They're at it again!!
Click here
JGX
Full Version: Lambeth Parking
Class JGX
Dazza
Dazza
This is unbelievable! Surely you can bring criminal proceedings against them.
That's quite something isn't it? Good luck with the appeal.
I am gobsmacked!!! How many people are conned like this? Well done for being such a good detective, I will definitely contact you if I ever have these scrapes with the council!!!
It's all done by a mobile camera in a Car that's parked on Salter's hill.
My wife said that the car was back there again this morning as she made her way to work. . .
JGX
My wife said that the car was back there again this morning as she made her way to work. . .
JGX
Outrageous but unsurprising. I 'd take it to the local papers as well to shame Lambeth into an apology. Yet another example of traffic "regulation" being used as an alternative form of tax.
As picture editor I can say that photoshopping images together, especially to create the notion of a criminal activity is a very serious offense. See them in court.
The problem is is that any compensation you get will ultimatly come from us, the lambeth council tax payer.
The problem is is that any compensation you get will ultimatly come from us, the lambeth council tax payer.
go for the jugular JGX
Dazza
Dazza
I'd urge you to send your story into the Register, they love this sort of thing.
I think the address you need to use is news@theregister.co.uk
I think the address you need to use is news@theregister.co.uk
They are possibly committing an offence themselves by ignoring two sections of the Highway Code and you've photographic evidence! Although no specific laws are mentioned for these two sections, I believe that ignoring the Highway Code can be deemed an offence.
217: DO NOT park your vehicle or trailer on the road where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users. For example, do not stop
<snip>
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
<snip>.
and (I seem to recall Salters Hill reasonably steep just there)
226: Parking on hills. If you park on a hill you should
<snip>
select reverse gear and turn your steering wheel towards the kerb when facing downhill
By the look of it, the front wheels are parallel to the kerb.
217: DO NOT park your vehicle or trailer on the road where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users. For example, do not stop
<snip>
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
<snip>.
and (I seem to recall Salters Hill reasonably steep just there)
226: Parking on hills. If you park on a hill you should
<snip>
select reverse gear and turn your steering wheel towards the kerb when facing downhill
By the look of it, the front wheels are parallel to the kerb.
That is incredible, and extremely annoying. Superb stuff, JGX. Hit 'em hard.
I just had a Journo from a National Newspaper contact me, so watch this space. . .
JGX
JGX
Fantastic news, JGX - say what you see! Your efforts deserve a good result. We've got an ongoing with Croydon about 'parking'. Keep us posted.
Eek! I too have received a Penalty Charge for a contravention at this junction, which I am certain that I did not make. But unlike your photos, JGX, which were taken over a four second period, the three of mine on the Lambeth Parking website were taken within one second, so it is impossible to see the sequence of events. Can I get access to more, before and after the three that are presented?
But the photographic evidence (mine is similar to yours - I have already passed the dog-leg in the road, and there is a car approaching which looks as if it is waiting) is surely a nonsense. For a start, the photo is not taken at the point of the offence ie crossing the white line when a car is apporaching. Also, without markings on the road it is impossible to see the distances involved. The angle of the image, and the fact it is cropped, also distorts.
So I shall be appealing .
But one other thing - there is an error on the Penalty Notice regarding the make of my car (though the registration number is correct). Is that a reason in itself for the notice to be invalid?
Advice appreciated! Thanks all in advance.
R
But the photographic evidence (mine is similar to yours - I have already passed the dog-leg in the road, and there is a car approaching which looks as if it is waiting) is surely a nonsense. For a start, the photo is not taken at the point of the offence ie crossing the white line when a car is apporaching. Also, without markings on the road it is impossible to see the distances involved. The angle of the image, and the fact it is cropped, also distorts.
So I shall be appealing
.But one other thing - there is an error on the Penalty Notice regarding the make of my car (though the registration number is correct). Is that a reason in itself for the notice to be invalid?
Advice appreciated! Thanks all in advance.
