Jump to content


use of cctv car around school areas **All PCNs Revoked**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3954 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

OK - this is my first post on a forum, so please be gentle :-) Even if it is a tad long winded :/

 

I have received 3 PCNs for being 'parked' in the same spot on 3 occasions near my daughters school - on single yellow lines with time restrictions. They arrived in the post up to 2 weeks after the alleged contraventions. All were received well after the final contravention.

There are time restrictions I am now aware of, but didn't notice before due to cars always being parked there at school drop off and pick up times.

I have appealed and have today received the rejection notices from the council.

My grounds for appeal (A), and the council responses ® are as follows (not full wording, but you'll get the idea):

 

A1. CCTV enforcement not necessary - plenty of space on full sized pavement areas throughout the area so perfectly safe for foot patrol.

R1. Not practical for foot patrol as parents could run to cars to quickly move the vehicles in order to avoid a ticket - in doing so, this would put children in danger due to moving vehicles.

 

A2. No signs to state CCTV used in the area (very quiet semi-rural area) to enforce parking restrictions.

R2. Response basically states signs only needed for static cameras.

 

A3. Video evidence less than 2 seconds long - therefore cannot prove the vehicle was parked - I was in the driving seat with engine running on all 3 occasions - although not visible on the video evidence. It was also not able to see the passenger side - the viseo not long enough to even see if I had a passenger alighting.

R3. Stopping / waiting not permitted during restricted times, therefore, as soon as car stopped, the contravention occurred.

 

A4. video footage shows single yellow lines, but not the signs showing restrictions in place.

R4. the footage shows signs at both ends of the road the vehicle was 'parked' on (you can see there are signs there, but not what they say at all).

 

A5. between the date of the first 'contravention', and the date the first PCN arrived in the post, I could have 'parked' on the same spot 24 times before it was brought to my attention that I shouldn't be doing. This shows the primary objective of 'prevention' clearly hasn't been met. If restrictions there to keep children safe, this effectively means they knowingly allowed the children to obe in danger for nearly 2 weeks.

R5. It is drivers responsibility to ensure they are parked legally.

 

A6. the camera car turned right onto the road where I was 'parked'. The angle of the corner from the other direction means the camera car could not pick up the registration of the car parked on that corner on 2 of the 3 occasions. Therefore, cars parked on the corner of a junction can't have received parking fines, which the driver of the camera car would be aware of. Therefore, they knowingly allow cars to park illegally with no penalty, or warning that they should not park there.

R6. Other cars on those days in that area received tickets - cannot comment on which cars.

 

A7. No statement from the issuing CEO on the PCNs

R7. None necessary

 

I guess I'm looking for reassurance that I'm not going mad!!!!

Surely I have enough to win...... don't I?

There response R1 should be enough I would have thought - can't see how that could stand up to scrutiny!

 

If anyone can confirm any or all of these points, or point out why they may be invalid, I'd appreciate it.

Many thanks

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Green_and_mean

Indeed I was.

I should have clarified - I'm sorry!

I actually have no problem whatsoever in paying the first fine - I was in the wrong!

What I object to is the use of mobile camera cars as a means of generating income - especially if it is done on the back of a claim that they are doing it to keep children safe!

Where I was parked is well away from the school. The single yellow lines were put there before a huge road block area was built (Google images of the area is that old that the pic is before the block was built). To be honest, I honestly can't see that the time restriction where I was parked is still necessary - but that is by the by!

The council claim they are trying to make the area safer for children, but their actions are doing the opposite.

Had a CEO approached me and either warned me, or issued a ticket, on the first occasion, I wouldn't have stopped there again. Therefore, their main objectives would have been met!

The first occasion was 15 minutes before the afternoon school bell, and the camera car could have easily parked up and issued me a ticket in person - with no danger posed to the children!

 

Actually - there is another question somebody may be able to answer - the time restrictions I have spoken of are between the hours of 2pm and 4pm. The school bell rings at 3.30pm, and many children stay in school until 4.30pm for after school clubs. Surely the time restrictions should be 3pm to 5pm - that way it would make more sense!

Can anybody tell me why they would use a 2-4 restriction??

I'm easily confused by these things :p

Edited by violet0sky
Link to post
Share on other sites

CCTV collection needs to be taken up with the government if you think it objectionable. Don't object by not paying, the costs will rise and can be in the hundreds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCTV collection needs to be taken up with the government if you think it objectionable. Don't object by not paying, the costs will rise and can be in the hundreds.

