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

[Jamberson]

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).

 

The last part of my post was sarcastic - but also makes a serious point: what do you want exactly?

 

You have asked your questions and you have been given answers to them. I am now trying to work out why you are not satisfied. I went through several of the points you asked for clarity on and told you what you wanted to know. So - seriously - why won't that do?

 

You have interpreted the rules incorrectly (sorry!) and your PCNs have been issued within the rules (sorry!).

[Desperate Daniella]

Okay. I will have a look tomorrow.

 

I'm very surprised that from what you have said it is so very difficult to drop off your children at the school. My daughter's school always appeals any tickets where they have been incurred for five minutes or so on a single yellow or in the pay and display without paying £1.50. The wardens don't usually issue them anyway. If we see a warden and explain that someone is dropping off or picking up they are usually pretty reasonable.

 

With a mobile camera of course there is no discretion.

 

Would the school not be helpful here? Maybe they could arrange some drop off spaces and the children could be met by a team of teachers who escort them into school?

[violet0sky]

So where do people park when dropping off their children? Are there any legal parking spaces, or does everyone have to stop on the yellow lines?

 

Hopefully I have managed to add an attachment - the added problem in the area is the number of wide driveways etc, as it really reduces parking dramatically!

[Jamberson]

Okay. I will have a look tomorrow.

 

I'm very surprised that from what you have said it is so very difficult to drop off your children at the school. My daughter's school always appeals any tickets where they have been incurred for five minutes or so on a single yellow or in the pay and display without paying £1.50. The wardens don't usually issue them anyway. If we see a warden and explain that someone is dropping off or picking up they are usually pretty reasonable.

 

With a mobile camera of course there is no discretion.

 

Would the school not be helpful here? Maybe they could arrange some drop off spaces and the children could be met by a team of teachers who escort them into school?

 

There is another side to it: parked cars pose a risk to children if they block the view of both pedestrians and drivers. Many schools, and indeed parents, are keen to see greater enforcement near schools to try and stop people parking nearby. Very few people need to park on top of the school and it does cause problems. I guess that's why some schools are not tollerant.

[violet0sky]

Okay. I will have a look tomorrow.

 

I'm very surprised that from what you have said it is so very difficult to drop off your children at the school. My daughter's school always appeals any tickets where they have been incurred for five minutes or so on a single yellow or in the pay and display without paying £1.50. The wardens don't usually issue them anyway. If we see a warden and explain that someone is dropping off or picking up they are usually pretty reasonable.

 

With a mobile camera of course there is no discretion.

 

Would the school not be helpful here? Maybe they could arrange some drop off spaces and the children could be met by a team of teachers who escort them into school?

 

I believe I have managed the attachment lol!

Its school pick-up that creates the biggest problem

[violet0sky]

There is another side to it: parked cars pose a risk to children if they block the view of both pedestrians and drivers. Many schools, and indeed parents, are keen to see greater enforcement near schools to try and stop people parking nearby. Very few people need to park on top of the school and it does cause problems. I guess that's why some schools are not tollerant.

 

I agree with this view completely, but this is not the case here.

I'll attache another pic that will hopefully show this :/

[violet0sky]

The last part of my post was sarcastic - but also makes a serious point: what do you want exactly?

 

You have asked your questions and you have been given answers to them. I am now trying to work out why you are not satisfied. I went through several of the points you asked for clarity on and told you what you wanted to know. So - seriously - why won't that do?

 

You have interpreted the rules incorrectly (sorry!) and your PCNs have been issued within the rules (sorry!).

 

If I have interpreted the rules incorrectly, I need someone to explain HOW I have done so.......................

Taking the 3 main points below, please can you explain how the council have acted correctly, and how I have managed to misinterpret the rules:

 

1. From the guidance notes – traffic management act 2004 – “The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical”

.....The council have claimed that parents seeing a traffic warden would run back to their vehicles, to move them quickly before receiving a ticket – and that this poses a danger to the children!

.....Is this really a valid reason???

 

2. Department for Transport’s Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking and Enforcement states – “The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions”

.....The council seem to have claimed signs are only necessary for static cameras – but the above doesn’t seem to say that to me!

 

3. Innocent until proven guilty - regardless of how long I was stopped for, the actual ‘evidence’ is not long enough to actually prove this – nor can it ‘prove’ I wasn’t just dropping somebody off.