R
Hi Rosehip,
I think it's certainly worth appealing against. Sadly, the error re the make of your vehicle is not significant but there is an interesting point in the final paragraph here:
Roadside Lawyer
There may also be a gaping error in Lambeth's defence which I'm working on at the mo. . . so watch this space. . . In the meantime, I think there is an article coming out about this in next week's Streatham Guardian and also in a certain other "National Newspaper" (will fill you in on more info as and when it happens).
Cheers for now,
JGX
I think it's certainly worth appealing against. Sadly, the error re the make of your vehicle is not significant but there is an interesting point in the final paragraph here:
Roadside Lawyer
QUOTE
It is debatable whether camera operators have sufficient training to decide whether to bring such "value judgement" cases.
There may also be a gaping error in Lambeth's defence which I'm working on at the mo. . . so watch this space. . . In the meantime, I think there is an article coming out about this in next week's Streatham Guardian and also in a certain other "National Newspaper" (will fill you in on more info as and when it happens).
Cheers for now,
JGX
Thanks, JGX - very helpful. Will compose appeal letter over the weekend and get in the post pronto.
I'll also forewarn everyone I know who uses Salters Hill regularly...
R
I'll also forewarn everyone I know who uses Salters Hill regularly...
R
Rosehip,
The other bit that may help that I'm currently looking into is that I would also add in your appeal that there were no warning signs saying that there were CCTV cameras in operation. The only sign that they had up, was, infact, AFTER the point at which you would have been caught (i.e. after the give way line):
SEE HERE
AND HERE
It's a minor point but nonetheless an important one; my understanding is that whenever "Safety Cameras" (AKA "Revenue Cameras") are used, there are to be warning signs clearly displayed. The definition of warning is roughly: "something that serves to warn, give notice, or caution" and therefore the warning signs should be BEFORE the CCTV vehicle. Signs after that point are therefore, not warning signs and as there was no warning that the CCTV was in operation the PCN may, just may be invalid. . .
Anyway, as I said, I'm still looking into it but feel free to try this line of defence and use the photos above.
Good luck,
JGX
The other bit that may help that I'm currently looking into is that I would also add in your appeal that there were no warning signs saying that there were CCTV cameras in operation. The only sign that they had up, was, infact, AFTER the point at which you would have been caught (i.e. after the give way line):
SEE HERE
AND HERE
It's a minor point but nonetheless an important one; my understanding is that whenever "Safety Cameras" (AKA "Revenue Cameras") are used, there are to be warning signs clearly displayed. The definition of warning is roughly: "something that serves to warn, give notice, or caution" and therefore the warning signs should be BEFORE the CCTV vehicle. Signs after that point are therefore, not warning signs and as there was no warning that the CCTV was in operation the PCN may, just may be invalid. . .
Anyway, as I said, I'm still looking into it but feel free to try this line of defence and use the photos above.
Good luck,
JGX
Hello all and especial thanks to JGX.
As a recipient of a similar PCN re Salter's Hill, I look forward to seeing references to any newpaper items.
Thoughts:
This is taken from Islington's Parking Enforcement Protocol:
Contravention Code 37 – Suffix j (Moving Traffic Contravention)
Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign
Category: Priority.
Proposed Guidance on issue of PCN:
A judgement will have to be made as to whether a driver failed to give priority,
with an assumption that this caused an oncoming vehicle to take evasive or other
action.
Evidence:
A continuous record of both the alleged contravention and the build up showing
the speed, position and actions of all vehicles.
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Description of Offence:
Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction.
Highway Code Rules / Advice:
Give way to oncoming traffic if directed to do so by signs.
Link here: pdf format, see page 36: http://www.islington.gov.uk/downloadabledo...ol_apr_2006.pdf
Has anyone contacted Crimestoppers yet? - 0800 555 111 - they say they're interested about information regarding any crime. It seems two are being committed, i.e. position of CCTV van obscuring exit from proximate junction (it was there again today); also, demanding money fraudulently because the still photographic images distort the relative positions of cars involved.
