TFL Cctv pcn **Won on Appeal**

[donarebun]

Hi Everyone,

 

I got a PCN from TFL, I felt something was wrong with the ticket so I made a Freedom Of Information for the maintenance of the CCTV camera used.

 

I got a response from TFL and the CCTV camera had NOT been serviced as and when due.

 

I made a defence based on that fact.

 

TFL turned down my appeal claiming that "CCTV cameras are not individually subject to "Type Approval" .

 

I would have just believed that but they went on further to say that the responsibility of maintaining the cameras lies with the supplier.

 

It seems to me they are trying to shift the blame to the supplier.

 

My question is this:

 

is there any legal requirement that each camera should be regularly serviced?

 

If there is, please could you highlight the relevant Act of parliament.

 

Thanks a lot

[dx100uk]

what do you intend to gain by questioning that a cctv camera has not been serviced?

 

dx

[donarebun]

Hi Dx,

 

If they failed in servicing the camera which might be a legal requirement then I can't be responsible for the PCN.

 

Please if you recall, I felt something was wrong with the ticket that's why I made the FOI in the first place.

 

I'm not trying to get off but something is just wrong with the PCN.

[dx100uk]

so you've posted on this previously?

 

cant see any posts

 

dx

[Sidewinder]

When you say 'something was wrong with the ticket' - what exactly? Was it incorrectly issued? Was your vehicle not there at that time? Was the stated offence wrong?

 

I think the maintenance or otherwise of the camera would only be a factor if this led to an incorrect timestamp or the lack of maintenance causing some fatal flaw to the evidence. If it captured an image of the vehicle, contravening a rule at a time which cannot be disputed, I do not believe that the maintenance can be sufficient to challenge. It would be different to a speed camera where the lack of maintenance or calibration might cause an incorrect speed to be recorded.

[green_and_mean]

Hi Dx,

 

If they failed in servicing the camera which might be a legal requirement then I can't be responsible for the PCN.

 

 

 

Yes you can, servicing a camera has nothing to do with the issue of a PCN. The camera obviously works or they would not have seen you parked and got your registration number. The camera system is approved not each camera, if one breaks they can just buy another provided its the same type/specification each individual camera is not approved or subject to a service schedule, if it stops working it will get fixed its as simple as that.

[donarebun]

When you say 'something was wrong with the ticket' - what exactly? Was it incorrectly issued? Was your vehicle not there at that time? Was the stated offence wrong?

 

I think the maintenance or otherwise of the camera would only be a factor if this led to an incorrect timestamp .

 

Hi,

 

Yes I believe it led to an incorrect timestamp. I believe I was there an hour later when the restriction was no longer in place. That's why I made the FOI in the first place.

[dx100uk]

I think the time stamping is controlled by the software not the cameras.

 

what date was this

 

not about the time of gmt/bst etc switch was it

[donarebun]

13th of July 2013

 

I just believe they got things wrong.

 

It might or might not be due to the switch

 

But for them to try and shift the blame to the supplier tells me something

[green_and_mean]

 

But for them to try and shift the blame to the supplier tells me something

 

They didn't blame anyone they told you the supplier had a service contract to maintain the cameras, how is that blaming someone?? As has been mentioned the time is imprinted by the camera operating system not the camera on the pole which is monitored by an operator for you to be correct the person viewing the camera would also have to think it was an hour later to, which seems rather far fetched as most people at work know what time it is due to rest breaks, shift patterns etc.

[donarebun]

I went to Yahoo Answer and got what I was looking for;

 

the document is this http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/list-of-approved-device-certifications/certapproveddevices.pdf

 

Guys, I think you were a little bit harsh towards me here.

 

I believe this site is for us to get help so that we are not taken advantage by the enforcement authorities.

 

If you guys are so judgemental then people will leave and go somewhere else.

 

I believe we are here to help each other and not pass judgements.

 

If you have an answer please state it and if you don't, please be kind and shut up.

