Author Topic: INAPPROPRIATE & WRONGFUL USE OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT BY CCTV  (Read 5983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
INAPPROPRIATE & WRONGFUL USE OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT BY CCTV
« on: 30 April, 2011, 11:51:05 AM »
The Following Information is taken from my Ground 2 of Appeal.  This was withdrawn by me so that the Adjudicator could only adjudicate on the Non Certification Issue. It is very relevant.

The use of mobile CCTV camera enforcement of static parking restrictions by Richmond Council is shown for several reasons to be an inappropriate and wrongful method of enforcement as is well exemplified by the issuing of my PCN in Powdermill Lane.
As well as being inappropriate and wrongful the Council has failed to conform to necessary associated procedures and requirements

The use of CCTV is contrary to all parking enforcement guidance.
The indiscriminate use of mobile CCTV by Richmond Council for the purpose of static parking enforcement (as opposed to moving traffic enforcement in potentially dangerous situations which is a wholly different situation) is contrary to all published guidance and codes of practice.
The Department for Transport’s detailed guide to parking enforcement under the Traffic Management Act set out in their March 2008 “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement” states the Secretary of State’s recommendation (emphasis added) that:
“Approved devices (i.e. CCTV cameras) 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 but it is inescapable that Richmond Council disregards this statutory guidance.
In a radio interview with Rosie Winterton, the former Minister of State for Transport, she was clear that where, for example, you have a dual carriageway or similar fast road with no pavements that would be dangerous for a traffic warden (now CEO) but appropriate for monitoring by CCTV.  However that situation of hazard for a CEO does not exist in Powdermill Lane.
Enforcement of parking restrictions by CEOs is difficult only on roads with no footways where foot patrols would be hazardous.  Enforcement of restrictions in Powdermill Lane by CEOs is not difficult – it could not be easier.
Not only is CEO enforcement practical in Powdermill Lane – it is the only sensible and effective means of achieving the best compliance!  Freely permitting contraventions without any CEO presence, as currently happens, and then doing nothing productive except issuing penalties after the event cannot possibly be a proper means of kerbside management.
Powdermill Lane is an ordinary two lane restricted suburban road with a 30 mph speed limit. It also has a footway on both sides.  It is therefore not hazardous to use CEOs in this road.  Nor is it impractical.  The scope for maximising PCN revenue in disregard of all other enforcement considerations cannot be a valid excuse for its employment, especially when it is contrary to all known official guidance and recommendations   

CCTV should be used sparingly to issue PCNs
The DfT Operational Guidance to Local Authorities (Revised Edition November 2010) states:
Enforcement by approved devices
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 devices).
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.
I submit that the true construction of the term “sparingly” as here stated means, and can only sensibly mean, that enforcement by cameras should be implemented only in those very-limited situations of parking enforcement of static vehicles where it is not safe or practical to conduct enforcement by CEOs, and in the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions (such as box junctions) where it almost always unsafe or impractical not to employ CCTV.
Because of the self-evident fact that nearly all parking enforcement can be conducted without hazard or problem by patrolling CEOs I submit that it must be an irrational view (in the context of parking enforcement (where CCTV operation has very limited legitimate application) ‘sparingly’ could be taken to have any other meaning.
I believe that adjudicator opinion on this point would be a valuable contribution.

Blatant misuse of CCTV enforcement in Powdermill Lane
My own observations on Richmond Council’s disregard of the proper use of CCTV enforcement and its wrongful use in Powdermill Lane are confirmed by the nine witness statements herewith, provided by aggrieved and contemptuous shopkeepers located in this road.  These statements [ 10 - 18 ] all confirm the multiple illegalities involved in the Council’s misuse and abuse of its enforcement powers operations. 
In particular, the statement of café owner Mr Ali Kayardi [ 10 ] reports how the council’s Smart Car routinely parks up for long periods of time for the purpose of issuing PCNs after allowing vehicles to stop unchallenged in a contravention, not only with its own two wheels on the footway (unlawfully and unnecessarily), but hidden from view behind a parked vehicle with it’s camera raised on a mast to see over the top, wilfully in a wrongful and unnecessarily covert operation.   

