City of London CCTV PCN. Do I appeal to the adjudicator?

ryanm8655

Hi there,

I have recently received a PCN from CIty of London for "02J: Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force (camera enforcement)"

The circumstances were I was picking my partner up from work and was waiting outside for them to come out of the building.

I knew there were loading restrictions but as there were no signs to say that the road was enforced by cameras I thought I'd be ok waiting in the car and move on if/when a traffic warden appeared.

I appealed the ticket on the grounds that since the area is enforced by traffic wardens on foot, the transport ministers guidance dictates that CCTV enforcement shouldn't be used (although in a more wordy fashion using information I got through google). And quoted the case of Sainsbury's vs Camden Council.

I also appealed due to the lack of signage to indicate the road was enforced by CCTV, on the grounds there was no sign as I entered the road, or on the road I entered the road from.

The ticket was on Old Bailey in City of London.

I have just received a "notice of rejection" which firstly explains the loading restrictions and effectively what I did wrong...

It then states "The City of London's PCNs are compliant with the Traffic Management Act 2004" as confirmed by the City Solicitor". Which doesn't really address my point about the transport minister's guidance on CCTV enforcement.

It then continues "Section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 (Chapter VII) allows enforcement by CCTV."

And "Signs informing of the presence of Traffic Enforcement Cameras within the City are attached to each Controlled Parking Zone sign."

That outlines the reasons why they rejected my claim.

Is it worth my while appealing to the adjudicator and having my fine doubled?

Some further info regarding CCTV enforcement:

"June 2013

A new code of conduct for the use of CCTV cameras has been released. It basically mirrors what is said in the statutory guidance under the Traffic Management Act. You may wish to use it in any appeal although previously adjudicators have not had much regard to the guidance issued under the TMA as they say it is just guidance. The new guidance says

The primary purpose of any surveillance camera system used as part of civil enforcement arrangements must be the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from contravening parking or road traffic restrictions. Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous
and relevant authorities should use them sparingly. Such systems should, therefore, only be deployed where other means of enforcement are not practical and their effectiveness in achieving this purpose is subject to regular review."

The Sainsbury's case:
"Sainsbury's supermarkets VS Camden Council

This is an extremely important case as clearly the council had not "had regard to" the guidance issued by the secretary of state in respect of CCTV enforcement. (Details can be found below) Sometimes the adjudicators just say "it is just guidance" but here they have allowed an appeal soley on the basis that the council did not follow the guidance and should not have used CCTV. CCTV should only be used where CEO (civil enforcement officer) enforcement is not practical or where it is dangerous to use CEO enforcement. Neither was the case at this location. In fact pretty much all CCTV parking tickets issued by Local authorities are actually issued on the same roads where they have traffic wardens patroling so it is clearly not impractical to use them! We have copied the decision in full in our parking adjudicators decisions section. Just go to parking at the top of the page and then chose adjudicator's decisions from the left hand menu."

STATUTORY GUIDANCE

To make it easier we have included the actual clause number from the guidance in the left hand column So that you can refer to it in an appeal.


And the Guidance:

The introduction to the guidance states the following.

Clause 1.2 “The operational guidance”:

“sets out the policy framework within which the Government believes that all local authorities both inside and outside London should be setting their parking policies”.

“advises all English enforcement authorities of the procedures that they must follow, the procedures to which they must have regard and the procedures that the Government recommends they follow when enforcing parking restrictions”.

“tells members of the public as well as local authorities, about parking policies and their enforcement”.

Clause 1.4

The guidance is published under section 87 of the Traffic management act 2004, Section 87 states “that local authorities must have regard to the information contained in that guidance”.

If a local authority has not followed the guidance then, depending on the circumstances, an appeal to the adjudicator may well be upheld on this alone.

It is all very well for local authorities to issue penalty charge notices for any minor breach of the regulations but they themselves should also follow the guidance when enforcing.

Source: Penalty Charge Notice DOT co DOT uk.

All help and advice much appreciated.

Many thanks,
Ryan

Coupon-mad

Hi Ryan, welcome to MSE!


Yep I am familiar with that argument and it is mentioned in a Chief Adjudicator's Report which includes more cases won (but not all to do with the 'having regard to' the guidance issue). Worth a read though as it's from the Chief Adj:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=867.0

However if you haven't yet posted on pepipoo you've missed a trick, as they will tell you if the PCN wording is compliant or not - would add to your appeal points which I think you do need:

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

Show them a copy of the actual postal PCN, all pages (cover your address & PCN no. & car reg of course). And a pic of the rejection letter too.

In London always assume the cameras are watching...

ryanm8655

Thank you for the reply, very much appreciated. And thanks for the welcome, was sent here from another forum I frequent, loads of great info so will be sticking around!

I will have a read of the info you've linked to and also get on Pepipoo.

I no longer stop anywhere in City of London, I had no idea how bad it was having only recently moved to London. I actually made a point of checking for signs and camera's before stopping, so was quite suprised to get a PCN, although now as a seasoned londoner (been here 4 months) I know not to risk anything...

Annoyingly I have received 2 PCNs for the same thing on the same bit of road, as I did it twice within 2 weeks and it took them 3/4 weeks to send out the PCN.

It was only after reading online that I discovered my blue badge doesn't apply in City of London either...I honestly didn't know.

Thanks,
Ryan.

bod1467

3/4 weeks ... does that make the PCN out of time? (Are these like NtKs and NIPs which must be issued and received within 14 days of the offence?)

ryanm8655

I'm not sure, I read somewhere that they had 6 months to inform you?

Coupon-mad

6 months?! bod1467 is right. It is in the Operational Guidance that the Secretary of State stated that postal PCNs are to be issued within 14 days (only up to 28 days if outside the Council's control - such as delays getting the DVLA data).

Pepipoo will explain more.

ryanm8655

Thank you for the replies!

I have posted on Pepipoo (not yet posted pictures of PCN etc. as am at work).

That is interesting about the 14 days, as I remember thinking it was a bit unfair to take 3 weeks to send it out as I genuinely wasn't aware of any cameras and wouldn't have done it again had I been caught once.

I remember reading 6 months somewhere but that may have been on the City of London's own website...

Eitherway:

The date of the first offence was 17/12/2013 (As per the PCN) and the PCN is dated 06/01/2014 (3 weeks after, and I didn't receive it until 08/01/2014).

The second offence date was 02/01/2014 (As per PCN) and this PCN is dated 16/01/2014 (Exactly 2 weeks after) and I didn't receive this until 18/01/2014.

Is this alone grounds to appeal on both tickets?

Thanks,
Ryan.

bod1467

Pepipoo will give you best advice on this. Please concentrate your efforts over there.

(Feel free to update this thread with the final outcome of course).