Re an earlier poster: Video evidence can be viewed. I have viewed mine and it is unsatisfactory because it is not a continuous record. Even the video footage (meaning as well as the stills) are zoomed or cropped (whatever) at the give way point. I asked to see the full version - I naturally assumed there was one, i.e. all in real time so that the progress of the cars and relative distances could be seen properly (which can't when "zoomed").
As a recipient of a similar PCN re Salter's Hill, I look forward to seeing references to any newpaper items.
Thoughts:
This is taken from Islington's Parking Enforcement Protocol:
Contravention Code 37 – Suffix j (Moving Traffic Contravention)
Failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign
Category: Priority.
Proposed Guidance on issue of PCN:
A judgement will have to be made as to whether a driver failed to give priority,
with an assumption that this caused an oncoming vehicle to take evasive or other
action.
Evidence:
A continuous record of both the alleged contravention and the build up showing
the speed, position and actions of all vehicles.
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Description of Offence:
Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction.
Highway Code Rules / Advice:
Give way to oncoming traffic if directed to do so by signs.
Link here: pdf format, see page 36: http://www.islington.gov.uk/downloadabledo...ol_apr_2006.pdf
Has anyone contacted Crimestoppers yet? - 0800 555 111 - they say they're interested about information regarding any crime. It seems two are being committed, i.e. position of CCTV van obscuring exit from proximate junction (it was there again today); also, demanding money fraudulently because the still photographic images distort the relative positions of cars involved.
Re an earlier poster: Video evidence can be viewed. I have viewed mine and it is unsatisfactory because it is not a continuous record. Even the video footage (meaning as well as the stills) are zoomed or cropped (whatever) at the give way point. I asked to see the full version - I naturally assumed there was one, i.e. all in real time so that the progress of the cars and relative distances could be seen properly (which can't when "zoomed").
JGX's appeal is bound to succeed IMO just on the photo's
The giveway sign and stop line was put in because the road is too narrow for two vehicles travelling in opposite directions as they pass under the bridge. Vehicles coming up the hill are therefore given priority over the narrowest part of the raod.
The point at which the road is deemed wide enough again for two vehicles to pass must be the point (on the Gipsy Road side) where the dashed white line dividing the road into two lanes begins again (see the recent photo on JGX's link).
The part of the road that is only wide enough for one vehicle must only be that part which is not divided by a white line.
Thus if a driver has passed the giveway line whilst the oncoming vehicle is still on a part of the road that is divided into two lanes it must be safe for him to proceed because the oncoming vehicle (to whom he would giveway) is not on the part of the road for which it is given priority.
In JGX's case it is clear that he had gone under the bridge and was back onto the part of the road that is two lanes before the oncoming vehicles has even reached the part of the road where it has priority.
It's Lambeth's officials judgment that ought to be penalised here !
The giveway sign and stop line was put in because the road is too narrow for two vehicles travelling in opposite directions as they pass under the bridge. Vehicles coming up the hill are therefore given priority over the narrowest part of the raod.
The point at which the road is deemed wide enough again for two vehicles to pass must be the point (on the Gipsy Road side) where the dashed white line dividing the road into two lanes begins again (see the recent photo on JGX's link).
The part of the road that is only wide enough for one vehicle must only be that part which is not divided by a white line.
Thus if a driver has passed the giveway line whilst the oncoming vehicle is still on a part of the road that is divided into two lanes it must be safe for him to proceed because the oncoming vehicle (to whom he would giveway) is not on the part of the road for which it is given priority.
In JGX's case it is clear that he had gone under the bridge and was back onto the part of the road that is two lanes before the oncoming vehicles has even reached the part of the road where it has priority.
It's Lambeth's officials judgment that ought to be penalised here !
Had a bad day last week - two tickets within an hour. First one was a fair cop, just off Salter's Hill, where I parked behind another car, thinking (or rather, not thinking) it must be legally parked - both nicked.