CCTV operation is contrary to the Information Commissioner’s Code of Practice
Formal guidance on the use of CCTV in public places is provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office in their “2008 Code of Conduct for CCTV enforcement”.  It shows conclusively that the use of CCTV monitoring of the Powdermill Road is wrong.
Section 4 of the Code states (emphasis added):
?   What is the organisation’s purpose for using CCTV? What are the problems it is meant to address?
?   What are the views of those who will be under surveillance?
?   Is it necessary to address a pressing need, such as public safety, crime prevention or national security?
?   Is it justified in the circumstances?
?   Is it proportionate to the problem that it is designed to deal with?
?   If this is not the case then it would not be appropriate to use CCTV

The Information Commissioner’s view is clearly that CCTV monitoring of Powdermill Road parking restrictions is not justifiable because:
?   There is no enforcement problem solved or solvable here by the use of CCTV
?   There is no pressing need for it for any of the three objectives stated by the ICO
?   It cannot be justified when it has failed to recognise the multiple signage defects in Powdermill Lane.
?   It cannot be proportionate when its proven function is almost entirely punitive and
revenue generation.

Inadequacy of CCTV enforcement in Powdermill Lane
The inadequate CCTV images produced in evidence for this PCN appeal alone show that enforcement of parking restrictions at this location by the use of CCTV is wholly inappropriate and unsatisfactory.
The CCTV Camera Car produces images that are not always adequate for the enforcement of parking restrictions.  In fair-weather conditions and at some times of day only, some CCTV images may well be sufficient to prove the occurrence of a contravention but that cannot justify the procedure as a systematic means of parking enforcement.
Ground 1 of this appeal shows that many motorists issued with PCNs at this location on the basis of insufficient CCTV images such as those of my vehicle will have automatically paid the demanded penalties without having the knowledge and expertise (or time) to contest it at adjudication where it could be regularly shown that the enforcement evidence against the motorist was inadequate or, as in this present case, incorrect and false.
The direction of sunlight, wet road reflections and poor lighting in winter will have ensured that, despite there sometimes being an inadequate standard of parking contravention evidence, many motorists have been and are continuing to pay unjustified penalties on the basis of insufficient CCTV evidence.
The persistence of this operation by Richmond Council inevitably demonstrates that the routine monitoring of this location by CCTV camera is inappropriate and wrong and, at least in part, is conducted as an easy money-making operation with no consideration or possibility of achieving good compliance with parking restrictions.
The Powdermill Lane Shopkeepers have reported to me that many of their customers have received PCNs when having been unaware of any wrongdoing.  They also see regular inadvertently-wrongful parking on the opposite side of the road and notice the CCTV car passing on a regular basis.
This demonstrates the inappropriate and wrongful use of enforcement by CCTV at this location which can have no substantial effect in achieving good compliance with the restrictions which are not signed (either clearly or, in some places, at all).  CCTV enforcement at this road serves only to entrap motorists, the only outcome being to permit contraventions to occur and then penalise the motorists.

Failure of CCTV enforcement to ensure compliant parking signage
It is a primary function of parking enforcement CEOs to observe and report back damaged or defective signage (which, as in Powdermill Lane, can cause parking restrictions to be not in force). 
Richmond Council has failed to maintain parking signage in necessary good order for around 15 years in this road, initially for want of any CEO visits but they now persist in this failure to ensure parking signage is in good order by reason of their CCTV cars failing to perform signage monitoring by merely touring streets en route to hotspot locations for achieving the maximum issuing of PCNs.

Requirement to sign the CCTV operation.
The London Councils’ Code of Practice for CCTV Enforcement states at 2.3.5 that:
Relevant camera enforcement signs should be displayed in areas where the system operates.
The signs will not define the field of view of the cameras but will advise that CCTV camera
enforcement is taking place in the area.
The Information Commissioners Office’s Code of Practice is explicit about the requirement to provide adequate signing in the area in which CCTV surveillance is operating and how that signing should be implemented.
The Code provides at Section 9 (emphasis added):
9. Responsibilities
9.1 Letting people know

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. This message can also be backed up with an audio announcement, where public announcements are already used, such as in a station.
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. In the exceptional circumstance that audio recording is being used, this should be stated explicitly and prominently.
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.
?   Signs do not need to say who is operating the system if this is obvious. If CCTV is   
      installed within a shop, for example, it will be obvious that the shop is responsible.

All staff should know what to do or who to contact if a member of the public makes an enquiry about the CCTV system. Systems in public spaces and shopping centres should have signs giving the name and contact details of the company, organisation or authority responsible.
Example: “Images are being monitored and recorded for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety. This scheme is controlled by Greentown Borough Council. For more information, call 01234 567890.”
Do you have signs in place informing people that CCTV is in operation?
Do your signs convey the appropriate information?


