notomob.co.uk

General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: BailiffHunter on 21 April, 2011, 04:32:27 PM

Title: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 21 April, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf (http://http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf)

"One of the principle difficulties is that the driver of the CCTV vehicle parks is
for anything up to five minutes while the operator points the camera at the
offending vehicle. Appellants have questioned why the council CCTV car can
park for five minutes on a double yellow line while they are having penalties
imposed on them for the same practice. Adjudicators have noticed that in
some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides
an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the
case - there are NO provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create
exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera
enforcement.
"

 :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:

So let us cast our minds back to a recent Medway statement on this matter.............

But, following heavy criticism from some residents expressed in the press, the council was anxious to remind people that its CCTV cars can park on double yellow lines while "carrying out its statutory duty if there is no other place to park when doing this".

Yourmedway ran a series of pictures last year showing the CCTV car parked on double yellow lines when there appeared to be alternative places to park.

The council spokesman Mr Staples said: "The law allows for this and the car is exempt from parking restrictions under these circumstances." Really???.....Really??? :schucks: I think Mr Staples and many other half wit Council folk may be in for a bit of a surprise some time soon!!!! :-ev-:

 :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: chalky on 21 April, 2011, 08:14:13 PM
I love this!!! I can see the barstewards running around the corridors of council offices up and down the country looking for their spin masters now.
 :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 21 April, 2011, 08:17:16 PM
:-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:  Remember what Islington said under FOI?????


"Please note that under the terms of the Road Traffic Act enforcement
vehicles may park in contravention in the course of performing enforcement
activities/duties regardless of the borough they are enforcing."


Oh dear oh dear...........................
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 21 April, 2011, 08:23:20 PM
Just to help those that don`t wish to read the entire document......page 23/24 is where this comment is made. :-ev-: :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: NotEvenALondonRider on 21 April, 2011, 09:26:17 PM
You should have seen MG's face light up when she got that call!   Not at that point from fixed electrics, but they are now...

:dancing: :dancing: :dancing: sums it up!
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 21 April, 2011, 09:30:45 PM
[move:2m4oce6c]Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo  :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

 :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
 :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:
 :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing:[/move:2m4oce6c]

Well done BH   :aplude: :aplude:........ :'( :'( :'( my tears of laughter and joy!!!  ;D
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Esinem on 21 April, 2011, 10:09:43 PM
Just mailed Lee Rowley and Tim Cowen with the good news
(http://http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/images/smilies/invasion.gif)

You might want to read page 24 of the Parking Adjudicator’s Report before replying to the question regarding MEV parking dispensations. Tim Cowen at NSL seems blissfully unaware of this, so I have copied him. Specifically, it says:

“Adjudicators have noticed that in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case - there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement.

Source: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf (http://http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf)

Please state upon what legislation WCC and NSL rely when alleging that the MEV’s benefit from “exemptions to parking restrictions”. May I assume that in the absence of such legal backing, you would ensure that they park according to the same regulations to which the public must adhere?
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 21 April, 2011, 10:13:54 PM
@ Esinem,
Wouldnt you just love to be a fly on the wall in their office tomro at 9.00am when they pressed on the button to open their emails?
well a fly with a camera  :pmsl: :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Slimboy on 21 April, 2011, 10:15:18 PM
Lets see the panic now!!!!!  :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:

Good Man BH!!!!! See all that free time does pay off!!!!! :schucks: :schucks:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Staps on 21 April, 2011, 10:23:03 PM
[font=arial:3ay214ad]Cameras and enforcement policy[/font:3ay214ad] [align=left:3ay214ad][font=arial:3ay214ad]The Department for Transport' s Operational Guidance to Local
Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement
recognises that camera[/font:3ay214ad]
[/align:3ay214ad] [align=left:3ay214ad][font=arial:3ay214ad]enforcement is different from enforcement by civil enforcement officers on[/font:3ay214ad][/align:3ay214ad] [align=left:3ay214ad][font=arial:3ay214ad]foot. Paragraph 8.78 states that:[/font:3ay214ad][/align:3ay214ad] [align=left:3ay214ad][/align:3ay214ad] [align=left:3ay214ad][font=arial:3ay214ad]"Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and[/font:3ay214ad][/align:3ay214ad][font=arial:3ay214ad]authorities should use them sparingly. 
Sparingly ---
what the F*^K are WCC doing with eleven of them[/font:3ay214ad]
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Staps on 21 April, 2011, 10:26:24 PM
What is the process we need to go through to get the $camera cars Nicked,
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Boyo on 21 April, 2011, 11:47:09 PM
Quote from: "Staps"
[align=left:pi5frq6t][font=arial:pi5frq6t] --- what the F*^K are WCC doing with eleven of them
[/l][/l]