But the second one was at Crown Point, where I have parked for years, outside the kebab man beside the laundrette on Crown Dale (Croydon side). I've always pulled into what looks like the parking spaces (there's room for two) off the road in front of the kebab man to lug duvets and sofa covers into the laundrette. Busted last week for parking on the pavement, although there is plenty of 'pavement' left for pedestrians, buggies, wheelchairs etc, but never before in the last decade. Can I appeal on the grounds of no previous penalty? And where does a driveway or parking space end and footpath begin when there is no sign saying you can't park?
Expensive day... should I appeal the Croydon one?
Bad luck. Is it a double width forecourt at Crown Dale? Have you asked the local shopkeepers, especially the kebab shop, if they thought there was an arrangement with the council re those apparent spaces? I'm sure they'd want to know anyway. (Local shops in Sydenham Road persuaded Lewisham to provide spaces - otherwise their business would disappear to supermarkets and DIY sheds.)
You could try emailing the legal help at 5ive-O: http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/portal.php I've not used them myself, but gather they are very good, especially if you stick to facts and not lengthy rambles I'm told.
If the yellow lines are continuous on the main road, that would indicate that the other side is pavement and of course there'd be no need to display a sign telling you not to park on the pavement. If there is a dropped kerb, it might be designed for deliveries rather than customers.
A ticket warden might have been over zealous (assuming it's not a money-making antic). If the ticket is appealed though, it would have to be considered against the letter of the law I reckon, so if it is deemed pavement, then getting away with parking on it previously would not be a defence in my personal opinion.
Hopefully others can help better than I can. Good luck or commiserations.
You could try emailing the legal help at 5ive-O: http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/portal.php I've not used them myself, but gather they are very good, especially if you stick to facts and not lengthy rambles I'm told.
If the yellow lines are continuous on the main road, that would indicate that the other side is pavement and of course there'd be no need to display a sign telling you not to park on the pavement. If there is a dropped kerb, it might be designed for deliveries rather than customers.
A ticket warden might have been over zealous (assuming it's not a money-making antic). If the ticket is appealed though, it would have to be considered against the letter of the law I reckon, so if it is deemed pavement, then getting away with parking on it previously would not be a defence in my personal opinion.
Hopefully others can help better than I can. Good luck or commiserations.
Several parking bays are available around the corner on Beulah Hill, so it may be hard to argue the case.
Traffic wardens regularly ticket cars around Crown Point now. I also note that they are getting quite strict with all manner of parking violations, even on quiet side roads. Cars have been ticketed for parking across dropped kerbs, not leaving enough room when allowed to park on the pavement, not parking on the pavement when it is indicated, etc.
Traffic wardens regularly ticket cars around Crown Point now. I also note that they are getting quite strict with all manner of parking violations, even on quiet side roads. Cars have been ticketed for parking across dropped kerbs, not leaving enough room when allowed to park on the pavement, not parking on the pavement when it is indicated, etc.
Yes, very hot on parking in most places I traverse and have been for a while actually. Read the signs carefully in loading bays - 3 mins does not mean 5 mins and someone will likely be there issuing a ticket when you load your daily newspaper in.
To be fair, parking restrictions outside of unmarked bays are there for a reason.
To be fair, parking restrictions outside of unmarked bays are there for a reason.
Well, it's made the Streatham Guardian. . .
Link Here
Note, I have now been promoted to fully fledged web-designer!
JGX
Link Here
Note, I have now been promoted to fully fledged web-designer!
JGX
Great to read that news article. I'd urge all to respond re the email option shown.
A friend suggested London Tonight and BBC London for further attention.
Thank you for drawing attention to what is clearly wrong.
A friend suggested London Tonight and BBC London for further attention.
Thank you for drawing attention to what is clearly wrong.
On reflection - and as someone who uses this road - I can't see what all the fuss is.
The Give Way signs are there for a good reason; and I assume CCTV is there because there's a history of non-compliance. Someone had an off day in judging the OP to have committed an offence; but other photos are available for him to see, which show that a poor decision is made, so I have no doubt that the notice will be revoked. And the CCTV operators had the temerity to take a break.
