cctv parking fine

[bjm]

Hi

Just received a cctv PCN from city of london.The contravention is for

"PARKED IN A PARKING PLACE OR AREA NOT DESIGNATED FOR THAT CLASS OF VEHICLE" I am an engineer for a large firm and drive a company car (just changed over from van) I was told that my car is not registered as goods. When I pulled over I did not realise I was stopping in a loading bay

I pulled over because I could smell burning it turned out to be a 9 volt battery shorting on metal.

I was on cctv for 3 minutes at no time did I leave my car. Have I any grounds for appeal

Thanks BJM

P.S

Could you please tell me if councils and corporations as part of the data protection act need to have signs strategically placed informing the general public that CCTV is in operation. I have noticed that some areas have signs and some do not

[green_and_mean]

What type of bay was you in a loading bay is usually a different contravention 25. If the bay was goods vehicle only you can argue its taxed a private light goods vehicle as the legal definition is a bit vague. The City of London is one of the most CCTV'd places in the country and there are signs as you enter the square mile each individual street does not need to be signposted as far as I am aware.

[patdavies]

Parking exemption for loading/unloading do not require a goods vehicle to be used. It is act of loading/unloading rather than the vehicle that matters.

 

 

It is however, possible to restrict by gross vehicle weight

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This car was neither parked nor loading/unloading.

 

It had stopped because of an emergency and/or breakdown.

 

I reckon a letter to the council now is required explaining the position.

 

If that fails I would contest the NTO on the grounds that the contravention did not occur and that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount.

 

One thing that is ESSENTIAL, bjm, is that you tell your employer about the PCN and explain that you wish to contest it. You don't want to find that the NTO is just paid by them and they expect you to re-imburse.

It may well be that there are drafting defects on the PCN and will also be on the NTO that render both liable to challenge.

[bjm]

Green and mean thanks

 

PatDavies

The corparation have put up an A4 size signs saying goods vehicles only with a picture of a man with a trolley

 

Bernie the bolt,

I will contest this PCN and let the firm know. What do you mean by the "penalty exceeds the relevant amount"

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bernie the bolt,

I will contest this PCN and let the firm know. What do you mean by the "penalty exceeds the relevant amount"

 

This is a statutory defence. See below the argument applicable on a pending case I have. Obviously you need to examine your PCN carefully to see what applies in your case.

Representation – The Penalty Charge exceeded the amount applicable

It is my contention that either or both of the PCN and the notice to owner are nullities. The applicable charge in these circumstances is zero which is exceeded.

My reasons for this are as follows:

Section 66 (3) of the Road Traffic Act sets out the information that must appear on a penalty charge notice.

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

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

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

(d) 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;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

It is my contention that the Penalty Charge Notice is non-compliant with (d), (e) and (f) above.

The Penalty Charge Notice consists of words printed on a single piece of paper, at the bottom of which is a payment slip, separated from the PCN by perforations. On the reverse of the piece of paper are a number of explanatory notes. The explanatory notes are printed in a different typeface and layout to the words of the PCN, there is no heading to indicate that they form part of the PCN, there is no border comparable to that surrounding the words of the PCN, in short, nothing to indicate that what is printed on the reverse forms part of the PCN.

It was established in Al’s Bar and Restaurant Case No 2020106430 that the payment slip is not part of the PCN. This is reflected by the London Authority in not extending the distinctive border of the PCN onto the payment slip. It is perfectly possible for the person making payment of the PCN to detach the payment slip and make payment, without having referred to the explanatory notes on the reverse of the piece of paper. The PCN makes no attempt to draw attention to any explanatory notes, for example, by saying “your attention is drawn to the statutory information overleaf”. The fact that the Local Authority has not done so — and the fact that Mr Justice Jackson in his decision in the case of The Queen on the Application of The London Borough of Barnet Council -v- The Parking Adjudicator on 2 August 2006 said “On the back of the PCN there are various pieces of information provided . . . “ clearly indicating that what is on the front (excluding the payment slip) is the PCN and what is on the back is not – support this view.