 

Thank you

[green_and_mean]

I went to Yahoo Answer and got what I was looking for;

 

the document is this http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/list-of-approved-device-certifications/certapproveddevices.pdf

 

Guys, I think you were a little bit harsh towards me here.

 

I believe this site is for us to get help so that we are not taken advantage by the enforcement authorities.

 

If you guys are so judgemental then people will leave and go somewhere else.

 

I believe we are here to help each other and not pass judgements.

 

If you have an answer please state it and if you don't, please be kind and shut up.

 

Thank you

 

No one is being harsh they just don't agree with you, probably because you are wrong. You asked if there was a legal requirement to service the camera and got told the answer, how is that harsh? I went on to explain how hard it would be for the camera system to be wrong and not get noticed by the operator so you could understand how highly unlikely the scenario would be. I would also add unless it was the day the clocks changed its highly unlikely a computer would lose/gain an hour even if not serviced most systems lose a minute here and there which is why they get synched with an external clock regularly but to be wrong by an hour is almost impossible.

[ericsbrother]

If you think you are correct then appeal on the basis of an incorrect time stamp and offer some evidnec that you were elsewhere at the time of the alleged infringement. CCTV from a different camera system should do. Might need to get images of yourself/vehicle via SAR to whoever and that can take 40 days. LA should then provide some evidence that their system wasnt faulty, logs, other system cross-referenec etc.

[donarebun]

No one is being harsh they just don't agree with you, probably because you are wrong.

 

With the phrase "probably you are wrong" seems to be judgemental.

 

Please could you google the question I asked and you will see the quality of response that I got there and then please be fair to your self and ask your self which site you prefer to be.

 

All I'm now saying is that this site is a good idea and we shouldn't ruin it by being judgemental and harsh.

[dx100uk]

if the cameras were wrongly timestamped for around that period

I would think that the council will already have numerous appeals/complaints

 

no harm in trying/asking under appeal?

 

dx

[green_and_mean]

With the phrase "probably you are wrong" seems to be judgemental.

 

 

Its not judgemental its factual, you are wrong devices do not have to be serviced to comply with any law. If you do not like the advice you are given then you don't have to read it but I can assure you the majority of regular posters on this site know far more about the subject than you do and have helped hundreds of people if you don't wish to benefit from that knowledge thats your choice!

[donarebun]

The phrase "You are wrong" is clearly judgemental and clearly not factual as you would have quoted your source if it was.

 

Talking of facts, let me refer you to the 'Civil Traffic Enforcement Certification of Approved Devices', a Department of Transport document, (section 2.1.2 page 7) that site specific tests are required and that these MUST be carried out by appropriate maintenance people and signed off:

 

 

It goes on further to say "These site specific records MUST be approved and signed off by a competent person that may be either a representative of a test house appropriately qualified to certify site based testing or an experienced and competent member of staff from the enforcing authority or its consultants or the maintenance organisation working on that authority’s behalf."

 

Finally it states on 5.5 Annex 5, page 44 that:

 

"A maintenance plan. Where necessary, the plan MUST identify what routine calibration is required and how that will be carried out."

 

 

As anyone would know the word "MUST" conveys a legal responsibility.

 

So my dear friend those are the facts and they are gotten from a government paper.

 

Please let me repeat myself this site is a great idea and we shouldn't scare people off it by being mean, harsh and judgemental.

 

If we have the relevant information then please state it and if not, please for the sake of those who set up this site, please shut up.

 

Also do not try and pass off ignorance as facts, it would soon be exposed.

 

Thanks again

[Michael Browne]

 

 

Finally it states on 5.5 Annex 5, page 44 that:

 

"A maintenance plan. Where necessary, the plan MUST identify what routine calibration is required and how that will be carried out."

 

 

As anyone would know the word "MUST" conveys a legal responsibility.