 

No worries - I won't be objecting by not paying.

I'm going through the appeal processes etc. If they rule that I have to pay, then I will.

But I will never accept that they have issued the tickets legally - they have shown quite clearly (I think) that they aren't abiding by the rules and regulations they are meant to!

Link to post
Share on other sites

generating income or not

 

sadly you should not be parked there.

 

I cannot for one minute believe you were not aware it should not be done.

 

as the driver of the car you are in control of what it does.

 

you are in control of where you park it.

 

I cant see how you are ever going to 'win'

 

you should not need to be 'fined' to realise you should not be doing it.

 

dx

 

you repeatedly did it too even after being told by the ceo

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of your objections seem to be of any real substance. Some of your complaints are that the enforcement could be done better by capturing more cars, changing the hours etc. That might be true, but it's hardly a reason for your PCNs to be cancelled.

 

The point about whether the yellow line is necessary or whether that location really does pose a danger is a matter of opinion, and is also not relevant. You can't judge as an individual whether a yellow line should or should not be enforced. Likewise with the issue of whether cameras are necessary or efficient - it's just an opinion and not grounds for appeal in itself.

 

You say you would have not parked there again, had you been told - that's what the signs and lines are there for. The yellow line itself is telling you that the location is restricted.

 

Sorry, I can't see you have a case. Check whether you are entitled to a discounted payment because if you are, but you opt to fight it out, then you will end up paying much more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this will be the first and last time I post on here!

I can handle people disagreeing with me, but it seems my points are being missed in favour of judging me, and having assumptions made about me!

I have said that I have no problem paying the first fine.

My queries have been about the legalities of they way things have been done. And their motives!

 

dx100uk

As I said, the 3 tickets arrived in the post nearly 2 weeks after the date of the 3rd contravention.

No, I wasn't aware of the time restriction! Yes, it's my responsibility to check where I should and shouldn't stop, but I didn't - every time I have done the school run the entire area with the single yellow lines has been full of cars parked there, so I didn't think to check. Had a trafic warden been stood there I still would have stopped there - the difference is that they could have pointed out my error easily (and fined me if they wanted to) rather than allowing the practice to go on.

 

Despite the camera car driving round the area, the parking habits have not changed at all - the area is still covered with cars every day. Largely because people are unaware that the camera car is taking videos - most I have spoken to that have seen the car believe it is driving around looking for people parking illegally so that they can get out of the car and issue any necessary tickets.

If every car that stops there and gets caught has to wait 2 weeks before they find out, its easy to see how the parking issues never improve. If there was a traffic warden there in person, issuing tickets, it sends out a clear signal to those that get a ticket, and everybody watching. Seeing the camera car drive around, and not 'appear' to issue any tickets sends out a signal that it's ok to park there.

If they truly believe the yellow lines are there to keep the children safe, they should put a traffic warden there periodically, and actively deter parking on the yellow lines, not just use child safety as an excuse to raise revenue!

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of your objections seem to be of any real substance. Some of your complaints are that the enforcement could be done better by capturing more cars, changing the hours etc. That might be true, but it's hardly a reason for your PCNs to be cancelled.

 

The point about whether the yellow line is necessary or whether that location really does pose a danger is a matter of opinion, and is also not relevant. You can't judge as an individual whether a yellow line should or should not be enforced. Likewise with the issue of whether cameras are necessary or efficient - it's just an opinion and not grounds for appeal in itself.

 

You say you would have not parked there again, had you been told - that's what the signs and lines are there for. The yellow line itself is telling you that the location is restricted.

 

Sorry, I can't see you have a case. Check whether you are entitled to a discounted payment because if you are, but you opt to fight it out, then you will end up paying much more.

 

 

Capturing more cars................. my point was that cars parked on the corner of a junction (where I believe is commonly thought of as most 'dangerous') were knowingly being left to park there with no penalty. If child safety is the issue, the council should make sure ALL cars parked incorrectly are made aware of their errors - regardless of the fact that they should, in theory, already know!

My belief that they yellow lines are not necessary did not make up any part of my appeal - I said myself "that's by the by", indicating that I know it is not relevant to the appeal.

