DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9371--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN on Red Route CCTV
DIR By: Spinstorm
Date: November 6, 2023, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does the video show the camera type? But we can't see it without
the DVD?
I have drafted an appeal @cp8759 but I have not sent this yet,
would love some feedback from anyone here:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I was the driver of this vehicle on the date of the PCN and was
authorised to both use the vehicle and represent this matter to
TFL.
I am appealing this PCN for three reasons:
Mitigating Circumstances
I do not live in the area and I am not familiar with the area I
was driving. I stopped as I was feeling nauseous and I was lost.
I pulled over into what appeared to be a parking space as there
was a car parked behind me and the road was clear. I spent about
10 minutes there trying to get my Sat Nav to work and giving
myself time to feel better as continuing to drive in that state
would not have been safe.
Once I was feeling better I continued on my way. I respectfully
request that this PCN is cancelled on the basis that it was an
honest mistake caused by feeling unwell at the time and I would
not make that mistake again. I am very sorry for stopping in a
location I was not meant to stop and I consider it a learning
opportunity.
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the
enforcement authority
I do hope that you accept my appeal and apology on the above
basis however in case you do not there are two further grounds
for my PCN to be cancelled.
I base my first reason on:
2230060716 Commercial Plant Services Ltd
2230177189 Commercial Plant Services Ltd
2230154456 Mr. Krzyztof Burger
2230173982 Mr. Richard Jackson
2230087392 Mitchell Perry
2230006834 Mr. Raja Miah
2230149387 Mr. Muhammad Asif
2220794881 Mr. Muhammad Aslam Appellants
v. Transport for London Respondent
In the London Tribunals, I will state the facts below but I am
sure you are aware of this matter as I am too and to cut to the
point the Tribunal found that you may not enforce a PCN in a
red-route zone using CCTV, and it is in fact only enforceable
with a CEO.
“The question before this specially-convened panel concerns the
circumstances in which the relevant enforcement authority,
Transport for London (TfL), is permitted by Regulations 9 to 11
of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions)
(England) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022 Regulations”) to serve a
penalty charge notice (PCN) by post, on the basis of a record
produced by an approved device, namely a CCTV camera, rather
than by a civil enforcement officer (CEO). In particular, we are
asked to determine whether a PCN may be so served in
circumstances in which the contravening vehicle is stationary on
part of a road that is a ‘red route’, in its general sense, but
which is not marked with double or single red line markings on
the carriageway. The cases before the panel principally concern
PCNs served by post in circumstances in which, based on evidence
from an approved device, a vehicle was in contravention whilst
stationary on a red route, as defined in the applicable traffic
management order (TMO) and the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016), but on that part of the
carriageway only marked so as to indicate bays in which a
vehicle may stop subject to conditions.”
CONCLUSION ON THE CORE ISSUE
59. Whether on the basis of the natural and ordinary meaning of
the words used as a whole in Regulation 11(2), in and of
themselves or in the context of other regulations, or on the
basis of a purposive construction of the regulation, informed by
its genesis and other external aids, the panel is unable to
accept the construction of the Regulation contended for by TfL.
60. The panel finds, having analysed the extensive submissions
and materials with which we have been provided, that parking
contraventions on a red route enforceable on the basis of a
record produce by an approved device are confined, in the
context of Regulation 11(2) to those where the vehicle is
stationary on a length of road marked with double or single red
line markings. There is a material distinction between the
definition of a red route for the purposes of the TSRGD 2016 and
the definition in Regulation 11(2) governing the circumstances
in which camera enforcement of parking contraventions is
permissible. That is to say, the contexts are different.
61. No-one suggests that contraventions of red route parking
bays marked with the ‘item 6 bay marking’ are not enforceable at
all. They are enforceable but, the panel finds, the meaning of
the 2022 Regulations is that they are not enforceable on the
basis of a record produced by an approved device. They are
enforceable by CEO’s and, in the event the CEO is unable to
effect service of the PCN in the circumstances described in
Regulation 9(4) to (6), by post.
62. The panel therefore finds itself in agreement with Mr. Chan
and his decision in Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Transport
for London (2220896928, 2 March 2023).
63. In respect of those cases below in which the PCNs did not
comply with Regulation 11(2) as we construe it, we find there
was a procedural impropriety and we direct those PCNs to be
cancelled. The other points will, therefore, be dealt with more
briefly.
2230060716 Commercial Plant Services Ltd 65.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a
(red) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a
CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved
device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this
was a procedural impropriety.
2230173982 Mr. Richard Jackson 77.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a
(red) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a
CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved
device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this
was a procedural impropriety.
2230087392 Mitchell Perry 79.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a
(red) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by a
CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved
device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold that this
was a procedural impropriety.