It's not really the Story of the Century, is it?
The Give Way signs are there for a good reason; and I assume CCTV is there because there's a history of non-compliance. Someone had an off day in judging the OP to have committed an offence; but other photos are available for him to see, which show that a poor decision is made, so I have no doubt that the notice will be revoked. And the CCTV operators had the temerity to take a break.
It's not really the Story of the Century, is it?
Forgive me, but it is important if one cannot go through a restriction (chicane) without receiving a fine. A lot has been said above about the quality of evidence re alleged contravention leading to fine.
beefqueen,
The "fuss" is not about whether the Give-way signs are there for a good reason or not but rather about the veracity of the evidence that Lambeth have presented to the drivers in relation to these alleged ‘contraventions’. I have been contacted by several other drivers who have shown me the photographs of their ‘contraventions’; they all lacked verisimilitude and ranged from sketchy to quite frankly, absurd.
JGX
The "fuss" is not about whether the Give-way signs are there for a good reason or not but rather about the veracity of the evidence that Lambeth have presented to the drivers in relation to these alleged ‘contraventions’. I have been contacted by several other drivers who have shown me the photographs of their ‘contraventions’; they all lacked verisimilitude and ranged from sketchy to quite frankly, absurd.
JGX
beefqueen, if you want major news stories, try somewhere else.
This particular case shows how the innocent may well be penalised through <snip> practices carried out by a council in which a high percentage of VN readers live.
This whole thread has served as a warning to all who simply drive their car in Croydon borough.
I, for one, would have been totally unaware of the possibility of this happening if it weren't for the time and effort JGX has taken to expose this <snip> , and am grateful to him for that.
This is a local issue on a local forum.
Moderator's Note
Please remember to be careful with the language used to describe these allegations. We don't need the council's laywers on our case for potentially libellous statements.
This particular case shows how the innocent may well be penalised through <snip> practices carried out by a council in which a high percentage of VN readers live.
This whole thread has served as a warning to all who simply drive their car in Croydon borough.
I, for one, would have been totally unaware of the possibility of this happening if it weren't for the time and effort JGX has taken to expose this <snip> , and am grateful to him for that.
This is a local issue on a local forum.
Moderator's Note
Please remember to be careful with the language used to describe these allegations. We don't need the council's laywers on our case for potentially libellous statements.
I used to drive that way every day (before I retired) and was usually going up the hill which means I had priority. Invariably I would round the corner from Gipsy Road and see vehicles coming towards me already on the narrow part of the road. On odd occasions I had to stop my car and let the other driver go which was rather annoying.
JGX, presumably the other mini was moving or had he stopped? if so, this would constitute "evasive action". In any event the road layout and signage is poor and almost seems designed to catch drivers out. Am I right in thinking the original narrow section under the bridge has purposely been made even narrower by bringing the pavement out?
JGX, presumably the other mini was moving or had he stopped? if so, this would constitute "evasive action". In any event the road layout and signage is poor and almost seems designed to catch drivers out. Am I right in thinking the original narrow section under the bridge has purposely been made even narrower by bringing the pavement out?
Both mini's are moving but if you look carefully at the photo's (and the time on them) in the two seconds it took JGX to pass under the bridge and back onto to two lane part of the road the other mini had only moved a slight distance and had yet to reach the part of the road where it had priority - thus JGX judgment that he was safe to proceed was exactly right.
The correct way to monitor this junction would be to film/photo from the other side of the bridge to see if vehicles coming from the Gipsy Road end are forced to brake by drivers entering the single lane part from the other side.
The correct way to monitor this junction would be to film/photo from the other side of the bridge to see if vehicles coming from the Gipsy Road end are forced to brake by drivers entering the single lane part from the other side.
It's in today's Evening Standard Page 8. . .
JGX
JGX
I have been contacted by a TV Reporter working for the BBC who is interested in speaking to other people who have had similar experiences on Salters Hill.
