News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Globe's campaign for justice for Wirral motorists against spy car goes national

Rachel Johnson with her landmark adjudication   Picture: Mercury Press Agency Rachel Johnson with her landmark adjudication Picture: Mercury Press Agency

THE GLOBE's campaign to get justice for Wirral motorists caught on camera by the council's spy car has finally exploded onto the national stage.

Our revelations that parking tickets had been issued where there were no warning signs made headlines in almost every single national newspaper today, while New Brighton off licence owner Rachel Johnson - who first told the Globe how she successfully had three tickets overturned - appeared live on GMTV and later on the BBC.

When the council turned down her appeals against the tickets, Rachel went to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and won a landmark legal ruling that could now see thousands of parking tickets scrapped because they have been illegally issued by spy camera cars.

Since April, Wirral drivers have been issued with parking penalties on photographic evidence gathered by a Smart car in council livery equipped with 11ft periscope-mounted cameras.

The tribunal adjudicator ruled that the penalties were invalid because there were no warnings of cameras in operation when the alleged offences were recorded.

The appeal was on the grounds that it is a legal requirement for warning notices saying "camera enforcement in operation" to be displayed in order for a parking penalty to be valid.

Related links

The tribunal ruled that the tickets were invalid because of the lack of signs, warning motorists they might be photographed.

Since our story first appeared last month, Wirral Council has been erecting temporary signs wherever the spy car is operating.

But anyone issued a ticket by the spy car before July 1 - when the temporary signs began appearing - could well now have a retrospective argument to have their appeal upheld.

That means the possibility of hundreds of fresh appeals to the council or the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Rachel said: "The letter I received back from the adjudicator stipulated that Local Authorities should use the spy camera system "sparingly" and only in areas where wardens cannot be used. As proprietors of a business we are allowed to park for a short period.

"These spy camera cars are an alarming invasion of privacy and smack of a way to raise money.

"I received a DVD of the footage taken of my car and it shows my daughter walking into the shop while I waited.

"Now I have won this ruling it is up to the council to make sure the warning signs are clearly put in place wherever this spy car is operating."

Wirral Council has said it is "reviewing" the way its spy car is used to issue parking penalties But New Brighton Conservative Cllr Sue Taylor said: "The adjudicators said the penalty issued through the spy car was invalid.

"It is a landmark ruling and it could open the flood gates to thousands of other drivers who could lodge similar appeals to obtain a refund of fines.

"If councils are going to use the spy car's evidence to issue parking fines then they need to introduce a system of erecting temporary signs in places where they are operating.

"That will discourage motorists from parking illegally and that should be the aim of the whole process, rather than simply cashing-in on collecting fines."

A council spokeswoman said: "Anyone who has received a parking ticket and thinks that they have a valid reason to appeal is able to do so through the appeals process."

The council says the payment of a fine is "an admission of liability" and has "no plans" to reconsider old cases.

But Cllr Taylor added: "I disagree totally with the Council for saying that by paying the fines was an admission of liability.

"Many innocent motorists have been fined in an unfair and inappropriate manner and I urge anyone who thinks they have been wrongly fined to appeal."

* If the council has turned down your appeal against a ticket, click on the related link below.

Comments(23)

glenn, moreton says...
11:41am Tue 4 Aug 09

WELL DONE rachel and the Globe for pursuing this injustice - and winning, very well done!

minimad69 says...
11:51am Tue 4 Aug 09

BEAUTIFUL!

Who could of predicted that the Wirral Cabinet would get this wrong....?

Dollar signs and money for nothing once again overrides the law in the Wirral Junta.

Jayo says...
9:03pm Tue 4 Aug 09

Its a pity she didn't win because she has a right to unload outside her shop for a set amount of time.

Sign-writers are on overtime now.

piggymalone says...
9:12pm Tue 4 Aug 09

Jayo, she did win, the adjudicator ruled that the PCN`s were unenforceable due to a lack of signs warning the public that they were lekely to be photographed. I suggest that anyone who has paid a PCN having been photographed by this obnoxious machine requests a fully refund as the adjudicator has ruled that they were illegal

Jayo says...
10:10pm Tue 4 Aug 09

Sorry Piggy, What I meant was she only won because of no warning signs and not because she had the right to park on the yellows for a reasonable amount of time to unload.
I saw the spy car in Ashburton Road a few weeks ago and temporary warning signs had been erected so the council knew this would happen or at least thought it would happen.

piggymalone says...
12:58am Wed 5 Aug 09

Oh right Jayo, see what you mean now. Thats actually a good point about being allowd to load/unload on yellows. There doesnt appear to be any reports about the adjudicator mentioning that fact.

djrimmer says...
1:19am Wed 5 Aug 09

For the pro "spy" car brigade.
Statutory guidance para 50 states
"The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from
breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the
system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs".
It quite clearly states "needs" not should and L/A`s must have regard for the statutory guidance. I would therefore argue that the adudicator was right in his decision.....Wirral Council please take note but then again, do you ever listen, I think not.

its says 'needs' not 'should'
and LAs must have regard for the stat guidance. I say the adjudicator was correct.