In any event, it remains my contention that the language forming part of the explanatory notes is not compliant with Section 66 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

Schedule 6 Paragraph 1 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 sets out the information that must appear on a notice to owner.

(2) A notice to owner must state—

(a) the amount of the penalty charge payable;

(b) the grounds on which the parking attendant who issued the penalty charge notice believed that a penalty charge was 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 notice to owner 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 (“the recipient”) may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 2 below; and

(g) the effect of paragraph 5 below.

The documentation issued by the London Authority consists of two pieces of paper. One coloured white and in the form of a letter headed “NOTICE TO OWNER/HIRER”, the reverse consists of details on how to pay. The other piece of paper is coloured pink and headed “SECTION 3 – NOTES”, there is no clarity as to what this is section 3 of as neither piece of paper has a section 1. The other side of the pink piece of paper is headed “REPRESENTATIONS”. It is my contention that the second, pink piece of paper is not part of the notice to owner but is merely a set of explanatory notes and a mechanism for making statutory representations. The London Authority confirm this view when they state “. . . YOU MUST FILL AND RETURN THE ATTACHED PINK FORM . . .”. In the first place the pink form was not attached, merely accompanying and secondly by describing it as an “ATTACHED PINK FORM” they reinforce the view that it is not part of the notice to owner but a separate document.

It is my contention that the notice to owner issued by the London Authority is non-compliant with the following parts of Schedule 6 Paragraph 1 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991:

©, (d), (e), (f), & (g).

I further contend that even if the pink piece of paper forms part of the notice to owner – which I do not concede – the notice to owner is non-compliant with Schedule 6 Paragraph 2 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

This paragraph states:

(4) The grounds 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 alleged contravention occurred; or

(iii) became its owner after that date;

(b) that the alleged contravention did not occur;

© that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d) that the relevant designation order is invalid;

(e) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—

(i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and

(ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice fixed to the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

(f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

It is my contention that the notice to owner is non-compliant with (a), © and (e) above and that such non-compliance renders it a nullity.

In making these contentions I rely on PTAS case number 2060200740 which allowed an appeal because of an irregularity in compliance with Schedule 6 Para 2 (3).

I further rely on the decision of Mr Justice Jackson in his decision in the case of The Queen on the Application of The London Borough of Barnet Council -v- The Parking Adjudicator on 2 August 2006; London Borough of Wandsworth -v- Al’s Bar and Restaurant Case No 2020106430 and other cases published on the PTAS web site as “Key Cases”.

It is my contention that the wording of both Section 66 (3) and Schedule 6 Paragraph 1 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 is clear. The PCN and notice to owner must state (the prescribed items). This must be complied with absolutely, not to do so renders the PCN and notice to owner a nullity.

It is my further contention that it is not open to the London Authority to print different grounds for representation on a notice to owner or purported notice to owner than those set out in Schedule 6 Paragraph 2 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1991. To do so renders both the notice to owner and PCN a nullity.

[MARTIN3030]

The use and operation of CCTV is covered under the dpa.

There are different requirements depending on the systems.

 

Comprehensive systems that use motorised cameras require greater compliance.

The rules state that signage advising of recordings/Cameras should be located close to each device (I am not certain exactly how far )...but as someone who is involved in CCTV installation myself I have a lot of this stuff on my PC at home.I will dig it out and let you have it.

Signage should also have the details including contact info of the people operating and maintaining the system.

You are within your rights to ask for copies of any film or still images taken and have the right to ask for this in the format of your choice ie Video or Dvd.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The use and operation of CCTV is covered under the Data Protection Act.

There are different requirements depending on the systems.

 

If a PCN was issued as a result of the data from CCTV having been processed in contravention of the DPA be grounds for contesting the PCN?

 

I suppose in theory you could on the grounds that "the observation of the alleged contravention could not have taken place but for the unlawful processing of data and therefore the contravention did not occur."

[bjm]

MARTIN3030

Thanks for that I have sent a reply to london corp explaining I had to stop in emergency as I could smell smoke from backseat. Would appreciate the cctv stuff they have installed lots of cameras in smithfield meat market, but no signs that I can see