Last Friday i attended PATAS for a hearing and represented a Bexley PCN. I would of liked the adjudication on the Certification not being fit for purpose.
Bexley had provided a copy of the certification, and i also provided certificates that are correct for the adjudicator to compare to Bexley's, which he did.
I raised the issue of certification, and i quote below from the Civil Traffic Enforcement Certifcation of Approved Devices......
(chapter 1 1.1 (general introduction))
This document is concerned with the ensuring that the certification of such devices or systems meets the 'balance of probability' criterion. although some of the requirements might go beyond this and meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' principle. The overall objective is to ensure that evidence produced by devices certified in accordance with the procedure described is defensible when taken to adjudication.
Consideration is also given to the need for all those involved to be able to demonstrate that the operation of the certification process is transparent, fair and ultimately defensible in law, and that the individual applications also satisfy those criteria.
This I quoted at the hearing, and demonstated that Bexley's certification does not meet the requirements.
At the end of the hearing the Adjudicator advised that he wish to consided the matter and today a decision has been reached.
Even tho I raised the issue of certification, the adjudicator is refering to at statement from the council, and this case can be found here....
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1558.0.htmlOk, today decision.....
Case Reference: 2110321208
Appellant: Mr xxxx xxxx
Authority: Bexley
VRM: Y849NUM
PCN: XL80672550
Contravention Date: 11 Mar 2011
Contravention Time: 19:40
Contravention Location: Days Lane, Sidcup
Penalty Amount: £100.00
Contravention: Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Decision Date: 30 Dec 2011
Adjudicator: John Lane
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: Mr. xxxx attended the hearing, together with Mr. Clarke.
Amongst other issues they provided a judgment in appeal case, 2110523561 and relied on that judgment.
The Adjudicator in that case referred to the declaration made by the camera operator and that it expressly referred to, "London Local Authorities Act 2000 and the Code of Practice approved by London Councils."
The same declaration is made in this case.
The previous Adjudicator stated that it has no relevance under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and relevant legislation.
I would agree with that.
I will therefore allow this appeal.
So, this adjudicator agrees....
The evidence that the recording device is approved is insufficient to such an extent that one might say that there is no such evidence at all.
Pity he cant say this directly regarding the certification, and i wonder how long Bexley will continue to submit this statement with no meaning allowing adjudicators to make a ruling based on that rather than the certificate alone.
If anyone has a Bexley camera issued PCN that they are taking to PATAS, just quote the above case number, job done, (as long as they continue to use a statement that is incorrect).