Failure of Richmond Council to sign its CCTV enforcement operation.
The Information Commissioner unequivocally states (as above) that “local authorities must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out”.
Richmond Council has disregarded these warning signage requirements which could not be stated more explicitly or with greater clarity.
It could not be argued by the Council (as an excuse) that there is no statutory requirement to place signage to advertise CCTV enforcement because they have done so, albeit in an inadequate and incompetent manner.  Richmond have also referred to these signs in their reply to a Freedom of Information request I made to them on this matter.
They have in response to this information request claimed to have met the requirements by the placement (at locations unknown) of one or more incorrect signs, evidence document [ 27 ].
Their response demonstrates yet more astonishing Council incompetence because these two signs are TSRGD 2002 signs, but there are no signs provided by the Regulations for use with static parking enforcement operations.
The upper sign shown in this information (to Diagram 878) is to warn of the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions (of which 21 are listed by PATAS). It has no other function. Parking is not traffic.
The lower sign (to Diagram 879) is a reminder sign that is for use only at some distance after a primary sign to diagram 878 (or a similar sign warning of speed monitoring or red light monitoring. For the Council to place both together must be incompetence of the highest order.
Richmond’s ‘camera’ signs, that are all wrongly and impermissibly in place on the highway for parking enforcement at the fault of Richmond Council, are to Diagram 879 of the 2002 Regulations which, as the DfT has confirmed, provide no CCTV-related signage for use in connection with the enforcement of static parking restrictions.
« Last Edit: 04 July, 2011, 05:14:35 PM by Nigel W »

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: INAPPROPRIATE & WRONGFUL USE OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT BY CCTV
« Reply #1 on: 30 April, 2011, 11:53:20 AM »
Continued from above.


Richmond Council’s false statements regarding warning signage
The Council systematically makes false statements on matters material to this appeal.
The response to my Freedom of Information request [ 27 ] states
“Signage is in place on entry points to the Borough to inform motorists
  that CCTV enforcement is in place”
On a previous occasion they informed me that these “signs exist at all entry points to the borough”. 
Their own statement shows the Council to be incompetent and my recent survey of the borough shows it to be untruthful.   
?   At the nearest main point of entry to the Borough there are no such signs in place.
On the main A316 at the borough boundary there is a sign showing: “Welcome to Richmond upon Thames” [ 28 ] but there are no camera enforcement signs of any type anywhere near this location (the A316 is a main thoroughfare leading into the borough from the M3 and M25) [ 29 ]
?   There are several other points of entry to the borough where there are no camera enforcement signs.
As to their incompetence, no sign to Diagram 879 can ever be legitimately placed at an entry to the Borough since it is a sign only for use as a reminder sign that must follow a primary moving traffic sign.  It cannot be a primary sign for any purpose. 

Richmond Council’s false reference to a school in the vicinity and “foot patrols”
This is yet more wilfully false and misleading information provided by Richmond Council in their defence of the indefensible.
In their response to me to my Freedom of Information request [ 27 ] the Council has responded with the following lies:
“As there is a school in the immediate vicinity routine mobile enforcement is undertaken in conjunction with foot patrols with the aim of to reducing illegal parking, alleviating congestion and improving road safety.”
There is no school in the vicinity, immediate or otherwise.  The nearest school is more than half a mile from this location so it is not in the immediate vicinity”. 
In any event there is no more justification or appropriateness for the use of CCTV enforcement near a school than anywhere else (except where there would be a hazard to a CEO with the absence of a footway – which does not exist at any school).
The statement about foot patrols is a further blatant false statement.  Foot patrols have never been known to operate at this location as confirmed by the shopkeepers’ witness statements [ 10 – 18 ].
Further, the issuing of PCNs here does not alleviate congestion here it adds to it (my Ground 2 refers).
These reckless false statement of Richmond Council on particulars that are material to my appeal and to the Council’s own representations intended to persuade the tribunal to its own advantage appear to fall squarely within Regulation 14 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 as I have already identified on page 5 of my 2nd Ground of appeal.

