notomob.co.uk
General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: blackadder on 03 June, 2011, 08:11:22 PM
-
.........He has accepted that the contravention has occurred. He had stopped on the yellow line to enable the Appellant to collect her wedding dress. He had not realized that this amounted to parking, not had he appreciated the significance of the loading restriction. He accepts now that the contravention has occurred.
His arguments before me are around the use of CCTV enforcement or more specifically around the Secretary of State's guidance to enforcement authorities on the use of CCTV camera.
Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that the Secretary of State may publish guidance to local authorities about any matter relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions and that in exercising those functions a local authority must have regard to any such guidance.
The Appellant argued that the Authority had failed to have regard, or has not provided any evidence to show that the Authority had paid regard, to the Secretary of State's guidance on enforcement of the use of approved device especially as it relates to the primary objective of the camera enforcement system, the deployment of sign and the preference for enforcement by CEOs. The relevant paragraphs of the Secretary of State's guidance are as follows:
8.78
TMA regulations give the power to authorities throughout England to issue PCNs for contraventions detected with a camera and associated recording equipment (approved device). The Secretary of State must certify any type of device used solely to detect contraventions (i.e. with no supporting CEO evidence) as described in Chapter 7. Once certified they may be called an 'approved device'. Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and authorities should use them sparingly. The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions. Signs must comply with TSRGD or have special authorisation from DfT. The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical. Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply.
8.79
The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions
and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.
With regards to the deployment of CCTV camera signs, the Authority's response was that they were in fact in place at the entrance points to zones in which CCTV camera operate. The Appellant does not disagree with this, but argues that this did not mean that the indication was adequate.
With regards to the preference for CEOs, the Authority's response was that CCTV cameras are used where there is a high level of through traffic and where the use of CEOs are ineffective because people will park where there are no CEOs and for the system to work, there will have to be CEOs standing at specific locations constantly and this would obviously be impracticable. While I must remind myself that it is not for me to determine whether the Secretary of State's guidance had been complied with, this argument does lack credibility. The enforcement of parking contravention means by definition that the vehicle is stationary and in most cases the drivers are not in a position to derive away once a CEO approaches.
I am not prepared to hold, as the Appellant suggested that the guidance has statutory effect to require compliance by enforcement authorities. If this had been the wish of the Secretary of State, he could have, for example, required the placement of signs by primary or secondary legislation. He has no done so.
I must however agree with the Appellant that the Authority's decision to deploy camera enforcement must not be arbitrary. They must have regard to the guidance. The Appellant argued that there was no evidence that the Authority had paid any regard to the Secretary of State's guidance and what they said in the case summary was belated and (I presume the Appellant to say) made up after the event. He based this assertion partly on the fact that despite him raising these points before and after the Notice of ejection was issued, the Authority had not dealt with them.
The Appellant's argument has some force. The Notice of Rejection said that the use of cameras alongside CEO's increases the capacity to enforce and thereby increases the level of safety. There are however not criteria set down in the Secretary of State's guidance (see above) and, as I have pointed out above, the justification by the Authority in the Notice of Rejection lacked credit.
Taking the history of the appeal as a whole, and while I think that Mr Melville's arguments have been unnecessary lengthy and in many instances incorrect or unsustainable, he has said enough to amount to require the Authority to demonstrate that it has had regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. I am not persuaded by the evidence submitted by the Authority that it had regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. I am not saying that it has not done so, I am saying that it has not demonstrated that it has done so. It has therefore failed when asked to do so to evince that it has complied with section 87 of the TMA. I find that there has been a procedural impropriety. I am allowing the appeal.
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=211017751A (http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=211017751A)
-
Here is the message I get when I click on Blackadder's( :aplude:) link to the Patas page.
Due to high demand the system currently cannot retrieve details for your search. Please try again later or try a different search.
If you continue to experience difficulties in accessing this facility, please do not hesitate to contact us as we may be able to assist you. Contact details can be found on our main website "Contact Us" page.
;D ;D ;D
-
Try this
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=211017751A (http://http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=211017751A)
-
or copy and paste last 10 digits of the link in the top yellow case reference box.
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.o (http://http://www.patasregistersofappeals.o)...gAdvanced.aspx
-
This link is working W:T:F:
http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=211017751A (http://http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=211017751A)