They may have 12 now mate - whilst at the pigpen yesterday I saw a brand new "11" plate iQ, with ANPR fitted, completely unmarked/liveried. W:T:F: :o

Sterling work BH - fantastic mate :aplude: :aplude: and well done Esinem for firing off that speedy email :aplude: . I await the response with baited breath.
Slowly, but surely, we're nailing the bastards down - it's like nailing jelly to the ceiling but with NW's patas result yesterday and BH finding this today, things must be getting more than a little bit sweaty in Parking Towers :-ev-: :rotfl:[/align:pi5frq6t]
[align=left:pi5frq6t]It couldn't happen to nicer folk :rotfl:[/align:pi5frq6t]
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: jonesy on 22 April, 2011, 12:05:17 AM
Absolutely love it, and although the weeks is not over this weeks award must go to BH well done mate  :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Tom Tom Str on 22 April, 2011, 01:22:37 AM
    :dancing: Check Mate !!   :dancing:   Well done indeed BH !   :rotfl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 22 April, 2011, 10:30:21 AM
Let`s wait and see the bull sh1t that they all try to come out with now. Remember the simple law here...... The Councils may say they grant parking dispensation (They would wouldn`t they) BUT "There are NO provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement."

So when they all squeal that "We allow the $cars to park" it`s not true as they are governed by the TMA 2004 Act, the same as we all are.....the same Act they use to prosecute under! There is only one Act....TMA and they can`t change it. :-ev-: :-ev-:

This from WCC website.....

3. Will the Smart Cars have to be parked legally?

"The vehicles have Parking Identifier Boards which exempt parking on paid for parking places, resident bays, and single and double yellow lines. They may not park anywhere else and only obtain the exemption by means of carrying out a statutory function. The drivers have been properly trained and will park with the utmost care and attention to road safety and the highway code."

Remember folks............No provision to allow this!!!!! :-ev-: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 22 April, 2011, 11:08:00 AM
A little convo from a friend of mine on another forum this AM reads............................. :pmsl:

 Originally Posted by green_and_mean 

Assuming of course that TPT have read every single TRO in the UK? I have read numerous TROs that allow local authority vehicles to park whilst carrying out statutary duties which would include the statutary duty to enforce parking regulations. The argument is as stupid as complaining that Police cars speed whilst catching those that break the speed limit. DYL for example have numerous exemptions, you can get a pcn for parking on one yet be surounded by vehicles that don't such as emergency vehicles, blue badge holders, vehicles unloading, vehicles involved in building works etc etc. If a cctv vehicle was parked where parking is prohibited completely such as zig zags, bus stops etc there would be a valid argument but if parking is permitted as it is on DYL providing an exempt activity is taking place I cannot see there is any grounds for complaint. If it makes the public happier maybe the Council could fine itself for parking there and then pay its own fine when it arrives in the post, although what purpose that acheives I do not know??

I have also come across TRO's that do NOT provide any right for these CCTV to park on double yellows etc and where LA's will then insist that in any event, they have been given dispensation by the Department for Transport !! As you will know, the DfT do NOT give dispensation.......

Your argument about police cars is frankly not a good example. If a police car were speeding to catch up with a motorist who was also speeding, it would take a right idiot to follow behind the police!!! However, if a CCTV Camera Car is parked on double yellows, the motorist could be in a position of considering that the Operator is aware that the signage etc is invalid and that he too can park in the same place.