If anyone fancies talking to him (it would help our cause enormously) then PM me and I can send you his details.
JGX
If anyone fancies talking to him (it would help our cause enormously) then PM me and I can send you his details.
JGX
I would recommend contacting Kier Simmons from ITN. He does news items for London Tonight and covered the fiasco of the sleeping wardens outside UN Library. He's familiar with Lambeth's parking enforcement team and would know how to contact an official spokesperson at the council. Last time his crew were chasing them down Gipsy Hill!
I to have just received a notice in the post and am not at all happy with the decision. The photograph of the offence is cropped and the second photograph taken a second later shows my car right at the end of Salters Hill Lane waiting to take a right. Has there been any progress made on appeals already lodged or can someone give more advise.
If anyone's near a TV with the BBC on (office reception or anything? Working from home?), BBC London has just said one of its stories at 1:30 (today - after the 1 o/c national news) is about a Lambeth road scandal that sounds like it might be JGX's Salters Hill report. Not sure but will stay tuned.
** It was the report (with top billing). They've asked the rest of London to say whether anything similar is going on elsewhere and quoted Lambeth as stating anyone can watch the complete video evidence of their alleged offence by appointment.
** It was the report (with top billing). They've asked the rest of London to say whether anything similar is going on elsewhere and quoted Lambeth as stating anyone can watch the complete video evidence of their alleged offence by appointment.
Yes, it was Spoon. Thanks for the heads up smiley>
If you missed it, you'll be able to watch it online shortly. It's still the last bulletin at the moment though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/index.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/index.shtml
Wow, fantastic news JGX. Could this possibly get any more exposure? Where next? Judge Judy? 
(note to self: be nice to JGX)
(note to self: be nice to JGX)
...and currently being discussed on the Drivetime programme on BBC Radio London (94.9FM).
For info, it takes less than 3 seconds for a car (driving at less than 30 miles per hour), turning left off Gipsy Road and up Salters Hill, to get to the critical point - I timed it at the weekend. So, in the current road marking/signage/photo evidence situation, you risk a penalty notice if you proceed past the Give Way sign coming down Salters Hill on any occasion that you can see a car coming up the hill, even if it has only just turned onto Salters Hill. By the time you have slowed down to negotiate the dog-leg under the bridge, the other car could well be waiting for you to get back onto the left-hand side of the road. And of course not all cars coming up the hill are driving at - 30mph.
I have appealed my Penalty Notice and am waiting to hear...
For info, it takes less than 3 seconds for a car (driving at less than 30 miles per hour), turning left off Gipsy Road and up Salters Hill, to get to the critical point - I timed it at the weekend. So, in the current road marking/signage/photo evidence situation, you risk a penalty notice if you proceed past the Give Way sign coming down Salters Hill on any occasion that you can see a car coming up the hill, even if it has only just turned onto Salters Hill. By the time you have slowed down to negotiate the dog-leg under the bridge, the other car could well be waiting for you to get back onto the left-hand side of the road. And of course not all cars coming up the hill are driving at - 30mph.
I have appealed my Penalty Notice and am waiting to hear...
QUOTE(James @ Jun 25 2007, 05:13 PM) 
(note to self: be nice to JGX)
Worry not James, you are nothing always less than charm personified!!
Rosehip, I have just updated the update page on the original site, it seems that if you look closely at the BBC's footage, we may well have recreated a "Non-Contravention Contravention" on camera. Rather than type it all out again here have a look at it here
Edited to say that it was on the 6:30 news again and I've just further updated the site to include a rather nice letter of appeal that someone kindly said we could use: Sample Letter
JGX
You mentioned that "Lambeth say that they will make available any video images upon payment of an administration fee." I understand you are upset at the cost but believe that this is permitted under the Data Protection Act although fortunately the fee that can be charged is limited to a nominal amount.
It's outrageous that you are expected to pay a fee. If you were charged with shoplifting based on CCTV evidence the CPS would be bound to let you have a copy or give you free access.