2230006834 Mr. Raja Mian 80.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a
suspended (white) marked bay on a red route. The fact that the
bay was suspended does not alter the fact that bay markings, and
not single or double red line markings, were present. Yet the
PCN was served not by a CEO but by post on the basis of a record
produced by an approved device. For the reasons given at length
above, we hold that this was a procedural impropriety.
2230177189 Commercial Plant Services Ltd 71.
This appeal engages the core issue. The vehicle was parked on a
(white) marked bay on a red route. Yet the PCN was served not by
a CEO but by post on the basis of a record produced by an
approved device. For the reasons given at length above, we hold
that this was a procedural impropriety. 72. Given that we are
allowing the appeal we deal only briefly with the issue
concerning type approval, which might need to be dealt with more
extensively on another occasion.* 73. Taking the evidence as a
whole we would have been minded to find that there was, on the
balance of probabilities, certification and approval in place
for the device in question at the relevant time.
———
In light of these cases, there is no reason to assume that an
appeal to the London Tribunal would result in a different
outcome. I am aware that TFL has taken this matter to Judicial
Review - however, as TFL is no doubt aware Judicial Review does
not mean that the tribunal would have to change their decisions
if you were to win in court. It would simply mean that the
London Tribunal would have to review their decision making
process but can still come to the same conclusion, which based
on the above cases seems very likely.
I would therefore suggest that if there any doubt in your
decision process over this particular appeal reason that should
accept it and cancel the PCN, as I would intend whatever the
outcome on this ground to take this to tribunal.
———
The next ground for appeal is if the device used was an
authorised camera device, this ground was also mentioned above
in 2230177189 Commercial Plant Services Ltd 71.
This matter is relevant in:
Ahsan Raza v. Transport for London Respondent &
Anish Raj Shrestha v. Transport for London Respondent
In both these cases at the London Tribunal the declarant did not
challenge the legality of enforcement by CCTV as the above
cases, but rather if the device used was an authorised device.
Anish Raj Shrestha v. Transport for London Respondent
I have allowed this appeal for the following reasons, which
relate to the requirement for certification of an "approved
device" by the Secretary of State before a Penalty Charge Notice
may be issued.
It is only when the device is certified by the Secretary of
State that it can be used for the civil enforcement of road
traffic contraventions. In this case there is no evidence of
which device the Secretary of State was asked to consider. The
only reference to a device is recorded in the certification
letter authorised by the Secretary of State is that it is a
"Digital Traffic Traffic Enforcement System".
On a Freedom of Information request, made by the Appellant's
representative, the Authority confirmed that the relevant camera
used in this case was a Predator HD/Ultra - H264. I find that
there is no evidence to show that the camera device in question
is of a make and model covered by the certificate.
Without evidence that the camera device is covered by an
approval certificate, the Authority has not established that it
was entitled to serve a PCN. I find this to be a procedural
impropriety.
———
I make the same request here; that you provide me with the
camera type for the purposes of establishing if it is certified
by the Secretary of State as per the Freedom of Information Act
and I also request a copy of the CCTV footage to inspect myself.
As summary of these cases and the three grounds for appeal, I
would hope that you will accept my mitigating circumstances of
stopping due to being nauseous and lost and accept my apology
for the mistake of stopping in that location but the CCTV reason
is valid and should result in cancellation of the PCN regardless
and the question about camera type and certification may also
provide another reason for cancellation of the PCN.
#Post#: 9429--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN on Red Route CCTV
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 6, 2023, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Firstly I don't see why you'd want to lay all your cards on the
table like that, it simply gives TfL a chance to come up with a
full rebuttal of every point. Secondly, you misunderstand how
judicial review works: if the High Court overturns the tribunal
decision on the camera point, the tribunal is then required to
adopt the High Court's decision in all future cases, it becomes
a binding precedent.
I would also most definitely not mention the camera strategy at
this point, it just gives TfL loads of time to come up with a
response.
If you want to take this to the tribunal, just make a one line
representation saying that the contravention did not occur.
#Post#: 11036--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN on Red Route CCTV
DIR By: Spinstorm
Date: November 23, 2023, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I take it that based on TFL losing the Judicial Review is that
unless they allow my appeal on mitigating circumstances that my
only remaining grounds to appeal is the camera type now.
#Post#: 11171--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN on Red Route CCTV
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 25, 2023, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Spinstorm link ---
>
> I take it that based on TFL losing the Judicial Review is that
unless they allow my appeal on mitigating circumstances that my
only remaining grounds to appeal is the camera type now.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes that's correct.
#Post#: 13682--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN on Red Route CCTV
DIR By: Spinstorm
Date: January 12, 2024, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
TFL accepted my appeal.
I would love to tell everyone if it was due to them being
reasonable as I felt unwell, or due to the CCTV camera type or
some other policy but I have no idea as they emailed the company
the car was borrowed from and not me… even though I am the one
who appealed.
I had an email from the car company saying it was cancelled. Bit
odd they didn’t email me directly…
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page