A good example of a local authority using CCTV Camera cars without the required permission is Richmond Council. The following was reported in yesterday's Evening Standard:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ine-victory.do (http://http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ine-victory.do)

PS: If, as you say the argument from Caroline Sheppard is stupid, I would not think that other adjudicators would share your view. She knows what she is talking about.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: peperami gsxr on 22 April, 2011, 02:06:35 PM
Nice work BH. I dont think the law can be used, even tho we could. But the public reaction will be fantastic  :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: peperami gsxr on 22 April, 2011, 04:52:04 PM
This is the operational guidance to local authorities. Parking policy and enforcement TMA 2004, revised November 2010.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/287508/468279/parkingenforcepolicy.pdf (http://http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/287508/468279/parkingenforcepolicy.pdf)

Chapter 9 deals with exemptions and dispensations.

(sorry if this has already been looked into/said)
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 April, 2011, 05:06:18 PM
BH I have put you're name  forward for the $chunters highest award its called the Victoria St Double Cross. :pmsl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: peperami gsxr on 22 April, 2011, 05:30:00 PM
Oh dear  :-ev-:

(this was taken by our very own Tyreman  :aplude:,  just this week of Bexley's finest. There was a conversation between TM and the driver but I'm not posting details...yet, more to follow  :-ev-:)

Thank you Tyreman  :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 22 April, 2011, 07:10:55 PM
@Pep

Thanks for this. In fact that was my  bed time reading last night after my revision :bashy: :bashy: The author is the Dft whom Sheila spoke to on my behalf yesterday and yes as we thought her contact went silent and then stated the following.......

 DfT lady "Sheila, we get complaints daily from the public regarding Council CCTV cars parking illegally on DYLs/SYLs"

Sheila "Has the DfT given Councils the provision for allowing dispensation to CCTV vehicles?"

DfT lady "Never"

That Operational Guidelines document clearly states which groups of motorists fall into potential dispensation category's and of course Emergency vehicles, Military, Nurses on call and Blue Badge holders are named and I would expect them to be in most if not all TROs. The significant lack of a mention of Council`s own vehicles (Albeit contractors) is obvious to me and unless I am to be proved wrong, the Councils are unable to alter/amend a TRO to include such mentioned vehicles as the TMA 2004 (Revised Nov 2010) does not allow it.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 April, 2011, 07:24:59 PM
Beautiful just bloody beautiful.  :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 22 April, 2011, 07:39:55 PM
Comments on this matter from an "Unknown Council worker" (Well maybe not too unknown :-ev-:) on another forum......

"She may know what she is talking about but as I previously pointed out I very much doubt she has read every TRO she is correct in that the TMA does not include an exemption but neither does it need to, as exemptions are created in individual TROs. Personally I consider anyone stupid enough to park on DYL despite the presence of a marked enforcement vehicle with a camera stuck on its roof deserves a pcn. The TROs are created by the Council who enforce using decriminalised civil procedures they can therefore allow anyone they like to park if they so wish, no TMOs in London for example include an exemption for cash in transit vehicles yet most Councils follow guidance from 'London Councils' and do not ticket them, Councils can also give waivers to vehicles. Many Councils also allow a grace period of up to 14 days if a permit expires this is not in the TMO but is in the Councils policy on enforcement, do you consider this unlawful also and everything should be enforced as per the TMO? What about vehicles patrolling car parks, should they buy a ticket each car park they visit or just write themselves a PCN? You have also failed to answer what point there would be in the Council issuing tickets to its own enforcement vehicles as they are liable for payment?"

So if we take the above comments on board at face value, the TRO that the Council "Create" would need to mention the CCTV vehicle dispensation in their TROs.....Right? :schucks: Well from memory (That is all over the place with the knowledge) did the "Golden Goose" TRO created in 1938 include the provision of parking for CCTV enforcement vehicles???? W:T:F: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:  Yup you are all clever today.....CCTV $cars were not born yet in 1938 (Oh what a nice era that must have been) but the TRO of that year still stands in law today. So if no mention........its all bad news for the Council :-ev-:

See attached for a reminder of the TRO for Golden Goose.
 :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: peperami gsxr on 22 April, 2011, 07:50:23 PM
BH, thats how i have read it too, i know an independent person is looking into this, and i have someone that wants to check on it too.