Cameras necessary or efficient.............. again, not part of my argument! Knowingly issuing tickets to some cars, but not others is fundamentally wrong. At no point have I said if I think they are necessary or not - my point is that I believe the camera cars are not allowed to be used for this purpose (according to statutory guidelines, and the traffic management act), and go no way to add to the safety of children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see your point here. Obviously you shouldn't have parked without checking the restrictions, but something similar happened to me a few years ago. At a particular branch of my bank there were yellow lines, but if you wanted to stop for literally a minute or two in order to rush in and drop an envelope in the quick deposit box the wardens were actually fine with it and would never give you a ticket. Then, just like you, I received four PCNs within two days for parking there, for less than two minutes each time, because the council had installed a new CCTV camera facing the exact spot outside the bank doors where dozens of people parked for a couple of minutes every day. There were no signs there either. I did appeal by saying the wardens had always allowed people to park there but I couldn't identify the wardens by name, and I was told the wardens did not have the authority to allow people to park there.

 

Like you I was very aggrieved because if I had been given one ticket for parking where I did then I would not have had to pay four penalty charges.

 

I thought that CCTV cars could issue tickets wherever they saw an offence.

 

You mentioned that you were some way from the school. What happens about pick up/drop off closer to the school?

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what the contravention was as stated on the tickets? Your OP mentions 'stopping' rather than 'waiting'. This suggests that it is not a SYL offence.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A| yellow line normally means no paking although in somje areas you are allowed to park at certain times, its up to you to check them. TBH 2 weeks isn't that long for a parking ticket to be issued,posted and arrive. Finally I would say if you are unhappy with the use of cameras take it up with your MP

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what the contravention was as stated on the tickets? Your OP mentions 'stopping' rather than 'waiting'. This suggests that it is not a SYL offence.

 

Hi.

The notice reads:

"Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also found this................

 

Traffic Management Act 2004 – The Secretary of States Statutory Guidance notes state:

“Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply”

 

Blue Badge holders are allowed to park/wait there I believe!

 

To be clear, again, I have no problem with any method of law enforcement, as long as it is carried out within the rules, and for the right reasons!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If every car that stops there and gets caught has to wait 2 weeks before they find out, its easy to see how the parking issues never improve. If there was a traffic warden there in person, issuing tickets, it sends out a clear signal to those that get a ticket, and everybody watching. Seeing the camera car drive around, and not 'appear' to issue any tickets sends out a signal that it's ok to park there.

If they truly believe the yellow lines are there to keep the children safe, they should put a traffic warden there periodically, and actively deter parking on the yellow lines, not just use child safety as an excuse to raise revenue!

 

 

I was a bit sympathetic to start with but now I'm just lost for words. Yellow lines are in the highway code and get painted for a reason, why should the Council pay a traffic warden to stand on them warning people to move on? What sort of numpty needs to receive a PCN to determine if its ok to park in a location? CCTV is actually very effective and raises compliance within weeks of it being used and for a law abiding driver its actually beneficial if a PCN is issued in error as its no longer the word of a CEO to argue against the entire event will be on film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capturing more cars................. my point was that cars parked on the corner of a junction (where I believe is commonly thought of as most 'dangerous') were knowingly being left to park there with no penalty. If child safety is the issue, the council should make sure ALL cars parked incorrectly are made aware of their errors - regardless of the fact that they should, in theory, already know!

My belief that they yellow lines are not necessary did not make up any part of my appeal - I said myself "that's by the by", indicating that I know it is not relevant to the appeal.

Cameras necessary or efficient.............. again, not part of my argument! Knowingly issuing tickets to some cars, but not others is fundamentally wrong. At no point have I said if I think they are necessary or not - my point is that I believe the camera cars are not allowed to be used for this purpose (according to statutory guidelines, and the traffic management act), and go no way to add to the safety of children.

 

Maybe you didn't want the answers you got? If I were you I'd be more interested in reality than just hearing what you want. If you go back over my points, you'll see that I took the time to address some of your issues with pertinent, factual information. (No need to thank me.)

 

Your reply is just bewildering. You say things like "cameras... at no point have I said if I think they are necessary or not" - look at your first post - "A1. CCTV enforcement not necessary".

 

I responded to that statement by pointing out correctly that making such a value judgement is not grounds for appeal. That is correct and what you need to be told if you raise the issue.

 

Or would you prefer this: It's OUTRAGEOUS! You can sue the council. Write to your MP and call the police. You are 100 percent correct and the penalty MUST be quashed in a COURT OF LAW.

