DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15768--------------------------------------------------
Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Ken Masters
Date: February 16, 2024, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
Please see below PCN and evidence in the form of 3 photos:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Xu7Y3tJEJYSNLMslaWLhe4c-CYTjHC5/view?usp=drive_link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hc_vzBjTn8GW_W3aPip0y7l1wNZ-IB-q/view?usp=drive_link
Have been researching recent decisions and note template red
route defences seem to have gone with approved camera and
postal.
I'm unsure on the merits of the evidence provided by the council
camera operator - please let me know your thoughts on this and
possible defences?
Will go back and look into the signage.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 15771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 16, 2024, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've had a quick look on GSV, and can't see any parking bays at
all outside 24-36 Streatham High Road. Please post a GSV link
by telling us exactly where you stopped.
#Post#: 15789--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 17, 2024, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Red Route prohibition is part-time. There aren't parking
places as such, there is a red-lined area exempting vehicles for
the purposes of loading and displaying a BB for periods less
than the prohibited hours(which are obscured by a lamp column.)
I'm unsure on the merits of the evidence provided by the council
camera operator..
Photos aren't required, CCTV is the primary evidence.
Given that the car was there, was it there during prohibited
hours, was it engaged in loading or did it display a BB?
If not, then on the face of it the contravention occurred.
#Post#: 15885--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Ken Masters
Date: February 19, 2024, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi both,
Thank you for your replies.
There isn't any CCTV/video evidence on TFL, only the three
photos.
I'm getting this from GSV:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/oMTugnNbMj4FUNHDA
This is from May 2023 which leads me to believe the bay was put
in recently.
The sign is facing oncoming traffic so that is a no go.
I'm putting together a defence, please let me know your thoughts
if any.
TIA
#Post#: 15886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 19, 2024, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dFUa8HEcUh2HyuDprMyvoP1NZ67kMZWA/view
Put them to strict proof re camera approval.
#Post#: 16851--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Ken Masters
Date: March 5, 2024, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My appeal:
Dear Sirs,
Ref: PCN XXX
I note x3 photographs only are being relied on as evidence of
alleged contravention on the TFL website. I challenge PCN XXX on
the following grounds:
1. I hold you to strict proof with respect to camera approval
as per the case of Anish Raj Shrestha Vs TFL (case ref:
2230256263). The camera used must be cerified as an “approved
device” by the Secretary of State before a PCN can be issued.
Only when the device is certified by the Secretary of State can
it then be used for the civil enforcement of road traffic
contraventions.
I herein make a freedom of information request under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) for information regarding the camera
used to gather the evidence being relied upon for the
aforementioned PCN. This should include make and model of camera
in the form of written description plus photographs of the
camera which pictorially illustrate the make and model. Further,
I request the Secretary of State approval certificate that the
camera used has been certified for the use of civil enforcement
of road traffice conventions. Pleae provide this information in
writing to my postal address below within 28 days of the date of
this challenge.
2. On the day in question, the car was in the bay for a very
short time as can been seen in the time stamps of the
photographs being relied upon as evidence of the alleged
contravention.
We were unaware of the parking restriction until getting out of
the car and finding a sign a short while later. Upon noting the
restriction we departed.
The above scenario parallels that of Mr Simon Wright - v - NEPP
- Essex County Council (Case number:ID00131-1812) in that a
brief but reasonable time is allowed to read signs that impose
stopping restrictions.
3. Please note attached blue badge.
I therefore request you to cancel the aforementioned PCN.
#Post#: 16852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Ken Masters
Date: March 5, 2024, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The notice of rejection states amongst the usual bumpf:
"The vehicle was observed as stationary between 16:22 and
16:24."
The photo evidence shows 16:22 32s to 16:23 55s which is around
1 minute and 23 seconds.
Question 1 how long is reasonable to get out and have a look at
the relevant signs under the relevant case law?
Question 2 the NoR states the Freedom of Information info will
sent under separate cover. Also, "CCTV cameras are not
individually subject to Type Approval but under the terms of the
Traffic Management Act 2004, our CCTV camera enforcement system
is fully certified on behalf of the Secretray of State."
What do you wizards think?
#Post#: 17025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Ken Masters
Date: March 8, 2024, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
bump
#Post#: 17028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 8, 2024, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why have you not asked for the video?
You imply that you were only stationary for long enough to read
the signs and then leave, but is this what would be shown on the
CCTV?
The photos are NOT their evidence, nor what an adjudicator would
see, it's the video. So if you've been re-offered the discount,
why would you risk this by appealing if the CCTV shows you left
the parking place?
#Post#: 17127--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Streatham high road 46 Stopped on a red route
DIR By: Ken Masters
Date: March 11, 2024, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr Anderson, firstly thank you for your reply.
This forum is a wealth of information - thank you to all of you
who take the time to help. I am learning all the time.
Should the video of the alleged contravention not be made
available at notice to registered keeper stage and on the TFL
website?
If a video is not on the TFL web site can one be relied on at
later stage where it has not been presented to the defendant?
I would like to see it if it exists. It will bear out my appeal.
The car was running (headlights are on in all the pics) and my
partner got out of the car to look for the sign)
Secondly in response to FOI request TFL confirm that the camera
in use is a "Siqura HD16AWDR/P External analogue PTZ dome
camera."
The accompanying VCA certificate meanwhile certifies a "Siqura
HD62."
It looks like the certified camera whilst being of the same
manufacturer is of a different model.
Is there any scope of appeal here?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page