I'm waiting to hear from them over the weekend.

I will PM what i've done so far,  rather than post on here.  :-ev-:

Unknown council worker, why unknown, something to hide  :rotfl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 22 April, 2011, 09:28:24 PM
@Peps

Trust me mate. This particular Council worker is a nasty bit of work. I believe Esinem has had several run ins with this plank on forums.......I know who I would put my money on though :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Pat Pending on 22 April, 2011, 11:58:43 PM
Pm me with the forums I would like to look. Just for research though! :idea:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 23 April, 2011, 03:22:53 PM
Keep an eye on this thread all.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?302448-parking-Southwark-Smart-CCTV-Vehicle&p=3378501 (http://http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?302448-parking-Southwark-Smart-CCTV-Vehicle&p=3378501)

That TD is a smart guy :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: chalky on 23 April, 2011, 08:54:42 PM
Loved the "Tasmanian Devils" last post, if he isn't one of us, he should be invited to join. Just the perfect attitude and sounds like he has the Vfor Vendetta in him.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Esinem on 26 April, 2011, 02:29:35 AM
From Lee Rowley
CCTV car parking: Regarding your e-mail on 21/4, I have passed that to officers to review.  Prior to your e-mail, myself and officers agreed on the following response to the questions you raised at the meeting -

Our traffic orders include exemptions for vehicles “used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting”.

This does not provide a general, permanent exemption, and indeed such a measure would be contrary to the Traffic Management Act guidance, which states: “TROs usually also exempt service vehicles, but only when they are being used to carry out certain activities...”

We raised your concerns over vehicles being left on the street at the Frampton Street base with NSL, who have informed us that some of these vehicles were stopped on Frampton Street to test new equipment. NSL acknowledged that they have been left unattended at times, although they have not been left out overnight. We have instructed NSL that vehicles stopped in this location must either be manned or stored off the road in the car park.  Please let me know if you are aware of any continuing issues.

At the end of 2010, Westminster agreed with NSL that CCTV vehicles need not carry dispensation boards, as this would offer a cost saving. CEOs were briefed as to the dispensations that applied to CCTV cars, but there has been no alteration to handheld units and the relevant VRNs are not blocked on handheld units.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: NotEvenALondonRider on 26 April, 2011, 06:22:21 AM
So a timestamped picture of one of the ANPR cars, at Frampton Street, date / time stamped at 13.23 on 23rd April would be nice? With witnessess of me, Kiwi, MG, Coco, Jonesy, BE, etc that it was still there when we left at about 17.30 would be nice?  :D

Also noticed that they have a forward facing video camera mounted just under the rear view mirror, presumably so that there is evidence of the standard of driving exhibited by the operators?

NEALR aka Shedman
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 26 April, 2011, 09:25:40 AM
I have footage of the $cars 11.30 at night all parked up illegally!
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 26 April, 2011, 12:08:35 PM
If it's at all possible, may I ask that you send any time and date stamped pictures or footage to Esinem so that he can make Cllr. Rowley "...aware of any continuing issues." I have already sent him mine including the one with rust on the brake disc of a car that was parked illegally in the same spot for about three weeks, but which never received a ticket.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 26 April, 2011, 05:35:09 PM
"At the end of 2010, Westminster agreed with NSL that CCTV vehicles need not carry dispensation boards, as this would offer a cost saving. CEOs were briefed as to the dispensations that applied to CCTV cars, but there has been no alteration to handheld units and the relevant VRNs are not blocked on handheld units". :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

So a few bits of plastic board offer a cost saving do they :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: Meanwhile there are now how many $cars on the WCC payroll :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: And Esinem`s latest calculation re the dummy camera at Savile Row :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

Don`t worry all, Jedwood says he has saved costs to the Tax payer by not buying bits of plastic.........." there has been no alteration to handheld units and the relevant VRNs are not blocked on handheld units."......so no dispensation boards displayed......no blocking of $car VRMs on CEO handhelds BUT...........NO PCNs EVER ISSUED TO $CARS  :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: Silly me, why would NSL issues PCNs to themselves FFS :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:


"This does not provide a general, permanent exemption, and indeed such a measure would be contrary to the Traffic Management Act guidance, which states: “TROs usually also exempt service vehicles, but only when they are being used to carry out certain activities...”


