PCN via CCTV by TLF in Merton

galastur

I have just received a letter from TLF?? which reads:

Transport for London (The Enforcement Authority)

(next is some details about me and the car,and the date of this notice, 6 September 2001)

Transport for London believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the above vehicle for the following alleged parking contravention: 46: Stopped wehre prohibited (on a red route or clearway)

Contravention location: North kerb south gardens on 25/08/2011 at xxxx

The alleged contravention was seen and recorded by camera operator number RNC/001 who was observing real time pictures from an approved device at the time stated....

My questions are:

1. I have read in another site this:

"Statutory guidance issued to all enforcing authorities in March 2007 is very clear. – CCTV cameras should not be used for parking enforcement if it is practical to use civil enforcement offers (traffic wardens). The example given is that CCTV enforcement could be used on a very fast road with no pavements where it is not practical or safe to have civil enforcement officers. Hopefully adjudicators will uphold appeals on this basis which will render such PCNs invalid. There are very few roads with parking restrictions which do not have pavements."

1. Road was not fast, it was a B road, not much traffic was going through it...it was road without exit. I have gone back to check, coz I did not even notice that there was a red line (car was not obstructing anything, it look like a "good spot") and i think that the camera is there to monitor the bus lane ahead (why they suddenly pointed down and right I don't know)

2. There was plenty of pavement.


Does anyone knows if that still applies?? Also, If i try to go down this road, I mean If I appeal, and I am not successful does it mean I have to pay the full fine £130

Last, the letter reads:

...a reduced charged of £65 is payable allowing a 50% discount if the penalty charge is paid not later thatn the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which this notice was served. You must not ignore this notice. If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the data on which this notice is served, a charge certificate may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge payable by 50% to £195 (less any money already received) Failure to pay the increased amount may result in a County Court Order against you and a warrant being issued to bailiffs.

So just to clarify, when it says : "If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations" -- means that if I dont pay (that was clear) ...it is the representation, does it refer to contact them in some way, ie: either to appeal, or to pay or dont know any other reason...


If anyone can give me some information about this I would really appreciate it! Thanks

Coupon-mad

Representations = your appeal. They normally re-offer the discount if your appeal is declined.

You are right with your idea for an appeal, but there may be more grounds as well. Post on pepipoo a new topic for help:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

HTH

galastur

I have also notice that the "Contravention location : North Kerb South Gardens" does not exits... The road is called south gardens, so it looks to me as if they want to make it like i had parke in the kerb!??! no way!

Thanks Coupon-mad I will be posting all the information there and see what they tell me. I had already found the site, and started writing my own on these lines:


To Whom It May Concern,

The use of CCTV enforcement at this location is contrary to guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport. Since it states that CCTV cameras should not be used for parking enforcement if it
is practical to use civil enforcement offers. The example given is that CCTV enforcement could be used on a very fast road with no pavements where it is not practical or
safe to have civil enforcement officers. However, a) south gardens is not a fast road (speed limit is 30), it is also not even a busy road, the road has no exit, b) there was pavement at both sides of the road, therefore, there was no reason not to use a civil enforcement officer.

...But i will definitely do it in the forum you mentioned. I don't want my letter to be cheeky or anything (hence !!!! off whoever reads it)

Cheers!

Coupon-mad

Hi, once you get registered on pepipoo and have got clearance to post - usually same day - you won't look back. In the meantime there are some other recent Camera Enforcement threads on that pepipoo link that you may want to read, to get ideas on how to word your own appeal.

I post on there as 'SchoolRunMum' and usually give new posters with a camera-issued PCN this link to look at:

latest Chief Parking Adjudicators' report 2010

It has a whole section on Camera Enforcement requirements from p20 onwards, including some successful appeal cases based on various arguments.

You may want to make your point about 'why was a camera used there rather than a CEO' much more succinct so you are not actually spoon-feeding the Council what to say in response - hopefully then their reply will brush over that appeal point!

Good luck and don't be surprised if you get declined and have to go to adjudication. It would then mean at that stage you would be in for the whole penalty or nothing - but most people win at that stage or the Councils/TfL do not defend so it's an all or nothing gamble with the odds in your favour.

galastur

I am going to post it all there now...

I am going to roll the dice...Reason being is that they were not after monitoring traffic congestion, or dangerous driving, or blocking the road, or the pavement, there are just simply after the money....