Parking stories in the News/media

YankeeBrit

Interesting report in the Telegraph this morning. No about parking per se but about the use of CCTV by TfL to enforce penalties for motorists stopping on red route parking/loading/unloading bays. It may be interesting to see if the tribunal decision could in any way be adapted or used to put a kibosh on PPC use of CCTV and ANPR:

Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'

By Steve Bird5 Aug 2023

Test case finds Transport for London guilty of ‘procedural impropriety’ by relying on video evidence and not traffic wardens 

Fining motorists by post using CCTV camera evidence has been ruled “illegal”, The Telegraph can reveal.

Drivers may be entitled to refunds for millions of pounds of penalty charge notices (PCNs) after a ruling by a panel of lawyers that hears appeals against motoring fines.

A special test case found that Transport for London (TfL) had “illegally” fined motorists who had stopped on parking bays on red routes in the capital.

The transport authority, acting on behalf of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, breached government guidance by using CCTV rather than traffic wardens to enforce road rules.

Ruling looks at DfT guidance

Laws limiting the use of CCTV to issue fines were introduced in 2015 because of what ministers described as “overzealous enforcement by local authorities”.

The judgment by London Tribunals has implications for drivers across the country and could be relied upon in appeals where a CCTV motoring fine has been issued. A London Tribunals spokesman said while its rulings do not set a legal precedent, “adjudicators may take previous decisions into consideration before reaching a conclusion”.

The ruling, on eight red route fine appeals, has emerged just one week after Rishi Sunak declared he was on “the motorists’ side” and ordered a review of low traffic neighbourhoods.

Analysis of TfL data suggests it issues about 435,000 PCNs of all types a year, which if paid in full at £160 would net £69 million.

Three adjudicators accused the authority of a “procedural impropriety” by issuing fines through CCTV rather than “civil enforcement officers” – or traffic wardens.

The ruling says the “most recent version” of Department for Transport guidance states that “approved devices” – or CCTV – should only be used “where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practicable”.

Explaining how many motorists may have legitimate reasons for stopping, such as loading or unloading, they “may find it impossible to obtain the necessary evidence after the event” when the £160 fine arrives by post.

“A motorist parked in such a bay who encounters a civil enforcement officer may, there and then, be able to show that he or she is loading or unloading … or can readily obtain the evidence … to substantiate that claim,” the adjudicators said, scrapping all eight fines.

‘Quasi prosecutorial’

The 22-page judgment, called “Commercial Plant Services and others versus TfL”, analysed the exact wording of legislation and ministerial guidance after Ivan Murray-Smith, a Conservative councillor who fights unfair fines, brought the test case.

It now features as a “key case” on the London Tribunals website.

TfL was so concerned about the judgment it hired Timothy Korner, KC, to try to overturn the ruling at a tribunal hearing in July.

However, Anthony Chan, the chief adjudicator who heard that case, refused to review the ruling and issued a scathing judgment criticising TfL for continuing to use CCTV fines despite being told it was illegal.

Describing the authority as “quasi prosecutorial”, he added: “I am of the opinion that if a public authority becomes aware that the imposition of a penalty may be unlawful, it should seek to clarify the position before issuing more PCNs.

“Mr Korner does not think that is an issue because motorists can always challenge the PCNs … I do not find this argument attractive.”

He adds that TfL struggled to “disclose” the number of motorists who had challenged their fines because “the numbers were embarrassing for TfL”.

Between June 2022 and March 2023, TfL lost 420 such cases where CCTV evidence was relied upon. During the same period, a total of 2,735 appeals were lodged with London Tribunals.

In 2013, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, which hears PCN appeals for England and Wales, found “camera enforcement appears to be used as a routine” despite guidance stating that it should be a last resort in cases where using traffic wardens could be difficult, Mr Chan wrote.

He added: “The transport select committee felt sufficiently persuaded by the evidence that it went so far as to recommend that Government should act to halt the proliferation in the use of CCTV ... ministers are concerned that this overuse of CCTV has unfair consequences on the public … the Government believes that the powers are not being used as originally intended.”

‘I am sceptical of TfL’s concerns’

Welcoming the rulings, Mr Murray-Smith, 35, said: “Transport for London has been getting away with unlawfully using CCTV cameras to enforce red route parking bays for years, and the tribunal has finally put a stop to that.

