Transport for London (TfL) unlawfully used CCTV for the enforcement of the restricted parking on its red routes, a tribunal has found.
In the test case, the London Tribunal panel ruled that TfL was guilty of 'a procedural impropriety' and had issued the penalty charge notices (PCNs) unlawfully.
While the tribunal cannot set a legal precedent as adjudicators are not bound by each other's decisions, the panel said it was 'conscious' of the judgement having a 'potentially wide-reaching effect', as other adjudicators may take previous decisions into consideration.
This means the ruling on eight red route fine appeals could have major implications for TfL, which issues about 435,000 PCNs in total every year.
It could also have implications for the general use of CCTV enforcement - although the judgement does specifically refer to TfL's red routes. In 2015, the government introduced laws limiting the use of CCTV to issue fines.
The tribunal said: 'No-one suggests that contraventions of red route parking bays marked with the ‘item 6 bay marking’ are not enforceable at all. They are enforceable but, the panel finds, the meaning of the [Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations] 2022 Regulations is that they are not enforceable on the basis of a record produced by an approved device [CCTV].
'They are enforceable by CEO’s [civil enforcement officer] and, in the event the CEO is unable to effect service of the PCN in the circumstances described in Regulation 9(4) to (6), by post.
The tribunal concluded that 'parking contraventions on a red route enforceable on the basis of a record produce[d] by an approved device are confined, in the context of Regulation 11(2) to those where the vehicle is stationary on a length of road marked with double or single red line markings'.
TfL's counsel argued that the definition of ‘red route’ for the purposes of Regulations 9 to 11 of the 2022 Regulations was 'materially the same as that in the TMO [ traffic management order] and the TSRGD 2016 [Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions]'.
However, the panel found: 'There is a material distinction between the definition of a red route for the purposes of the TSRGD 2016 and the definition in Regulation 11(2) governing the circumstances in which camera enforcement of parking contraventions is permissible. That is to say, the contexts are different.'
The panel concluded that the PCNs on appeal 'did not comply with Regulation 11(2) as we construe it, we find there was a procedural impropriety and we direct those PCNs to be cancelled'.
