You are on page 1of 4

PCN GF72905340 .

presentation and formal request for viewing my info:

name: joel friedman address: 108 wargrave aveneue london n15 6ua ticket number (PCN) : GF72905340 date of notice: 29.05.2013


All the contents below are part of my initial representation but to be finalized upon viewing the recording of the alleged contravention. Under the basic principles of natural justice I would need the full and understandable responses to all the points raised, in a notice of acceptance or rejection. This would also come under the Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It would be incorrect if this would be addressed at a later stage or in a FoI response.

1) i believed that i may park at this spot and that the contravention did not occur 2) i was at the time unloading a delivery to a shop nearby, please see attached evidence. also, the shop worker is prepared to provide evidence if requested, that i came to deliver the said order. please let me know if there is anything else you want me to provide as proof and evidence i wish to make the following points:

3) There is no upright signage when one approaches that there are any restrictions in place. The lines on the ground are not noticeable and by far not the color prescribed in order to be noticed. 4) I just do not understand why a CCTV was used in the first place and not a regular warden. According to guidance given by the Secretary of State, that the authorities must have regard to, as per the TMA 2004, CCTV should not be used for enforcement at this location as it is not sensitive, impracticable or difficult to use foot patrol CEO enforcement. As disabled are allowed to alight this is specifically disallowed. This was disregarded. 5) There is no fax number within the NTO. The appropriate fax number for the sake of representations within the NTO is a mandatory requirement and the lack of it renders it void. To date nobody has dictated the means of sending representations. 6) I believe that the decision making is outsourced to another company. The TfL document schedule-2-enforcement-operations-sor.pdf that is available online is only further proof of it. I therefore request to know what relationship has the decision makers outside London with TfL. I understand that for all due purposes this is a separate company. I would need a copy of any contractual relationship TfL may have with them in order to formulate an informed stance. 7) The photos supplied do not show the location for example the longitude and latitude. It is therefore highly unlikely that the device actually corresponds to any authorised system if not for this reason alone. I therefore request a copy of the authorization and its full specification of the CCTV and auxiliary equipment known as the Technical Construction file (TCF), and a rundown of the actual devices and procedures actually used and done. A certificate or an assertion is by far inadequate. 8) I understand that contrary to the second principal of the DPA, TfL is not registered at the ICO as a data keeper (of the CCTV and its recording) for the specific purpose of the decriminalized traffic enforcements and revenue collection. I have not seen it in the ICO register. If as I believe my data was acquired against the regulations I demand that it not be further processed as it would be illegal to do so, but immediately deleted and confirmed to me so. If however it is claimed that TfL have registered the specific purposes I request a copy of this registration. Please do not just send me the link as I have already gone through it and can confirm that TfL is not registered at the ICO for the specific purpose of the decriminalized traffic enforcements and revenue collection. Other authorities are so. 9) I also need a list of the appropriate CCTV Signage and their locations, adequately indicating the use of the CCTV surveillance at this spot. This is

very clearly spelled out in the ICO code of practice. As Transport for London have signed up to the Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras published by the London Councils they are duty bound to it. I therefore request to know if there are any regulations/publications (or opinion for that matter) that counter the following statement in the London Councils code of practice. CCTV in public places MUST be operated with regard to the advice and guidelines issued by. Office of Data Protection Registrar (ICO). The ICO (formally known as the Office of Data Protection Registrar) have given very firm guidance with requirement to adequate signage that appear to have been disregarded.

formal request for viewing 10) I hereby formally request here in writing that I or my representative view the recordings of the alleged contravention on the 7th of June 2013 12:30pm at TFLs office in the CCTV viewing room in Manor House Station or any other room within this complex. If this viewing request at the office specified by me is not to be complied with, than my second choice would be the same time but in the TfL Baker Street registered offices at 200 Baker Street, St John's Wood, London, NW1 5RZ. This again can be in any room within. Please confirm and inform me the precise place of venue. I am waiting for this confirmation at the email address of

Do not compel that I ring in for these arrangements as the regulations demand that I make my request in writing. Do not compel me to trudge down to a Croydon office as this is way inconvenient for me. Do not just send a notice of rejection as this is only a request for viewing. Do not progress this PCN until the viewing is complied with as promised in the PCN.

The regulation below gives the requestor the right to specify in writing, the enforcement authoritys office and at a time of his choice, for viewing. Any digression would be unlawful. As a public authority TfL have no legal capacity whatsoever to alter it. This was confirmed by the UK Supreme Court (then known as the Law Lords/ House of Lords) whom in the case of Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

(1992) ruled as follows, and I quote a local authority, although democratically elected and representative of the area, is not a sovereign body and can only do such things as are expressly or impliedly authorised by parliament. Lord-Templeman, UK Supreme Court Judge. Regulation 3 (5)and (6) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (5) The recipient of a penalty charge notice served by virtue of regulation 10(1)(a) of the General Regulations may, by notice in writing to the enforcement authority, request it (a)to make available at one of its offices specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him or by his representative, the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed;

Joel Friedman