.....This has to be based on fact, not opinion surely?

[Jamberson]

If I have interpreted the rules incorrectly, I need someone to explain HOW I have done so.......................

Taking the 3 main points below, please can you explain how the council have acted correctly, and how I have managed to misinterpret the rules:

 

1. From the guidance notes – traffic management act 2004 – “The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical”

.....The council have claimed that parents seeing a traffic warden would run back to their vehicles, to move them quickly before receiving a ticket – and that this poses a danger to the children!

.....Is this really a valid reason???

 

Yes it is a valid reason. It is one you are free to disagree with, but it is perfectly reasonable for the council to take that view. It is one I tend to agree with. Having a man on the spot trying to deal with multiple short-term parking issues with cars coming and going and the possibility of drivers arguing with them while they are trying to do the job is not, on the face of it, the best way for enforcement to be conducted, and of course drivers would take advantage and clear off while the CEO was tied up somewhere else. Yes, hastily moving cars trying to make a get away, and the opportunity to exploit the situation would logically increase the dangers. Disagree if you wish - but the issue is your PCN and if you disagree, that isn't grounds to get it cancelled.

 

2. Department for Transport’s Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking and Enforcement states – “The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions”

.....The council seem to have claimed signs are only necessary for static cameras – but the above doesn’t seem to say that to me!

 

I believe their interpretation is correct. Signs are in-situ continually for situations where cameras are in-situ continually. A mobile device can't have signs up everywhere it goes, or there'd be no point in it being mobile.

 

3. Innocent until proven guilty - regardless of how long I was stopped for, the actual ‘evidence’ is not long enough to actually prove this – nor can it ‘prove’ I wasn’t just dropping somebody off.

.....This has to be based on fact, not opinion surely?

 

You are not innocent until proven guilty. There are a few areas of law - parking is one - where you are guilty unless you demonstrate to the contrary. That's legal, and that's the way the system works and it has been tested right up to the House of Lords.

 

Does this explain to some extent how you have misinterpreted the rules?

Edited May 9, 2013 by Jamberson

[sailor sam]

Im' also struggling to understand the problem here. You are allowed to stop on a yellow line (even double) for the purpose of dropping off and picking up providing that you are not stopped for any longer than necessary to do so. I believe it comes under 'boarding and alighting exemptions'. Further more, I think there is also an exemption for assisting a 'vulnerable' person (such as a very young child) into a building. If the OP feels so strongly about being issued with a PCN (from whatever method), then why does he/she not use the appeal process and if necessary, take it to the independent adjudicator?

 

I personally believe that CCTV cameras should be used outside ALL schools to enforce parking restrictions, more so for stopping on the zig zag markings (when supported by the relevant clearway signage). Most parking restrictions outside schools are put there for very good reason and most parents seem to routinely ignore them when they think no one is carrying out enforcement. Strange then that when 'stealth' enforcement is used, people complain at getting caught.

 

To the OP, go through the appeal process all the way to PATAS. They will decide whether your arguments are correct or not. They are independent to the LA.

 

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.

[violet0sky]

It does explain how you believe I have misinterpreted the rules.

I can see some points, but I do still believe my understanding is largely correct - mainly as I have read most of it in legal documents etc. I do think I need to provide more evidence than I have already though - I did think it was enough, but can see more evidence from legal documents might be necessary.

[Jamberson]

Yes. That's exactly right. If you check post 1, the OP had already appealed on a series of pointless arguments, and wanted to sound us out as to whether the councl was right to reject them. Pretty much everything since has been an exchange as to whether those arguments are right or wrong. The OP seems to be agreeing that they committed the contravention - there could well be reasons as to why they did not, but these have not been raised. You can indeed stop on a yellow line to let passengers out and assist them into the building - were that the appeal grounds, or the issue on which advice ws being sought, we could discuss it sensibly.

[Jamberson]

It does explain how you believe I have misinterpreted the rules.

I can see some points, but I do still believe my understanding is largely correct - mainly as I have read most of it in legal documents etc. I do think I need to provide more evidence than I have already though - I did think it was enough, but can see more evidence from legal documents might be necessary.

 

Which legal documents?

[violet0sky]

Which legal documents?

 

I'm going to need to look them up again

[green_and_mean]

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.