“I am sceptical of TfL’s concerns about enforcement, they can enforce perfectly well with civil enforcement officers on foot patrol, and the money from the penalties is more than enough to cover their wages.

“I suspect TfL is not that concerned about its ability to enforce but rather about its revenue. These illegal penalties have been raising tens of millions of pounds a year, and using CCTV cameras is simply far more profitable.”

A TfL spokesman said: “We are committed to keeping London moving safely and efficiently, and compliance on the Transport for London Road Network is essential to achieving these aims.

“Enforcement by our compliance officers using CCTV cameras is an important part of tackling this and we are exploring next steps. Non-compliance impacts London’s air quality, creates safety risks, disrupts traffic and creates congestion for everyone.”

He added that “existing PCNs will not be revoked at this stage”.

The eight test cases were for fines on red routes, which make up 5 per cent of London’s roads, but carry up to 30 per cent of the city’s traffic.

patient_dream

All part Sadiq Khan's twisted little mind

And the Sunday Mail says ....

Drivers could be owed MILLIONS in parking fine refunds as landmark ruling finds that Sadiq Khan's TfL 'broke the law' by using CCTV footage rather than traffic wardens to punish motorists

Where will Khan find the money ?

Half_way

While the TfL CCTV mess is regulated, the same cant be said for the Private parking industry .

 If it did get to a point where it was ruled that victims of private parking companies must be refunded , then the Parking companies would soon go "bust" and the owners would phoenix them into something else to avoid paying up - after all they cant give up the yachts and expensive cars.

 For that reason, that is why that in the days of clamping the general advice was to claim against the landowner , as principal for the actions of its agents ( the clamper) if you wanted any chance of getting your money back.

And that is why with private parking company cases the landowner / whatever it was that took the parking company on and allowed them to operate needs to be the number one target in almost all cases for refunds, and/or any other action and face the responsibilities of taking on an outfit ( ie a PPC) who's behaviours are well known 

Coupon-mad

A typical story of a clueless landowner (GP surgery in this case) believing in 2022 - without undertaking any checks - that their NHS car park was being 'misused':

2022 article:
https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/19880422.car-park-restrictions-brought-barbourne-health-centre/

Surely more likely that it was just busy due to patients and staff.

Normal activity.

People with appointments with GPs, nurses, Health Visitors, nutritionists and cancer aftercare advisors or whatever, and others using the pharmacy or just popping in to get an insurance form signed, a sick note, or to chase up test results or have an injection or blood pressure check, or to make an appointment, or find out about Covid boosters...

...surgeries are VERY busy places.

I looked at it on GSV and as well as the GP and Pharmacy. they have a Podiatrist, a Hearing clinic and a Counselling & Psychotherapy service. Loads of services.

On GSV you can see white & blue parking signs (Barbourne Health Centre, Droitwich Road) and a NON-FULL car park.  A place which looks like it wouldn't be a destination for rogue parkers.

COME ON - ENGAGE YOUR BRAINS!

No serial rogue drivers were actually 'abusing the car park' - of course not - but an unnamed PPC convinced them that they had a problem to address.

Fast forward to 2023:
https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/23701851.barbourne-health-centre-patients-try-appeal-fines/

Barbourne Health Centre...NAMED AND SHAMED.

Oh dear.

...who would have thunk it?

Coupon-mad

Naming and shaming BRISTOL AIRPORT again for being deluded enough to let ex-wheel-clampers VCS in and then the Airport Spokesperson spouts a load of daft twaddle when asked to comment about this farce:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-airport-100-fine-too-8650130.amp

Bristol Airport £100 fine ‘too ridiculous to be true’ says driver who stopped after crash

"Steve Usher, a private hire driver said the collision which saw his vehicle being rear-ended, happened on June 27 when it was particularly busy at the airport.

He said: “It was really busy, there were queues to get in and out. When I got out of the exit barrier of ‘Drop and Go’, it was gridlocked.”

The collision took place as Mr Usher was trying to leave the airport. Driving the bigger of the two vehicles, Mr Usher said: “I couldn’t pull away or my vehicle would have torn off the front of the other car.”

