Author Topic: Westminster Say They Have CCTV Warning Signs Here. They Don't. Appeal Allowed!  (Read 1648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest

"He gave evidence in the same terms as his earlier representations to the Enforcement Authority and his Notice of Appeal, adding further details to his account. He is unable to dispute that his cab was waiting in a restricted street as alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the Enforcement Authority, but appeals on the basis that the Authority have failed to show that they have signs in place warning that they are carrying out CCTV enforcement.

The Authority said in their Notice of Rejection, " is not a legal requirement of have signs at each individual CCTV camera location. Signs are posted at relevant Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) signs, alerting drivers to CCTV camera coverage within that zone area". In his Notice of Appeal Mr Cocklin pointed out that the Authority had offered no evidence to support this claim. He said that he had revisited the said location and could find no signs present either before entering or after leaving the zone. He wrote, "I would be grateful if the Enforcement Authority could provide evidence of where these signs are exactly".

"In their Case Summary the Authority have recited the above exchange, and explained that the City is divided into different zones, of which they have produced a map. They say that the map shows where the CPZ signs are displayed.

At the hearing Mr Cocklin pointed out that the one sample photograph of a zone entry sign that the Authority have produced (in Victoria Square) does not show a CCTV enforcement sign."

"I explained to Mr Cocklin that the Enforcement Authority is not legally obliged to display CCTV camera enforcement warning signs, although guidance advises them to do so. However I infer from what the Authority wrote in their Notice of Rejection that it is their policy to display such signs at the entry points to each CPZ. Mr Cocklin clearly asked the Authority to provide evidence to show that, in effect, they were complying with their own policy in this regard, and they have failed to do so.

Where an Authority has a policy, even if it is one that they are not obliged to have by law, the principles of fairness require that they abide by that policy. In this case the implicit position of the Authority is that they will not use camera enforcement in the absence of warning signs. As they have not produced evidence to show that such signs were actually in place, I find that it would breach the duty of fairness owed by the Authority to motorists in general and to Mr Cocklin in particular to enforce this penalty charge.

On this narrow basis I therefore allow this appeal."

Offline Darcus

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Good win, although all they have to do now is remove the policy.
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player