So for the honey pots let`s see the individual TROs that detail the dispensation for such vehicles under the "statutory powers" excuse and for mobile parking operations, does this mean that such a TRO is in order for EVERY street in WCC, again detailing the "statutory powers" wording???
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: DastardlyDick on 27 April, 2011, 08:14:08 AM
No, there has been no "alteration to handheld units and the relevant VRNs are not blocked on handheld units" because (I assume) they're actually blocked on the database, which obviously isn't on the handheld device.
How to tell a pack of lies, while at the same time being 'open & honest'.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: blackadder on 01 May, 2011, 12:47:18 AM
I made FOI request to a  LA regarding this very issue.

The press report

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8376169.WALTHAM_FOREST__Wardens_accused_of_hypocrisy_over_illegal_parking/ (http://http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8376169.WALTHAM_FOREST__Wardens_accused_of_hypocrisy_over_illegal_parking/)

FOI request:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_smart_car_on_corbett_road#incoming-121808 (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_smart_car_on_corbett_road#incoming-121808)

Their response:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/48075/response/121808/attach/html/3/2008%20No.60%20Articles.pdf.html (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/48075/response/121808/attach/html/3/2008%20No.60%20Articles.pdf.html)
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Esinem on 05 May, 2011, 02:19:41 AM
Looks like you have 'em bang to rights, notwithstanding "there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement”! [/font:2n37cilu][/color] :aplude:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 12 May, 2011, 10:27:34 PM
Heres the FOI request Ive been waiting for,  which according to Medway Council, this allows their CCTV cars to park on Double yellow etc

@have a look BH

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_certificates_orders#incoming-173854 (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_certificates_orders#incoming-173854)
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Pat Pending on 12 May, 2011, 11:16:47 PM
So I can see that more drivers will need to be recruited soon to replace the ones soon to be dismissed for flouting No Entry signs and One Way streets and putting the general public at considerable risk!!!
Go get em MG, why should they think they can try to enforce rules with the public and have total disregard for the same rules for themselves. W:T:F:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 13 May, 2011, 05:14:00 AM
So they can`t drive through NO ENTRY roads as we thought and  they are still using the "Statutary Powers" excuse for every thing else eh??? :-ev-: :-ev-: Well done  MG
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Nigel W on 13 May, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
There all at it.:
Richmond Council defends 'spy' car parking on double yellow lines.

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/richmond_news/5072394.Caught_on_camera__Council__spy__car_snapped_parked_on_double_yell/ (http://http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/richmond_news/5072394.Caught_on_camera__Council__spy__car_snapped_parked_on_double_yell/)

They are still safely parked up in their pen - gathering dust! Day in and day out. ;D
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 13 May, 2011, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: "Pat Pending"
So I can see that more drivers will need to be recruited soon to replace the ones soon to be dismissed for flouting No Entry signs and One Way streets and putting the general public at considerable risk!!!
Go get em MG, why should they think they can try to enforce rules with the public and have total disregard for the same rules for themselves. W:T:F:
we have had 5  drivers sacked since 12th Feb down in Medway!  W:T:F:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 May, 2011, 09:23:16 PM
Do you mean the NoToMob have had 5 drivers sacked, or is that the Royal (Medway) sense of the word we?

I don't think we want drivers thinking that our aim is to get them the sack, do we?
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 13 May, 2011, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: "The Bald Eagle"
Do you mean the NoToMob have had 5 drivers sacked, or is that the Royal (Medway) sense of the word we?

I don't think we want drivers thinking that our aim is to get them the sack, do we?

