‘Spy’ car brings in fines of £40,000

How long before stealthy CCTV Smart Cars go the way of the Cowboy Clampers?


The Bolton News

08 July 2010
More than 1,600 motorists have paid out almost £40,000 in fines in just five months after being caught parking illegally by a council Smart car kitted out with CCTV.
The Bolton council "spy" vehicle was introduced to catch parents who cause parking problems outside schools during drop-off and pick-up times.

It is also aimed at those who park in keep-clear zones outside schools, on single and double-yellow lines and on loading restrictions.

But six times as many motorists have been fined for parking offences away from schools after being caught on the spy car's 3.6 metre extendable cameras.

According to Big Brother Watch, an off-shoot of the pressure group The Taxpayers' Alliance, the vehicle is being used to make money for the council. A new report by the group claims that between November 2 - when the car hit the road - and March 31 the car gathered evidence to issue tickets to 1,631 motorists.

That brought in £39,495 in fines - just £13,405 less than the authority paid for the hi-tech vehicle.
The CCTV Smart car is equipped with two DVD writers that can produce instant evidence discs.
Last night, Town Hall chiefs heralded the Smart car a success.

A council spokesman said: " We brought in the CCTV Smart car to deal with problem areas and safety issues raised by residents and businesses, and it has proved very successful in doing this.
"For instance, 222 notices have been issued outside schools through the car, seven on pedestrian crossings, and 1,251 on loading restrictions put in place to address safety issues."

Nationally, information obtained by Big Brother Watch shows that there are 54 CCTV camera cars patrolling 31 local council areas.
From April last year to March this year, these cars gathered evidence to issue just under 188,000 fines, bringing in £8 million in revenues for the local councils.

Dylan Sharpe, campaign director of Big Brother Watch said: " The CCTV Smart car represents a very dangerous escalation in Britain's surveillance society.
"The vehicles are sent out to catch people and make money, with road safety only an afterthought.
"£8 million is an eye-watering amount to take in fines. It is surely only a matter of time before more councils start using these cars. The coalition government must act now and prevent that from happening."

Storm Clouds gathering over Bolton

Barry Moss is just an 'ordinary,' 63 year-old retired roofer. However, he is passionate about justice and fair play and due to his dogged determination he is very soon going to be before the High Court with what could be a pivotal moment for Britain's motorists.

Barry (left) first hit front page headlines in Bolton in 2007 when he represented his daughter-in-law at a parking tribunal

The case made front page of the Bolton Evening News and now, three years later and after more campaigning and investigating by Barry and evasion and obfuscation by Bolton Council it looks like the issues which Barry and others have uncovered have serious financial implications not only for Bolton but also for every other council in the country who have used road markings which did not comply with the law.

Further investigations revealed massive failings in Bolton's on-street as well as off-street bays and more headlines followed.

The Bolton Evening News broke this news in November 2007

"A report to councillors yesterday conceded that most bay markings did not comply with the Traffic Sign Regulations from the Department for Transport, highlighting problems including the bay lengths and dimensions of white line markings."

There followed another National Parking Adjudication Service decision this time by respected adjudicator, Mark Hinchcliffe which included a statement from John Munns at the Department for Transport in which he remarked that that the bay in question was 'unlawful.'

The implications of Barry's case are enormous and he is seeking a declaration from the High Court that there are unlawful items of account in Bolton's accounts and, as such, these will have to be refunded. This will impact on all similar cases across the country.

You can support Barry's case at The Motorists Legal Challenge.

In allowing the appeal the adjudicator reinforced the decision of adjudicator Gary Hickinbottom (now a High Court Judge) in Burnett v Buckinghamshire County Council where he concluded (note TSRGD 2002 has replaced TSRGD 1994):

Furthermore, although not relevant to this particular case (in which there was no sign at all), not only must the traffic sign must be present, it must also comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1994 No 1519) (“the 1994 Regulations”) (Section 64(2) of the 1984 Act): and the 1984 Act makes clear that the signing of parking restrictions etc. by a local authority in pursuance of its powers under the provisions of the 1984 Act with which we are here concerned must comply with those regulations (Section 68(2)).

There is an express prohibition of signs that do not comply (Section 64(4)).

The 1994 Regulations are over 350 pages long and, in meticulous detail, they provide for every particular of permitted signs - including the type, size, colour and dimensions.

Consequently, in summary, as a condition precedent of a local authority enforcing a parking penalty as a breach of a TRO made under the 1984 Act, the obligations of the motorist must be properly signed in accordance with the detailed provisions of the 1994 Regulations."