 

Strange how you've seized on the word MUST, yet have ignored the title of Annex 5 which is Suggested Technical Construction File Contents. To me 'Suggested' doesn't convey a legal requirement.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Michael Browne

[donarebun]

Strange how you've seized on the word MUST, yet have ignored the title of Annex 5 which is Suggested Technical Construction File Contents. To me 'Suggested' doesn't convey a legal requirement.

 

Funny how you ignored my other statements.

 

Really I can't be bothered to argue with you guys, if you wish to ruin this wonderful website, then feel free to do so,

 

all I'm saying it is not fair to the owners and to those who might be getting their means of livelihood from this site.

 

That's all I'm saying and no need to crucify me

[green_and_mean]

The phrase "You are wrong" is clearly judgemental and clearly not factual as you would have quoted your source if it was.

 

Talking of facts, let me refer you to the 'Civil Traffic Enforcement Certification of Approved Devices', a Department of Transport document, (section 2.1.2 page 7) that site specific tests are required and that these MUST be carried out by appropriate maintenance people and signed off:

 

 

It goes on further to say "These site specific records MUST be approved and signed off by a competent person that may be either a representative of a test house appropriately qualified to certify site based testing or an experienced and competent member of staff from the enforcing authority or its consultants or the maintenance organisation working on that authority’s behalf."

 

 

So now its a govenment conspiracy with the VCA given approval to the system without following the correct procedure, you do realise these tests are done prior to approval and enforcement commencing and are nothing to do with routine maintenance don't you?

[green_and_mean]

Funny how you ignored my other statements.

 

Really I can't be bothered to argue with you guys, if you wish to ruin this wonderful website, then feel free to do so,

 

all I'm saying it is not fair to the owners and to those who might be getting their means of livelihood from this site.

 

That's all I'm saying and no need to crucify me

 

Given the choice between your input that the 20,000 posts Michael and myself have contributed I wonder who they would really miss the most?

[Michael Browne]

Funny how you ignored my other statements.

 

Really I can't be bothered to argue with you guys, if you wish to ruin this wonderful website, then feel free to do so,

 

all I'm saying it is not fair to the owners and to those who might be getting their means of livelihood from this site.

 

That's all I'm saying and no need to crucify me

 

You came here asking for advice and people have given you their honest opinions (and that's all they are - opinions)

 

If you are going to throw a hussy fit when anybody doesn't have the same viewpoint as yourself, then clearly this isn't the site for you.

 

You could always try MSE or Pepipoo

[donarebun]

So now its a govenment conspiracy with the VCA given approval to the system without following the correct procedure, you do realise these tests are done prior to approval and enforcement commencing and are nothing to do with routine maintenance don't you?

 

I never used the word conspiracy, you decided I felt it was a govenment(sic) conspiracy.

 

You seem to be keen to display your ignorance;

 

The Dictionary meaning of maintenance is " the work of keeping something in proper condition; upkeep". This is clearly different from "Installation" which is the act of setting something up.

 

I believe, if you continue, you will dig yourself deeper into a pit.

 

Regards

[donarebun]

You came here asking for advice and people have given you their honest opinions (and that's all they are - opinions)

 

green_mean used the word factual, he/she never said it was an opinion.

 

Compared to the response I got at Yahoo Answer, I felt the response here was a bit harsh and that's what I pointed out.

 

I also notice that that same treatment was meted out to someone else on this site and I believe that's not right nor fair.

 

Finally (this is just an advice, nothing else). The context in which you used Pepipoo could open you up to legal action.

 

I'm not a Lawyer but a holder of an engineering degree.

 

Regards

[Michael Browne]

green_mean used the word factual, he/she never said it was an opinion.

 

This is an open internet forum. Every single post is just an opinion, whether it states it or not

 

I also notice that that same treatment was meted out to someone else on this site and I believe that's not right nor fair.

 

You can always report any post by clicking on the triangle at the bottom of each post

 

The context in which you used Pepipoo could open you up to legal action.

 

From whom?