Sorry BE  :schucks:  to[font=calibri:zwxvy59u] reiterate correctly, Medway Council may have dismissed 4 cctv car drivers, and one dangerous driver may have been sacked due to notomob footage of his dangerous driving, although this has not been officially confirmed yet![/font:zwxvy59u] [font=times new roman:zwxvy59u] [/font:zwxvy59u]
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 16 May, 2011, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: "Monkey Girl"
Heres the FOI request Ive been waiting for,  which according to Medway Council, this allows their CCTV cars to park on Double yellow etc

@have a look BH

[url]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_certificates_orders#incoming-173854[/url] ([url]http://http[/url]://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/road_traffic_certificates_orders#incoming-173854)
After reviewing this FOI, they didnt actually answer my first question as pointed out to me, so I have requested a internal review.
 
 [align=left:3t12d8ve][font=Tahoma:3t12d8ve][color=rgb(85, 85, 85)]grooks (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/grooks) left an annotation (15 May 2011)Correct me if i'm wrong but their reply has got nothing to do with your question.
You asked about "No vehicle access" route, i take it you mean

"No entry for vehicular traffic"

they replied with "waiting and loading restrictions", yes it did mention excempt vehicles but only for the above
.[/size]grooks (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/grooks) left an annotation (15 May 2011)[/color][/align][font=Tahoma:3t12d8ve][color=rgb(85, 85, 85)][/color][/font]
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 16 May, 2011, 09:03:55 PM
Dear Department for Transport,

I refer you to
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downlo... (http://http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downlo...)

The pertinent comment I wish to bring to your attention is as
follows:

"One of the principle difficulties is that the driver of the CCTV
vehicle parks is for anything up to five minutes while the operator
points the camera at the offending vehicle. Appellants have
questioned why the council CCTV car can
park for five minutes on a double yellow line while they are having
penalties imposed on them for the same practice. Adjudicators have
noticed that in some of the correspondence the council has claimed
that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a
CCTV vehicle. This is not the case - there are NO provisions in the
TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking
restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement."

Please supply written confirmation that the above Adjudicator`s
comment is correct in that there is NO provision in the TMA or any
of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions
in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement.

Also, please confirm that local authorities cannot use the caveat
of "Exemptions for vehicles used in the service of a local
authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that
in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise
of such powers or the performance of such duties for the vehicle to
wait in the place in which it is waiting” for the purpose of
allowing these CCTV vehicles to park in contravention themselves.

Yours faithfully,

 :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:

Let`s get this matter sorted  :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 16 May, 2011, 09:25:55 PM
I cant wait for this reply  :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Pat Pending on 16 May, 2011, 09:26:29 PM
Feck me BH that last paragraph took a couple of read through's. W:T:F: But I managed it without the aid of a map and compass in the end. 8)
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 16 May, 2011, 09:30:20 PM
A bit like Euston Stn to Brixton prison Pat......42 feckin road names :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: Let`s see what comes back from the DfT as one way or the other we will know what we are dealing with!
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 17 May, 2011, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: "BailiffHunter"
Let`s see what comes back from the DfT as one way or the other we will know what we are dealing with!

I thought we heard from a very senior source at Wastemonster that the DfT were bunch of Muppets mate? :rotfl:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Belplasca on 17 May, 2011, 10:59:11 AM
Really interesting in the news today that the government is employing someone to see why shoppers are deserting local High Streets in droves...

Wouldn't have anything to do with over-the-top, revenue driven parking enforcement, would it?

Bob
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Pat Pending on 17 May, 2011, 12:34:19 PM
Now there is an avenue Mary Queen of Shops might like to investigate.  :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 17 May, 2011, 05:18:37 PM
Quote from: "Belplasca"
Really interesting in the news today that the government is employing someone to see why shoppers are deserting local High Streets in droves...

Wouldn't have anything to do with over-the-top, revenue driven parking enforcement, would it?

