Yellow lines fine for CCTV cars but not drivers (From This Is Local London)

So it has become one rule for one and another for others. I have had PCN's issued at this location and am in the process of appealing these illegally issued tickets. Will keep everyone informed!!

I think it's ridiculous that people are even complaining about it. Surely the organisation that drives and parks the CCTV cars (ie Lambeth Council) is the same organisation that puts the yellow lines down on the streets in the first place?

If you wanted to be really petty about it, you could insist that they lift the yellow lines up, or cover them up, just before they park the CCTV car there. Then, when they're ready to move the CCTV car off, they put the yellow lines back down again. But what's the point in that? That would be pointless bureaucracy.

The cars could equally well park on the sidewalk in many places, for exactly the same reason; it's Lambeth Council who are responsible for making sure you *don't* park on the pavement.

Come on people. If there weren't problems getting people to stick to the traffic rules in the areas where these cars are being deployed, then the CCTV cars wouldn't be needed in the first place. Quite honestly, I think that the people who are complaining have probably brought it on themselves.

If stopping on double yellow lines is an offence for anything other than picking up or setting down passengers, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that by committing an offence, the traffic enforcement vehicles have obtained their evidence, i.e. the CCTV recordings, unlawfully.

If that is indeed the case, it beggars belief that they can demand payment of a fine for an offence, which can only be proven using material obtained in breach of the law.

Enforcing traffic regulations may be one issue, but picking and choosing which laws are considered acceptable, is hardly a matter for council officers.

What a strange world we live in ....

If the cameras were placed in trees or buildings, then they would not be quite so clearly visible. This means that a person could defend themselves against a fine by saying that perhaps the authorities have just photoshopped a picture of the defendent's car onto another picture of the street.

The only reason you know the camera cars are there is because they are very very clearly marked. That clear marking is important for enforcement.

And this whole "one rule for them another rule for us" nonsense still doesn't change the fact that Lambeth council have got the final say on where yellow lines go on their streets, and they would be quite within their rights to lift the yellow lines up and put them back down again.

If anyone thinks they can appeal a fine on the basis that the local-authority camera car that gathered the evidence was illegally parked on local-authority-pain
ted yellow lines, then I'd like to see them try. I don't rate their chances but I might be proved wrong.

If the cameras were placed in trees or on buildings, they would still be required to comply with the Data Protection Act; and if they were so discreet or borderline covert as to be classed as 'de minimis' they may possibly need to further comply with RIPA 2000 legislation.

That aside, any challenge as to whether the images have been tampered with would be easily proven, given that any record system used by a local authority should have sufficient built in technical safeguards in place, to allow authentication of original recordings.

The argument is not about whether a privately owned vehicle has committed an offence or whether the offence has been recorded by a council Smart CCTV Car.

It is simply a fact that any council vehicle is required to comply with the law, same as any other vehicle on the road.

The council may well paint the lines, install disabled bays, deploy traffic signals, yellow boxes or any number of other statutory obligations in terms of highways maintenance, but that in itself does not imply a right for any council vehicle to ignore the law because it happens to be inconvenient to it's intended purpose.

If evidence of an offence is to be upheld as sound, at the very least it should have been obtained lawfully, and in a reasonable manner.

Using the argument of do as I say, not as I do, would probably be argued as 'the thin end of the wedge', and quite frankly I would be amazed if this legal argument were not upheld.

Bottom line is , it doesn't matter which agency was responsible for painting the parking restriction lines on the road, if the council enforcement vehicles are parked unlawfully then that should be a matter for concern.

It would be up to a court to decide whether it is reasonable grounds for conveniently overlooking the law, in pursuit of issuing revenue raising fixed penalty notices.

Personally I would consider it a moral obligation that the council do everything possible to ensure that they conduct themselves in an appropriate and lawful manner, and not simply disregard the illegality of their actions because it doesn't fit in with their objectives, no matter how well intentioned.

Fred1, you are talking a right load of nonsense. I wouldn't mind betting that you are a council worker who bicycles to work in your brown sandals after eating a bowl of organic muesli. Have you ever heard of the Highway Code? where it states quite clearly, the regulations regarding parking adjacent to a road junction, where this vehicle actually was. These double yellow lines are there to keep junctions clear of obstructions for road safety not as a onvenient location to position CCTV camer vehicles. You might find it acceptable for local authorities to abuse the road regulations to make loads of cash, but I don't. Maybe you have more money than sense...probably about 5p.