Wrongful use of  CCTV enforcement in Powdermill Road.
I submit that my PCN was wrongly issued (into addition to other reasons of wrongful issue) because the use of CCTV to enforce the restrictions in Powdermill Lane is:
?   A wholly inappropriate and unnecessary method of enforcement
?   Ineffective in achieving good compliance with the restrictions
?   Not capable of consistently producing adequate evidence of contraventions
?   Contrary to the recommendations of the Secretary of State
?   Contrary to the Code of Practice of the ICO, and Richmond’s own CCTV Code of Practice and is
?   Not signed with warning signs compliant with Code of Practice specifications.
The Council does have some 'warning signage' in place and they have attached importance to it in their evidence submissions and Freedom of Information Response. However, none of the Council's signage is correct and compliant with specified requirements for signs warning of parking enforcement.
The City of Westminster Council has recognised the requirement for compliant signage to be in place to warn of enforcement of parking restrictions by use of CCTV.  Westminster has introduced these signs that comply with ICO specifications to warn motorists that parking contraventions are being enforced by the use of CCTV.  Evidence [ 30 ] shows the format of their compliant signs. 
Richmond Council has no signage compliant with ICO specifications anywhere in the borough.
(The warning signs in Westminster were not formerly compliant, a PATAS appeal against Westminster was allowed on or about May 2009 on the sole ground that CCTV enforcement was inappropriate - case reference unknown. At this time the Information Commissioner had advised Westminster that their signs then in place did not comply with the requirements).
The ‘camera’ sign to 2002 Regulations diagram 879 that is in wrongly place in parts of the Borough of Richmond is to be used only in advertisement of moving traffic monitoring and may be installed only as a reminder sign placed on the highway at some distance after a primary sign to diagram 878 (or a similar sign warning of speed monitoring, red light monitoring or moving traffic contravention monitoring).


Previous parking appeal decisions
The TPT appeal decision of July 2009 in XXXX v Metropolitan Borough of Wirral  (case no.
WL 05219F [ 31 ] is directly relevant to CCTV parking enforcement in Powdermill Lane.
This appeal was allowed for the reasons that:
?   no evidence was adduced by Wirral that adequate signing warning of camera parking enforcement was in place and that
?   camera enforcement was not appropriate at the subject location
I submit that because the situation in Powdermill Lane is materially the same as that in the Wirral case, and that nothing in mitigation of  these two upheld objections to CCTV enforcement has been adduced by Richmond Council, my appeal rightly falls to be adjudged in the same way (additional to other grounds of objection to my PCN).
In 2010 another TPT appeal, this time objecting to Basildon Council’s parking enforcement by the use of Smart Car CCTV surveillance, was allowed by adjudicator James Richardson.  This case is referred to in a helpful report document [ 32 ] recently provided to me unexpectedly.  Contrary to Basildon Council’s protestations, apart from the inadequacy of their CCTV enforcement warning signage, the adjudicator found that the use of mobile CCTV was not an appropriate means of enforcement, the same as I have argued in this appeal.   

