 |
We can see from the sign that any car displaying a blue badge (or in Mr Mustard's opinion containing a driver or passenger with a blue badge in their possession) is entitled to drive that way and not be given a PCN as they are exempt. Newham have reversed the burden of proof. They send you a PCN in the post which states that they believe a penalty is due. They don't genuinely believe that, they believe you passed the sign is all they can honestly believe.
The registered keeper had the worry of being liable for £130 and/or having to go to the independent tribunal if the council reject the representations and perfectly good representations get rejected every day.
In this case the representations were accepted:
There is an apology which is a good start but there will have to be apologies for the next decade unless something changes and this method of operation is all wrong.
Newham Council did not have to move the camera. If they had left it face forward and took regular, say monthly, photos of the signs most adjudicators would accept that as adequate evidence of what was there.
The council had a second option. Two cameras, one from behind and one focussed on the car as it goes through the signs which would show any blue badge on display, it is unlikely to show the expiry date clearly enough, but it would show the layout of a badge (cameras are getting better all the time so sufficient detail might be discerned). The council could also offer motorists the opportunity for residents to register vehicles which are regularly used to transport blue badge holders.
Newham Council need to think again. If a PCN is lost in the post, as does happen, the motorist is already at £195 and out of time to challenge when the Charge Certificate arrives. Then they have the worry of waiting for the Order for Recovery, at £205, before they have to swear a Statutory Declaration which entails a visit to a Solicitor (more inconvenience for being law abiding) and forking out £5 for the privilege of being innocent and a postal delivery going wrong.
The end.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the legislation say that before the authority can serve a notice in the post, they must have a reasonable belief that a penalty charge is payable? Surely Newham Council could not have held a reasonable belief that a penalty charge was payable on the basis that a car simply drove down that road because as you say, everyone would have to be presumed guilty until innocent and reverse the burden of proof. It's up to the council to position their cameras but issuing a penalty charge in this instance must amount to an abuse of process.
Not sure how much weight civil cases are given by adjudicators but the case Nomura International Plc v Granada Group Ltd springs to mind, where the claimant issued a claim but didn't have the evidence to properly plead its case and the claim was dismissed for an abuse of process. The judge saying that you can't issue a claim in the hope that something comes up later down the line i.e. fishing expedition.