Author Topic: Penalty Charge Notice  (Read 3919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Macsimum

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Penalty Charge Notice
« on: 30 May, 2013, 04:57:44 PM »
I have recently received the above notice.

On the occassion I pulled into a red route of clearway, that apparently is prohibited. I literally pulled into the bay, stayed 3-5 mins at 5.45pm, without getting out of the car and with the engine running and then pulled out. The first image shows my car behind the black car. The photo of my number plate shows me about to leave the bay.

I have drafted the following letter based on one an existing email I found on one of your forum. Not quite in the same road, but nevertheless, very near. This is the link

I wonder if you could advice as to whether it is worth me challenging it and if I have grounds?

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to appeal the above PCN issued by CCTV on the following grounds:

1.?I don't understand how you can get a 'red route clearway' PCN when you were parked in a loading bay that apparently doesn't have a red line in it? I note that on your website –, there is a link to more detailed info on red routes, West Wickham High Street appears not to be listed?

2.?In this day and age it is only right, fair & reasonable that you allow formal representations via this online tool. However, this online tool is flawed as it is my right to be able to tick more than one box for the statutory grounds of appeal or in this case to be able to select one or more grounds as per regulation 4 (2)(b)(i) of the 2007 representations and appeals regulations.

This tool only gives me the option to choose one of the statutory grounds and therefore is a fundamental breach of the above regulations.

3.?Section 48 of the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions states "The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical". Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance.

4.?The IOC CCTV code of conduct states that warning signs should be placed where CCTV is in use. No such signs were in place in the location where this PCN was issued therefore it is invalid. This has been confirmed at Adjudicator by the case of Rachel Johnson v Wirral, copy of press article included. Quote from the code of conduct:

"You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV.

Signs should:

• be clearly visible and readable;
•?contain details of the organisation operating the system, the purpose for using CCTV and who to contact about the scheme (where these things are not obvious to those being monitored); and
•?be an appropriate size depending on context, for example, whether they are viewed by pedestrians or car drivers."

Hence I trust the PCN will be cancelled.

If you reject my appeal please send with your response a copy of the relevant traffic order and proof that the camera in use is an approved device.

Having sought independent advice regarding this matter and although there are sufficient grounds for you to cancel this PCN, I am prepared to evidence this case with PATAS and for an adjudicator to look into the matter. However that is not my intention and I am not interested in attempting to set a case precedent. With that in mind and in any case, I would also like to appeal to your good nature and ask you to exercise discretion in cancelling this PCN as either a gesture of goodwill or due to a technical error. If that be the case then I would like to think that we can both put this down as a lesson learned.

Yours faithfully

Many thanks