 

Happy with that instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you didn't want the answers you got? If I were you I'd be more interested in reality than just hearing what you want. If you go back over my points, you'll see that I took the time to address some of your issues with pertinent, factual information. (No need to thank me.)

 

Your reply is just bewildering. You say things like "cameras... at no point have I said if I think they are necessary or not" - look at your first post - "A1. CCTV enforcement not necessary".

 

I responded to that statement by pointing out correctly that making such a value judgement is not grounds for appeal. That is correct and what you need to be told if you raise the issue.

 

Or would you prefer this: It's OUTRAGEOUS! You can sue the council. Write to your MP and call the police. You are 100 percent correct and the penalty MUST be quashed in a COURT OF LAW.

 

Happy with that instead?

 

 

 

 

Camera's should only be used when foot patrol is dangerous / not practical etc................ my understanding of the statutory guidance notes would be "camera use not necessary for this location" - not my opinion, the rules are clearly stated as far as I can tell.

My posting on this site was to see if I have interpreted the rules / guidance / laws correctly - but it seems that is not what most want to do!!!

Telling me I shouldn't have stopped there is pointless, as I already know that.

Your sarcastic attitude at the end of this post is unnecessary, and insulting! You have made a judgement on me, and it seems to have clouded your understanding of the legal points I have raised.

I have stated, several times now, that I am happy to pay one of the fines - my argument is against the way they have been issued - have they been issued within the guidelines and the rules (I think not) - and are they achieving their goal of improving the safety of the children (I think not).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Camera's should only be used when foot patrol is dangerous / not practical etc................ my understanding of the statutory guidance notes would be "camera use not necessary for this location" - not my opinion, the rules are clearly stated as far as I can tell.

 

Where does it state in the 'rules' that cameras cannot be used outside your school? I'll help you answer....nowhere! It is only your opinion that its not justified, where as in fact your account of the situation states just the opposite and its perfectly justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit sympathetic to start with but now I'm just lost for words. Yellow lines are in the highway code and get painted for a reason, why should the Council pay a traffic warden to stand on them warning people to move on? What sort of numpty needs to receive a PCN to determine if its ok to park in a location? CCTV is actually very effective and raises compliance within weeks of it being used and for a law abiding driver its actually beneficial if a PCN is issued in error as its no longer the word of a CEO to argue against the entire event will be on film.

 

In an ideal world we would all be perfect, but we are neither!

Seeing dozens of cars all parked on the single yellow lines every day - and never seeing any sign of tickets being issued - the reality is that most will not check the signs - in the back of peoples minds is "how can everyone else be wrong?". I believe most people will have received a parking fine at some point, or a speeding ticket, or a fine for taking a book back to the library too late - we all make mistakes - but we expect those mistakes to be dealt with appropriately!

The CCTV camera car has had absolutely no effect on the parking around the area at all.

Most of us are visual learners. If we see a traffic warden, we look for a reason for them to be there. A few days of that, and therefore seeing no cars parked on the single yellow lines for a few days, and the cycle could be broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit sympathetic to start with but now I'm just lost for words. Yellow lines are in the highway code and get painted for a reason, why should the Council pay a traffic warden to stand on them warning people to move on? What sort of numpty needs to receive a PCN to determine if its ok to park in a location? CCTV is actually very effective and raises compliance within weeks of it being used and for a law abiding driver its actually beneficial if a PCN is issued in error as its no longer the word of a CEO to argue against the entire event will be on film.

 

In an ideal world we would all be perfect, but we are neither!

Seeing dozens of cars all parked on the single yellow lines every day - and never seeing any sign of tickets being issued - the reality is that most will not check the signs - in the back of peoples minds is "how can everyone else be wrong?". I believe most people will have received a parking fine at some point, or a speeding ticket, or a fine for taking a book back to the library too late - we all make mistakes - but we expect those mistakes to be dealt with appropriately!

The CCTV camera car has had absolutely no effect on the parking around the area at all.

Most of us are visual learners. If we see a traffic warden, we look for a reason for them to be there. A few days of that, and therefore seeing no cars parked on the single yellow lines for a few days, and the cycle could be broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I should point out that a this site has actually given me a large amount of the information my appeals have been based on..... not least this post:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?306531-Parking-Adjudicators-report-on-CCTV-enforcement&highlight=parking+adjudicators+report+on+cctv+enforcement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...