Bob
Yes it is!! ...  I spoke to most  of the shops at top end of Chatham High St today, they " hate" the Scar, and there takings are down since 2008 funny! that's when the Scars arrived down here... Im going digging....i ho i ho  :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Esinem on 18 May, 2011, 03:30:49 AM
[font=georgia:3rgtemqj]Grasping at straws? [/font:3rgtemqj]
[font=georgia:3rgtemqj]"[/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]In regards to t[/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]he quote referred to[/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj], it [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]is [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]from [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]the chief adjudicator for [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which covers [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]England and Wales [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]but [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]exclud[/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]es [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]London hence the reference to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) which do not exist in London.  [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]The [/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]C[/font:3rgtemqj][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]ouncil does not believe that any similar sentiment has been stated by the chief adjudicator for London.[/font:3rgtemqj][/i][/u][font=georgia:3rgtemqj]"[/font:3rgtemqj][/i]
[font=georgia:3rgtemqj]Maybe this need clarification?[/font:3rgtemqj][font=arial:3rgtemqj][/font:3rgtemqj]


[align=left:3rgtemqj][font=arial:3rgtemqj]Thank you for your email. [/font:3rgtemqj][/color][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][font=arial:3rgtemqj]In regards to paragraph 1,  the request for a copy of the current VCA certificates meant  the Council checked back through the correspondence file with the VCA.  The last major change to our certification was the inclusion of a different type of CCTV vehicle.  We lodged our technical contraction file (TCF) with the VCA for these new vehicles on 04 July 2010, in response we received an email on 21 July 2010 confirming that they had accepted the change and we were re-certificated and that we could begin using the new vehicles.  The VCA did not send on the new certificates at this point but have now issued the two certificates dated 21 July 2010 to which their email of the same date referred.[/font:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][font=arial:3rgtemqj]In regards to paragraph 2 this has been referred as a new freedom of information request. [/font:3rgtemqj][/color][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][font=arial:3rgtemqj]In regards to the quote referred to, it is from the chief adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which covers England and Wales but excludes London hence the reference to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) which do not exist in London.  The Council does not believe that any similar sentiment has been stated by the chief adjudicator for London.[/font:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][font=arial:3rgtemqj]Our traffic management orders state:[/font:3rgtemqj][/color][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj][/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj]Extract from: Exceptions and exemptions to our Traffic Management Orders Page 5 of 440[/align:3rgtemqj] [align=left:3rgtemqj]Excepted Vehicles
8.1 The restrictions imposed by Article 4 of this order shall not apply :-
(e) in relation to a vehicle being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting;
(h) where notice is given to the Council or authorised agent, their consent is obtained in writing and any such conditions as they may impose are complied with.
The Traffic Management Act 2004 clearly places a statutory duty on local authorities. 
The council believes (e)/(h) clearly gives Southwark Council as a local authority the right to let it's or it's contractors vehicles when displaying an 'A' permit (written permission) and carrying out their statutory duties to wait in contravention.
Regards[/align:3rgtemqj] David Sole
Parking services and development manager
Southwark Council
Public Realm - Parking
PO Box 64529
London
SE1P 5LX
020 7525 2037
079 8579 8114
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 May, 2011, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: "Esinem"
[font=georgia:1px8r7gg]"[/font:1px8r7gg]In regards to t[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]he quote referred to[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg], it [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]is [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]from [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]the chief adjudicator for [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which covers [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]England and Wales [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]but [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]exclud[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]es [/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]London hence the reference to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) which do not exist in London.  [/font:1px8r7gg]The [/font:1px8r7gg][/i][/u][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]C[/font:1px8r7gg][font=georgia:1px8r7gg]ouncil does not believe that any similar sentiment has been stated by the chief adjudicator for London.[/font:1px8r7gg]"


[/font:1px8r7gg]
[/i]Maybe this need clarification?[/font:1px8r7gg]

Adjudicators have noticed that in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case - there are NO provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera
enforcement."

Quote from: "Esinem"
Maybe this need clarification?[/font:1px8r7gg]

How about this Bruce?

"It is agreed that London authorities are issued Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) as opposed to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). Please tell us where in the primary legislation (The Traffic management Act 2004) it provides for London authorities to give exemptions for CCTV enforcement cars under TMOs?
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Belplasca on 18 May, 2011, 07:38:09 PM
Ealing claim to get their exemptions from the "Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984"

Is there anything in that that they can, indeed, use?

(I have asked Ealing for the actual wording, as part of a FOI discussion that I am having with them over the vans in Wadsworth Road...)

Bob

(edited because it was not displaying properly...)
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Esinem on 24 May, 2011, 03:02:22 AM
Oh gawd, if you insist...