This is a typical example of how Local Council's are given powers to prosecute and fine without being subject to the rules of law and evidence that would apply if you were charged with a motoring offence and tried at the magistrates
JGX if I were you I'd write back a tell them that you will not be paying the fee but you will expect them to bring the complete video plus playing equipment to the hearing of the appeal.
It might also be worth pointing out that "failing to giveway" could arguably be deemed to be an offence of careless driving. Had you been charged with that offence then you would have full rights under the law to a full and fair hearing as enshrined by Article 6 of ECHR
In my view Lambeth , as a publc authority , and the Appeal Tribunal are bound by ECHR in any event and you may like to remind Lambeth of this and insist that they provide you , free of charge , with the evidence in their possession in order that you have "adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence" in accordance with Article 6(3)(b)ECHR. If you were being prosecuted the prosecution has a legal duty to disclose all material in it's possession including that which both undermines their case and supports your defence - why shouldn't you have the same rights here ?
I would also strongly recommend getting together with other appeallants and asking for your appeals to be heard on the same day.
Also contact Andrew Gibson - the local councillor - he takes a keen interest in tarffic and parking matters effecting Gipsy Hill ward
It's clearly causing a real fuss. I live 100 metres away from Slaters Hill and I saw three people this weekend standing on the traffic island taking photo's and measurements - so iI think you are not alone.
This is a typical example of how Local Council's are given powers to prosecute and fine without being subject to the rules of law and evidence that would apply if you were charged with a motoring offence and tried at the magistrates
JGX if I were you I'd write back a tell them that you will not be paying the fee but you will expect them to bring the complete video plus playing equipment to the hearing of the appeal.
It might also be worth pointing out that "failing to giveway" could arguably be deemed to be an offence of careless driving. Had you been charged with that offence then you would have full rights under the law to a full and fair hearing as enshrined by Article 6 of ECHR
In my view Lambeth , as a publc authority , and the Appeal Tribunal are bound by ECHR in any event and you may like to remind Lambeth of this and insist that they provide you , free of charge , with the evidence in their possession in order that you have "adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence" in accordance with Article 6(3)(b)ECHR. If you were being prosecuted the prosecution has a legal duty to disclose all material in it's possession including that which both undermines their case and supports your defence - why shouldn't you have the same rights here ?
I would also strongly recommend getting together with other appeallants and asking for your appeals to be heard on the same day.
Also contact Andrew Gibson - the local councillor - he takes a keen interest in tarffic and parking matters effecting Gipsy Hill ward
It's clearly causing a real fuss. I live 100 metres away from Slaters Hill and I saw three people this weekend standing on the traffic island taking photo's and measurements - so iI think you are not alone.
On checking the law it seems that since a PCN is treated as a civil debt the proceedings are not criminal in nature and ECHR does not apply
see http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...ownsendvTFL.pdf
see http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk...ownsendvTFL.pdf
Thanks James(s),
I'm not a lawyer but I think that civil procedure rules require disclosure of adversarial evidence, do they not? Also, this document makes for interesting reading. . .
Regards,
JGX
I'm not a lawyer but I think that civil procedure rules require disclosure of adversarial evidence, do they not? Also, this document makes for interesting reading. . .
Regards,
JGX
Yes indeed. In civil proceedings there is a duty on both parties to disclose all material in their possession that is of relevance to the issues in dispute (whether it undermines or supports each parties case)
However appeals against Parking/Moving traffic FPN are not covered by the civil procedure rules (CPR) or by the the evidential rules governing criminal cases. This is the inequity of the system. Potentially you can end up paying £150 (and sometimes costs) if you appeal an FPN and yet you have fewer rights than you would in a court where you were suing/being sued for £150 or charged with a minor motoring offence where the normal penalty would be a fine in that region.
The whole thing is driven (pardon the pun) to keep the cost of "prosecuting" motoring offences down by discouraging appeals rather than reaching fair and just decision.
