel and Ms Kelly Donovan, a solicitor and its Head of Legal and Democratic Services. Ms Sara Sutton, who is the Service Delivery Manager for Parking Services in the Authority's City Management Commissioning Unit, has attended as a witness.

 

The Appellant, who did not attend, was represented by Mr Barrie Segal.

 

Principal facts

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours when in Craven Road on 15 June 2011 at 09.17.

 

The Appellant's case is that she was working as a Licensed Hackney taxi driver and was picking up a passenger who was making his way to the Appellant's taxi; a letter had been produced by Dial A Cab to confirm this and has been exhibited.

 

Issues over camera certification

Mr Segal argues that the Authority has not produced an approved device certificate from the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) for the camera used in this case. The certificate produced by the Authority states that 'Camera: DVTel 9840' has been approved, however, the Schedule refers to camera model '9840A'.

 

Mr Segal argues that the camera that has been used in this case is not the device that has been given departmental approval.

 

In relation to the approved device certificate Ms Sutton gave evidence and produced relevant documents from the VCA, relevant emails, and a letter from the Managing Director of DVTel that stated that they were engaged by Westminster in partnership with Telindus and Vertex, as its technology contractors, to upgrade its CCTV stock to achieve authorisation from the VCA.

 

In light of the evidence I received I make the following findings of fact:

 

First, the Authority's Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) ceased being used for the enforcement of parking contraventions in March 2009 because the VCA did not consider that the resolution capability of those camera devices met the standard required by the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport.

 

Second, the Authority's entire stock of DVTel 9840 cameras was modified and upgraded to meet the Secretary of State's requirement, which involved the phased roll out of encoder boards to existing camera device assets on-street, and the installation of associated software that enabled its cameras to render the required resolution.

 

Third, that the certification of an approved device is documented within a Technical Construction File (TCF) which must be sufficiently detailed to allow that document to be assessed by the VCA as meeting the prescribed standards.

 

Fourth, I find that this solution - that is, that described in its TCF - was applied to Westminster's entire existing asset stock of camera devices, which is the same stock that existed on-street prior to March 2009.

 

Fifth, on 18 February 2010 the VCA wrote to Westminster confirming that its TCF met the Secretary of State's requirements.

 

Sixth, following the VCA confirmation that Westminster's solution had been authorised, the CCTV camera devices were returned to service.

 

Seventh, I find that the 'A' suffix was introduced by DVTel as an internal code to track 9840 cameras installed with the new encoders, which is the same camera as part of an upgraded device.

 

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I find that the 'A' was introduced by DVTel as a reference to the encoder type and not the camera type. The camera itself did not change and has been correctly described as both a DVTel9840, which is a series, and a DVTel9840A, which is a specific model.

The passenger boarding exemption

Picking up and setting down of passengers is permitted at this location. The authority has produced the Traffic Management Order, which refers to the setting down and picking up exemption as being for as long 'as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling any person to board or alight from the vehicle or to load thereon or unload there from his personal luggage'.

 

The CCTV footage shows the Appellant's vehicle stopped simply for 2 minutes and 31 seconds near the corner of a turning to its right. Counsel for the authority argued that I should consider the manner of the parking in this case (which was not of the best) as a factor in determining whether the picking up or setting down exemption should apply. I find such argument weak, and if I am wrong and it does have some weight, it would make no difference to my decision in this case.

 

I find that the Appellant's vehicle was necessarily stopped for a couple of minutes, and that it is unreasonable to expect passengers to be waiting on the street when ordering private hire cars or booked black taxis.

 

In this case I find, on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's passenger was making his way to the Appellant's vehicle. I find that such activity falls within the picking up exemption. The Authority's evidence does not demonstrate adequately to me that an unlawful or indeed excessive time was taken for passenger pick up in all the circumstances of this case.

I am satisfied that in this case the Appellant has discharged the burden, on a balance of probabilities, of proving that the exemption applies.

 

The appeal is allowed.

[Tony P]

Thanks G&M.

 

One!

I was expecting "LOADS".

Was that hyperbole or did the camera approval argument similarly fail in the rest of the "LOADS" of other cases?

 

But, HEY!

Looking deeper, I see that was on Tuesday.

What happened at the weekend to the "LOADS" that remains unchanged, in whatever that means as numbers of cases?

[green_and_mean]

Thanks G&M.

 

One!

I was expecting "LOADS".

Was that hyperbole or did the camera approval argument similarly fail in the rest of the "LOADS" of other cases?

 

But, HEY!

Looking deeper, I see that was on Tuesday.

What happened at the weekend to the "LOADS" that remains unchanged, in whatever that means as numbers of cases?

 

There are a number that got scheduled for the saturday but have not had the results published so they are probably adjourned. Loads of WCC CCTV are still getting upheld without mention of the issue its only the ones assisted by Mr Segal or Notomob that bring up the VCA issue but it now seems WCC are approved for the reasons I highlighted earlier in the thread so that argument is dead in the water but I doubt the press will publish that story its not as gripping as having to refund millions.

[SURFBOY]

So are they going to "refund millions" ?

[green_and_mean]

So are they going to "refund millions" ?

 

Why would they when the cameras are approved??