Dear Lee

It is agreed that authorities are issued Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) as opposed to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). Please tell me where in the primary legislation (The Traffic management Act 2004) it provides for authorities to give exemptions for CCTV enforcement cars under TMOs. In the absence of such evidence, your assertions are groundless and the CCTV cars have no legal exemptions from the usual regulations.

Even if it were a valid argument, you say exemptions only apply where “the vehicle is being used for fire brigade or police purpose or, not being a passenger vehicle[, is being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers”. I think it is safe to assume that the Toyoya IQ is a passenger car, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, it does not qualify as an Exempted Vehicle.

In the light of the above, I believe that it would be very wise to ensure the MEVs are parked legally and not where prohibitions are in place for public safety and free traffic flow.

Regards 

Bruce
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 24 May, 2011, 12:03:34 PM
Quote from: "Esinem"
Oh gawd, if you insist...

Dear Lee

It is agreed that authorities are issued Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) as opposed to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). Please tell me where in the primary legislation (The Traffic management Act 2004) it provides for authorities to give exemptions for CCTV enforcement cars under TMOs. In the absence of such evidence, your assertions are groundless and the CCTV cars have no legal exemptions from the usual regulations.

Even if it were a valid argument, you say exemptions only apply where “the vehicle is being used for fire brigade or police purpose or, not being a passenger vehicle[, is being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers”. I think it is safe to assume that the Toyoya IQ is a passenger car, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, it does not qualify as an Exempted Vehicle.

In the light of the above, I believe that it would be very wise to ensure the MEVs are parked legally and not where prohibitions are in place for public safety and free traffic flow.

Regards 

Bruce



I reckon you should expect a whole lot of silence from them now that you appear to have once again backed them into a corner.
 
What we have to do now is see whether NSL change their behaviour when it comes to parking. If they no longer park where they would otherwise be liable to receive a ticket, score another one for the Mob.
 
Problem is we will never get the credit for it because that's the way these things work.
 
We prove them wrong, they change their practices, and no one apart from us and them are any the wiser.
 
But we'll know... ;) ;D
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 24 May, 2011, 06:12:44 PM
@BE

I agree. All of my recent FOIs re parking provisions for $cars seem to be taking a rather long time to get an answers to. How odd :-ev-: :-ev-:
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: DastardlyDick on 24 May, 2011, 10:49:41 PM
I seem to emember that WCC/NSL were going to start single crewing their MEVs.
I don't suppose that in their twisted little minds they think that this will make the iQs/Smart cars non passenger carrying and therefore entitled to the exemption?
Just a thought......
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Monkey Girl on 24 May, 2011, 10:57:16 PM
Medway Councils 2 new $cars are also single crewing, when they decide to use them!
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: BailiffHunter on 25 May, 2011, 07:27:45 AM
@MG I have PMd some of you with info.
Title: Re: CCTV $cars are NOT allowed to park illegally.........FACT!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Esinem on 25 May, 2011, 10:54:21 PM
Did I not post this somewhere? Obviously, we need to look at the whole TMO in each case.
From Cllr Rowley of WCC, 16/5/2011:

TMOs

 Officers have advised the following on the TMO issue:

 "The general exemption, is written into our Parent order TMOs and not the specific TMO’s for locations which is where the confusion may arise.

 For example –

 The parent Waiting & Loading (i.e. yellow lines) TMO 2002 no.41 states under Part III ‘Exceptions and Exemptions From Restrictions - Excepted Vehicles’ –

 “13 The restrictions imposed by Part II of this Order shall not apply in relation to the following vehicles, that is to say –

 (d) vehicles when used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting”.

 The parent Parking Place (i.e. paid-for bays) TMO 2001 no.185 states under Part III ‘Supplementary Provisions – Restriction On Waiting By A Vehicle In A Parking Place’–

 “28 (1) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Order any vehicle may wait during the permitted hours in any part of a parking place if the use of that part has not been suspended and if:

 (c) the vehicle is being used for fire brigade or police purpose or, not being a passenger vehicle, is being used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or in the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting”.

 The same exemption written into all relevant parent orders such as those for diplomatic bays, disabled bays, electric charging bays etc."