Covert use of mobile CCTV by Richmond Council
The covert enforcement of parking restrictions by Richmond Council that is inherent in their use of mobile CCTV is arguably wrong for being grossly inappropriate and because Richmond mobile CCTV operators do so without RIPA authority for such covert operation.
The Council’s parking enforcement by Smart Car CCTV is covert for several reasons:
1.   One of their Smart Cars is painted black with no markings except “NSL Services” (or similar text) on the bonnet.  That does not overtly advertise its presence and purpose but this is trivial to the facts that -
2.   All recipients of such PCNs (like me, the appellant) are unaware of being observed from a distance by a Smart Car that can be, at least in many instances, visible to the ‘offender’ only by means of binoculars and a slow scanning survey of the whole surrounding area.  Even if a Smart Car were overtly parked alone at the kerbside and evident to a passing pedestrian its presence and observation activity is inherently secret from any motorist being observed some distance away.
3.   In particular, the fact that Richmond Smart Cars operate in the greatest possible secrecy by parking in Powdermill Lane behind another vehicle (unnecessarily so for its operation) to conduct secret surveillance by means of a raised periscope camera is the most wilfully covert operation imaginable, this being confirmed by witness statement
[ 10 ]. 
Because there can be no doubt that the operation of mobile CCTV by means of the two Smart Car vehicles operating in the Borough of Richmond is, at least to a significant extent, covert, and because there is no imaginable requirement in the UK for covert enforcement of static parking restrictions, the operation of the Council’s Smart Cars is inappropriate.
In the terms of the ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000’ the observation of parked vehicles by mobile CCTV operators is classified under ss. 26(1) and 26(4)(a) as non-intrusive directed surveillance by a human covert intelligence source, being for the purpose per s. 26(2) a specific operation that is likely (actually is specifically intended) to obtain private information about a person (that being intentionally the identity of the registered keeper of the vehicle being targeted which is personal information subject to the Data Protection Act).
Section 26(9)(a) of the RIPA confirms that some and probably all of the Council’s mobile CCTV surveillance is covert where it is “carried out in a manner that is calculated to ensure that persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place”. 
Whether or not the registered keeper/owner of the vehicle is the person causing a parking contravention, and whether or not he/she is being observed (as many are in the course of a vehicle observation), it is he or she who is the person subjected to the surveillance of their vehicle.
The 2000 Act requires all such surveillance camera operators to be authorised for their activity by reason of s. 29(3) (b) and (d) as the covert surveillance is (b): for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, and (d): in the interests of public safety.
Given that civil parking enforcement has extensively replaced criminal parking enforcement by the police since the advent of the 2000 Act it is reasonable to interpret that purpose (b) includes detecting civil parking contraventions.  In any event, monitoring of wrongful parking on Section 36 road markings such as zig-zag approaches to pedestrian crossings, and on bus stop clearways (being actual surveillance activities of Smart Cars) are criminal offences contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Also, local authorities widely argue, however tenuously, that civil parking enforcement is in the interests of safety.  In any event, dangerous wrongful parking on zig-zag approaches to pedestrian crossings is indisputably caught by s. 29(3) (b)(d) of the 2000 Act. 
RIP Act authorisation of all of the Council’s Smart Car camera operators is therefore necessary for these covert surveillance activities of the Council’s mobile CCTV.
Other local authorities (Basildon) [ 32 ] have publicly argued that RIPA authorisation of Smart Car camera operators is not necessary.  However, that does not accord with the foregoing facts so it is almost certain that Richmond Council Smart cars do operate unlawfully for their camera operators being unauthorised.

I make the following submissions that:

1.   The use of CCTV for parking enforcement at Powdermill Lane is both inappropriate and wrong as it is elsewhere in the borough.
2.   The use of CCTV by Richmond Council for parking enforcement is contrary to the Statutory Guidance on the use of CCTV to which the Council must have regard.
3.   My PCN was issued contrary to the London Councils’ CCTV Code of Practice which requires relevant signs to be displayed to inform motorists that CCTV enforcement is being conducted.
4.   There are no signs at all to warn of CCTV enforcement of parking restrictions in the vicinity of Powdermill Lane - or anywhere else in the entire Borough (being signs that are compliant with the ICO Code of Practice).
5.   The placement of TSRGD camera signs to 2002 Regulations diagram 879 within the borough (being legitimately placeable on the highway only for the purpose of warning of moving traffic enforcement) are wrongly in place on the highway for not being used for their legitimate purpose (being absent prior moving traffic primary signage for which they are reminder signs) and are impermissible for warning of parking enforcement by CCTV, and that they should be removed forthwith.
6.   The Council should not be operating covert surveillance of parked vehicles under any circumstance and should not do so contrary to the RIP Act 2000 by means of unauthorised camera operators.
7.   The making by the Council of yet more false representations is in clear disregard of Regulation 14 of the 2007 Regulations and that its gravity falls as a necessity to be adjudicated appropriately.
8.   For each and all of the relevant foregoing reasons my PCN was not correctly issued.

Nigel Wise   22/12/2010
« Last Edit: 04 July, 2011, 05:17:20 PM by Nigel W »

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: INAPPROPRIATE & WRONGFUL USE OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT BY CCTV
« Reply #2 on: 01 May, 2011, 03:00:57 PM »
Wow!!!

When I went to Patas over a ticket I received via static CCTV I argued that it was unenforceable because there were no difficulties whatsoever in having CEO's patrol the area. This point was dismissed out of hand by the adjudicator because he reckoned that the Secretary of State had only provided guidelines and that Westminster were perfectly entitled not to have to conform to something that is merely a guideline.

Having read your objection, all I can say is I wish I had had your fully researched and well reasoned argument to hand then, because I cannot see how any unbiased adjudicator would find that Westminster were indeed entitled to dismiss the Secretary of State out of hand.

I think the lesson to be learned here is, if you get a parking ticket issued to you by CCTV (fixed or mobile), have a word with Nigel.  If you used his argument successfully at Patas or the I believe this would set a precedent that would have wide reaching effects for any council already using, or who are contemplating using CCTV to enforce parking restrictions.

Rock on Nigel. :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player