He said that while they were trying to free the smaller car and he was exchanging insurance details, “the airport car with the camera actually stopped to see if we needed help or if anyone was hurt.” He received the £100 fine for stopping in a ‘No Stopping’ zone about a week later."

-----------------------


BUT happily, there's a last laugh here because this is not a victim whinging and saying they gave up and paid VCS.
 Oh no, this is someone who has previously defended v VCS in Court, and won...!

Apparently in his first win v VCS:

"...the barrier into the car park was not working, apparently due to heavy rain at that time. So I let my passenger out and took his payment which was timed on the camera as 47 seconds. I received a £100 fine two days later.”

He said after months of ‘appeals and stress’ during which time the fine had risen to £491, the matter went to court in February this year.  He said the case was dismissed and he was awarded costs in the amount of £129...

  

Coupon-mad

This one is about stupidly tone deaf Local Authority 'enforcement', that is killing shops in Leicester by not even allowing 30 minute stops to grab lunch or a paper:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/city-council-collects-36-million-8651207.amp

"The wardens are so fast to get onto you so there's no point trying to quickly stop outside a shop, even if you only need to go in for a minute. I rarely come down here anymore as it feels pointless paying money to go into a coffee shop or buy a paper."

Doesn't matter that it's a Leicester Council example. It's clear evidence that:

- over zealous parking 'enforcement' kills high streets, drives people away and even forces shops to close, and

- £70 or £50 IS A MASSIVE DETERRENT. Proven!

Coupon-mad

And talking of Councils, here we have one admitting to illegally letting Smart Parking operate with ANPR at a Council-owned shopping centre:

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/23671421.canvey-knightswick-shopping-centre-parking-changes/

I feel a FOI request coming on to Castle Point Borough Council for the number of contract law 'PCNs' issued and a copy of the landowner/parking firm contract.

Anyone here live in the area? Barry Beavis?

Needs a complaint to the DVLA and to the Borough Council auditors that (allegedly):

(a) the DVLA data was obtained unlawfully;

(b) the parking charges were issued unlawfully by the agents because this isn't housing land so it cannot be operated 'as if it were private land'

and (this is not 'allegedly', this below is fact):

(c). ANPR has been banned for Local Authority parking enforcement since the Deregulation Act 2015.  

(d). The DFT's Robert Goodwill's letter was reiterated in Sept 2022 by the DLUHC, so this is illegal (especially with banned ANPR):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/957684/response/2281628/attach/2/DVLA%20letter%20on%20LA%20parking%20enforcement%201%20Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Oh dear...

Housing Land has different legal status as do some Country Parks AIUI, but a public shopping car park certainly doesn't.

Wycombe District Council was banned by the DVLA from getting any keeper data (at all, even for on street Penalties) when they made the same mistake, but they were sussed and reported to thd DVLA quicker:

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/15022494.council-forced-to-ditch-anpr-parking-system-in-favour-of-pay-and-display/

This allegedly unlawful regime has been going on for three years - that's going to be tens of thousands of pounds allegedly extorted illegally from locals...

Umkomaas

Anyone here live in the area? Barry Beavis?

Hopefully Barry can chip in and batter them!

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

This one is about stupidly tone deaf Local Authority 'enforcement', that is killing shops in Leicester by not even allowing 30 minute stops to grab lunch or a paper:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/city-council-collects-36-million-8651207.amp

"The wardens are so fast to get onto you so there's no point trying to quickly stop outside a shop, even if you only need to go in for a minute. I rarely come down here anymore as it feels pointless paying money to go into a coffee shop or buy a paper."

Doesn't matter that it's a Leicester Council example. It's clear evidence that:

- over zealous parking 'enforcement' kills high streets, drives people away and even forces shops to close, and

- £70 or £50 IS A MASSIVE DETERRENT. Proven!

Leicester Council like many councils are bordering of going bust so they steal from motorists..... all the shops closing  means a loss of council tax and business rates ... what drongo thought that one up

Bet Leicester Council are BPA mbers

daveyjp

Good old Leeds Bradford again.

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/people/leeds-bradford-airport-woman-slapped-with-outrageous-ps100-parking-fine-despite-paying-correct-fee-4246530

I agree there are now so many signs for different car parks with similar names its a nightmare.