However I encourage you to appeal - In the March 2007 Parking Appeal newsletter it appears that Lambeth was the 4th highest issuer of appealed FPN and 80% of appeals suceeded - there is clearly something wrong with Lambeth's approach given such a high level of successful appeals. To my mind in goes hand in hand with suggestions in Lambeth that the franchisees responsisble for issuing parking tickets received some kind of "success fee" based on the revenue generated.
P.S If you can demonstrate that the "cropping" was don in bad faith and//or that your defnece was so obvious that they acted in bad faith in not exercising a discretiaon to withdraw the notice you would also (IMO) have strong grounds to seek costs if your appeal is sucessful. Good Luck,
However appeals against Parking/Moving traffic FPN are not covered by the civil procedure rules (CPR) or by the the evidential rules governing criminal cases. This is the inequity of the system. Potentially you can end up paying £150 (and sometimes costs) if you appeal an FPN and yet you have fewer rights than you would in a court where you were suing/being sued for £150 or charged with a minor motoring offence where the normal penalty would be a fine in that region.
The whole thing is driven (pardon the pun) to keep the cost of "prosecuting" motoring offences down by discouraging appeals rather than reaching fair and just decision.
However I encourage you to appeal - In the March 2007 Parking Appeal newsletter it appears that Lambeth was the 4th highest issuer of appealed FPN and 80% of appeals suceeded - there is clearly something wrong with Lambeth's approach given such a high level of successful appeals. To my mind in goes hand in hand with suggestions in Lambeth that the franchisees responsisble for issuing parking tickets received some kind of "success fee" based on the revenue generated.
P.S If you can demonstrate that the "cropping" was don in bad faith and//or that your defnece was so obvious that they acted in bad faith in not exercising a discretiaon to withdraw the notice you would also (IMO) have strong grounds to seek costs if your appeal is sucessful. Good Luck,
Councillor Graham Pycock, (Gipsy Hill Ward; Chairman of Upper Norwood Joint Library Committee. Conservative Spokesman for Regeneration and Community Safety) has just released this press release:
Strong words indeed!
JGX
QUOTE
CALL FOR A STOP ON UNFAIR FINES
AS LAMBETH COUNCIL CAMERAS ROLL
The recently built pinch point on Salters Hill has become notorious for creating “give way” offences and generating penalty notices for unsuspecting motorists. According to Councillor Graham Pycock, “This restriction may have slowed down the traffic at a dangerous point, which is what we wanted. However, the council’s camera cops are regularly there to generate penalty notices and revenue. The alleged offences are based upon dubious camera long-shots and take no account of speed.”
“This is legalised mugging and these motorists are victims not villains. Meanwhile a yobs’ army of the untaxed, unregistered and uninsured drivers never has to pay these fines. Lambeth Council, like the government, is tough on honest motorists and soft on cheats. It is grossly wrong that the council is prosecutor and judge on technical offences which only exist because the council itself created the camera trap.”
“I will request that the use of mobile enforcement cameras on Salters Hill is reviewed, alongside a review of the effect of the pinch point itself. We want safer roads not unfair fines.”
AS LAMBETH COUNCIL CAMERAS ROLL
The recently built pinch point on Salters Hill has become notorious for creating “give way” offences and generating penalty notices for unsuspecting motorists. According to Councillor Graham Pycock, “This restriction may have slowed down the traffic at a dangerous point, which is what we wanted. However, the council’s camera cops are regularly there to generate penalty notices and revenue. The alleged offences are based upon dubious camera long-shots and take no account of speed.”
“This is legalised mugging and these motorists are victims not villains. Meanwhile a yobs’ army of the untaxed, unregistered and uninsured drivers never has to pay these fines. Lambeth Council, like the government, is tough on honest motorists and soft on cheats. It is grossly wrong that the council is prosecutor and judge on technical offences which only exist because the council itself created the camera trap.”
“I will request that the use of mobile enforcement cameras on Salters Hill is reviewed, alongside a review of the effect of the pinch point itself. We want safer roads not unfair fines.”
Strong words indeed!
JGX
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.