 

Again a completely flawed argument that is used by those too lazy, selfish or stupid to bother adhering to driving regulations. Parking attendants patrol areas where people drive regardless of each motorists right to park, using your logic no one would ever park in a town that employs parking attendants because everyone would think parking was not allowed. Do you also speed because the signs only apply if you see a Police traffic patrol?

Would you have sympathy with this person......?

 

Hello today I got caught on cctv stealing a DVD from HMV and have to go to court. I think it is really unfair as there were no security staff at the exit or signs saying cctv was being used. I know its wrong to steal but if honest people paid a bit more for the goods then the store could employ people to stand at the door reminding people stealing is a crime. Most people only steal because they think they will get away with it if they had more security staff people would just stick to the law. Using cctv to catch innocent people like me that only steal because we think no one is looking is wrong and should be banned, will I get off if I say this in Court?

[Kiki1]

To the OP, go through the appeal process all the way to PATAS. They will decide whether your arguments are correct or not. They are independent to the LA.

 

Not true, PATAS is directly funded by a percentage of the PCN issued, more PCNs, more money into the coffers.

The adjudication is nothing more than an option following an notice to owner, and by using the service prevents the registered keeper from complaining to the local government ombudsman, which appears to be a viable way to go for the o/p.

[Desperate Daniella]

Also, with respect to Sailor Sam, I don't think putting in an appeal to PATAS can possibly work here because they only allow nine grounds of appeal, and someone at PATAS very kindly informed me that if they get any appeals on any other grounds they are automatically refused. So it is Catch 22. What I did was to write back to the Local Authority who had issued the ticket (not the situation I mentioned above btw, something else) and say that although they were telling me I had a right of appeal PATAS had told me that I couldn't appeal on the grounds I wished to appeal on (because they weren't included in the PATAS list of grounds for appeal) and so therefore they were in fact not allowing me to make an appeal. And they decided "on this occasion" to cancel the ticket.

 

I agree with Kiki1. I wouldn't appeal to PATAS, but you could try a letter along the lines of the one I sent.

[Desperate Daniella]

The problem is that in many cases parking restrictions are discretionary. They shouldn't be, but they are. I live in what used to be a very quiet street, but over the past few years the installation of a bus lane nearby and the closure of another road has meant that my street is used as a cut through, usually by maniacs going at 40 mph in a 20 mph zone. (I'm really thinking of moving. )

 

As some residents in the street are concerned about their wing mirrors since the traffic problems started many residents (not me) have started parking with one wheel on the pavement on the totally unrestricted parking side of the street. On the other side of the road are single yellow lines in operation until 8.00 p.m., and occasionally residents park there overnight with one wheel on the pavement, as actually suggested by the local PCSO to keep the road a bit wider.

 

Some months ago a friend of mine visited, saw cars parked on the unrestricted side of the road with one wheel on the pavement, so parked on the yellow line side of the street in the same fashion and as it was past 8.00 p.m. that should also have been considered to be unrestricted parking. But she received a ticket. Obviously she appealed and at first they refused to accept the appeal. However, when presented with evidence that other cars had parked in the same manner on the same night, and sent the photos, they told her it "was discretionary". When she wrote back to say that the law couldn't be discretionary, they cancelled the ticket.

 

I think Violet's main issue here though is the number of tickets, which must amount to over £200 I would think, and she has been caught by what appears to be a new camera van patrolling the area, just as I was caught by a newly installed CCTV as I explained above. If the Council has previously allowed some discretion, and allowed people to park on single yellow lines for a short time in order to collect their children from school, and the Council has now decided not to allow this any longer then I think she does have a point.

[Desperate Daniella]

I have just looked at your photographs, and I just don't see where you are supposed to park. It's a great pity the school can't get agreement from the small number of residents for cars to enter the school grounds, drop off their children and exit. That would be a lot less chaotic than people having to park on yellow lines.

 

Jamberson says above that you can stop to let out a passenger and escort them into a building, but does that also work if you park your car to enter a building and collect a passenger?

 

Either way, I think this needs to go back to the local parking control, not PATAS.

[BazzaS]

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

 

To my mind, CAG is a great resource. Where someone has made a mistake and accepts responsibility they should be given help & advice.

 

Where someone is looking for an option to "get out of it on a technicality" or initially says "I hold my hands up to it I was wrong" but then comes back with "but it wasn't my fault, I saw the yellow lines but expect a CEO to be stood there warning me as well!" : is criticising that later statement being judgemental or passing fair comment?