B Daly says...
11:41am Wed 5 Aug 09

get ready for round two because the council will not give up its new source of cash and the fact that Wirral residents and motorists don't want this camera car will not sway the council.

what a shame as I was allways taught that the council was an elected body there to do the will of the people they are supposed to reprisent.

as a foot note if the council created more parking places and reduced the parking charges or even removed the charges more people would use the our shops and other buisinesses and that mite lead to every one making more money and generaly more prosperity for all. Just a thaught.

piggymalone says...
2:35pm Wed 5 Aug 09

B.Daly, agreed. They will not give up this source of income lightly but the law is on the motorists side as determined by the adjudicator and that seems to be confirmed by DJRimmers post, so how they will manage to sign up when they are operation, goodness knows, although they will try and get away with Mickey Mouse solutions as indeed they are alreadt trying. Similarly I totally agree about the parking. If they did not rip the motorist off and had sensible, affordable charging policies, that could be the start of a re-generation of dying shopping areas but alas they are only interested in one thing!

Hon says...
4:08pm Thu 6 Aug 09

So she got it overturned on a technicality but not because she was right on her appeal? i read a few of the articles she was parked on yellow lines! From the other paper she was parked where there is parking bays opposite her buinsess I know the shop in question and carnt see why anyone would sit on a yellow line when ya can park opposite its just crazy. But I guess she did get off them but still she was wrong in the respect she was on yellow lines. SO i guess from now on if this lady is on the yellow lines and signs are around and she gets a ticket she will pay the fines hopefully? Solution still is dont park illegally even if you dont agree with the Council (which i dont on many things)

piggymalone says...
5:31pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Hon, Liscard......if she is telling the truth and she was loading/unloading a vehicle at her business premises, she has every right to do so legally so please do not infer that she was breaking the law.You will also find that the parking adudicators do not make judgements on technicalities but base their decisions on the law of the land as they see it, so again, please do not infer that she was breaking the law.

glenn, moreton says...
11:13am Fri 7 Aug 09

I really like this new look website!

slumdog says...
12:13pm Mon 10 Aug 09

I hope this loophole is closed quickly so we can avoid a parking free for all, without a care for anyone else or their children. I hope this woman is arrogant enough to try it again and incurs costs, as well as paying the. fine.

bluey says...
5:50pm Mon 10 Aug 09

Well done, I fought a similar parking ticket at Bebington station and won.

piggymalone says...
9:39pm Mon 10 Aug 09

"Loophole"...its a adjudication based on the law as the adjudicator sees it.

Furor Teutonicus says...
1:39pm Tue 11 Aug 09

I find it strange that a local news paper should support the breaking of the law, and the enforcement of the law, in such a way.

If you park, or do anything else ILLEGALY then surely it should be SUPORTED when the law breakers are brought to justice?

You would all be quick enough to complain id these illegal parkers were blocking your drive way.

piggymalone says...
11:53pm Tue 11 Aug 09

The Wirral Globe did not support breaking the law.She was not breaking the law anyway....you are entitled to load/unload on yl`s, so get your facts right before making accusations. In actual fact it was Wirral Council that was not adhering to government laid down codes of practice which is why the TPT adjudicator ruled in favour of the appellant.

slumdog says...
3:54pm Wed 12 Aug 09

Presumably, all crime should be overlooked unless there are signs everywhere specifically forbidding them... Not guilty of murder on a technicality your honour. The council had not put up 'do not murder' signs at either end of the road'

Furor Teutonicus says...
4:59pm Wed 12 Aug 09

Slumdog. Kind of my point.

I was not talking about this woman in general as some of the terminally pedantic wannabbess around here would eappear to wish to think, so as to suporrt their OWN theories.

But the fact that the Globe are campaigning against this, or ANY OTHER policing method.

slumdog says...
7:52pm Wed 12 Aug 09

Furor, you're quite right. In my opinion, it's irresponsible at best.

piggymalone says...
11:29am Thu 13 Aug 09

Parking contraventions are not crimes, so once again I would remind you to get your fact right. So comparing parking contraventions to crimes is a pathetic argument.

slumdog says...
12:55pm Thu 13 Aug 09

It's obviously making some of the natives rather restless too furor.

Their rage at the prospect of getting caught for something they've always got away with, is getting more impotent, and funnier by the week as they scrabble for another empty excuse to hide behind.

Furor Teutonicus says...
5:01pm Thu 13 Aug 09

Always was the case.

The law is great until THEY get caught, and then all Hel breaks loose.

click2find

Most popular