 

dx : can you point me in the direction of CAG guidelines as to when a reply is "judgemental" or when it might be viewed as "fair comment"?

[Desperate Daniella]

Sorry, but where does it say Violet "repeatedly did it too even after being told by the ceo"? I thought the first she knew of the PCNs was when she received them in the post. I didn't see anywhere that she'd already been told by a ceo not to park there.

[sailor sam]

To my mind, CAG is a great resource. Where someone has made a mistake and accepts responsibility they should be given help & advice.

 

Where someone is looking for an option to "get out of it on a technicality" or initially says "I hold my hands up to it I was wrong" but then comes back with "but it wasn't my fault, I saw the yellow lines but expect a CEO to be stood there warning me as well!" : is criticising that later statement being judgemental or passing fair comment?

 

dx : can you point me in the direction of CAG guidelines as to when a reply is "judgemental" or when it might be viewed as "fair comment"?

 

I also wondered that on a public transport thread about the deliberate miss-use of a concessionary free pass. The OP in that one actually admitted her 'crime' but we still got accused of being judgemental and 'putting the frightners up her' when she wasn't shown enough 'sympathy'. I don't appreciate putting my free time into being expected to help someone who has clearly abused a facility that they are not entitled to.

 

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.

[assisted blonde]

Park away from the school and walk then you wont get caught, and please don't tell me you cant park within a reasonable distance, also not keen on the ideas of stopping briefly to let children out and teachers taking them in (think they have enough to do) or letting a small number of cars into the school (again needs to be controlled by a person pos a teacher)

[Desperate Daniella]

I also wondered that on a public transport thread about the deliberate miss-use of a concessionary free pass. The OP in that one actually admitted her 'crime' but we still got accused of being judgemental and 'putting the frightners up her' when she wasn't shown enough 'sympathy'. I don't appreciate putting my free time into being expected to help someone who has clearly abused a facility that they are not entitled to.

 

I was extremely judgmental on another thread last month. The three threads the OP had started were about leaving a garage without paying for petrol, using someone else's travel card, and being caught shoplifting, and they seemed to expect sympathy.

[Desperate Daniella]

Park away from the school and walk then you wont get caught, and please don't tell me you cant park within a reasonable distance, also not keen on the ideas of stopping briefly to let children out and teachers taking them in (think they have enough to do) or letting a small number of cars into the school (again needs to be controlled by a person pos a teacher)

 

Obviously this depends on the size and layout of the school. We drive round the car park to the stopping zone (two cars) and hand our children over to the teachers, or collect them there at the end of the day. Then continue round and go out. You don't have to use the car park but I usually do because it's less hassle than getting a ticket even if the school will appeal for you. You are all moving in the same direction and as they see you in the queue your child is lined up and ready to jump in at the stopping zone and nowhere else. You are not allowed to park. The teachers are on a rota for car park duty, and only have to do it for half an hour once or twice a month so it's not too bad for them either.

[violet0sky]

I don't think there is any need for posts like this. It's just plain rude!

I assume that if you have children, you bring them up to treat others as you wish to be treated? that calling people names, and insulting people is not acceptable behaviour! Yet, even though you KNOW this is wrong, it is exactly what you are doing to me! The difference is, that doing this, and stealing, are things that are done with intention - therefore, they are completely preventable at ALL times.

The examples I gave were all things that can be done / happen inadvertently! By being forgetful, or not paying close enough attention.

So, before you decide to throw any more insults at anyone, think about what you are doing!!!!!

 

Again a completely flawed argument that is used by those too lazy, selfish or stupid to bother adhering to driving regulations. Parking attendants patrol areas where people drive regardless of each motorists right to park, using your logic no one would ever park in a town that employs parking attendants because everyone would think parking was not allowed. Do you also speed because the signs only apply if you see a Police traffic patrol?

Would you have sympathy with this person......?

 

Hello today I got caught on cctv stealing a DVD from HMV and have to go to court. I think it is really unfair as there were no security staff at the exit or signs saying cctv was being used. I know its wrong to steal but if honest people paid a bit more for the goods then the store could employ people to stand at the door reminding people stealing is a crime. Most people only steal because they think they will get away with it if they had more security staff people would just stick to the law. Using cctv to catch innocent people like me that only steal because we think no one is looking is wrong and should be banned, will I get off if I say this in Court?