Can CCTV cars park on double yellow lines and in cycle lanes? Yes, says Kingston Council

CCTV cars have been spotted parked in unusual places

CCTV cars have been spotted parked in unusual places

First published in News Surrey Comet: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

Kingston Council-branded traffic monitoring cars across the borough have sparked complaints after they were spotted parked up in unusual places.

Cars parked on double yellow lines and in cycle lanes have led residents to question whether one rule exists for them, and another for the CCTV monitors.

And the answer, it seems, is yes.

A council spokesman said: “The CCTV cars are covered by a traffic order exemption, which applies when they are being used in the council’s service to enforce parking contraventions.

“When a CCTV car is waiting it is gathering evidence to support the issue of a penalty charge notice.”

One resident spotted a car in a cycle lane in Cox Lane, Chessington. She said: “They park here for a few hours and seem to be enjoying the rest time.

“When they have been told that they are parking on double yellows and across a cycle path, they ignore you and continue to be stationary there.”

Businessman Richard Hunt, from the Chessington Business Centre opposite the Cox Lane bus gate, snapped a photo of a CCTV car’s periscope peeking over a hedge near the junction.

He said: “It’s robbery.

“Hiding behind a bush and putting that telescopic camera up in the air – no one can see it.”

Surrey Comet:

Can you see me? A CCTV car's periscope pops up over a hedge, in the middle of this picture

Traffic enforcement began at Cox Lane last month. Cars must use a separate lane to buses as they approach Sanger Avenue.

A council spokesman added: “If drivers complied with traffic regulations [in Cox Lane] then the CCTV car could be sent to ensure safety in other places, such as outside schools.

“Places where the CCTV vehicle can park to gather evidence at this location are limited.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:42am Fri 7 Feb 14

pinky107 says...

double standards by the council as usual . if they want people to stop parking illegally then these cars should set an example and not do so them selves , otherwise why should car drivers get fined by the council when their cars are doing what is not allowed for others . the council don't care about the little man as long as there is a cash cow to milk . i will have a go at any council car i see parked illegally .

heres a petition to sign to stop this hypocrisy ;
http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/55329
double standards by the council as usual . if they want people to stop parking illegally then these cars should set an example and not do so them selves , otherwise why should car drivers get fined by the council when their cars are doing what is not allowed for others . the council don't care about the little man as long as there is a cash cow to milk . i will have a go at any council car i see parked illegally . heres a petition to sign to stop this hypocrisy ; http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/55329 pinky107
  • Score: -1

1:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Scott Tracey says...

Surely the issue here is that one should consider why the double yellow lines /parking restriction/cycle lanes/bus lanes are there in the first place. The reasons usually fall under the heading "safety" or to "manage efficient and safe traffic flow". So either these BIG BROTHER CCTV vehicles are threatening the safety of the public or they are restricting the safe and efficient flow of traffic. The very thing they are supposed to be safeguarding against, and are therefore a high risk to safety, and "illegal". Otherwise the reasons for parking restrictions and yellow lines are not there for the reasons I mention above and are purely a means to penalise motorists and the public financially and a convenient income to the council. Discuss!
Surely the issue here is that one should consider why the double yellow lines /parking restriction/cycle lanes/bus lanes are there in the first place. The reasons usually fall under the heading "safety" or to "manage efficient and safe traffic flow". So either these BIG BROTHER CCTV vehicles are threatening the safety of the public or they are restricting the safe and efficient flow of traffic. The very thing they are supposed to be safeguarding against, and are therefore a high risk to safety, and "illegal". Otherwise the reasons for parking restrictions and yellow lines are not there for the reasons I mention above and are purely a means to penalise motorists and the public financially and a convenient income to the council. Discuss! Scott Tracey
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Fri 7 Feb 14

bosco1 says...

Scott Tracey wrote:
Surely the issue here is that one should consider why the double yellow lines /parking restriction/cycle lanes/bus lanes are there in the first place. The reasons usually fall under the heading "safety" or to "manage efficient and safe traffic flow". So either these BIG BROTHER CCTV vehicles are threatening the safety of the public or they are restricting the safe and efficient flow of traffic. The very thing they are supposed to be safeguarding against, and are therefore a high risk to safety, and "illegal". Otherwise the reasons for parking restrictions and yellow lines are not there for the reasons I mention above and are purely a means to penalise motorists and the public financially and a convenient income to the council. Discuss!
Spot on, your remarks are very true indeed. So the people who are putting the thumbs down must be council/police workers.!
[quote][p][bold]Scott Tracey[/bold] wrote: Surely the issue here is that one should consider why the double yellow lines /parking restriction/cycle lanes/bus lanes are there in the first place. The reasons usually fall under the heading "safety" or to "manage efficient and safe traffic flow". So either these BIG BROTHER CCTV vehicles are threatening the safety of the public or they are restricting the safe and efficient flow of traffic. The very thing they are supposed to be safeguarding against, and are therefore a high risk to safety, and "illegal". Otherwise the reasons for parking restrictions and yellow lines are not there for the reasons I mention above and are purely a means to penalise motorists and the public financially and a convenient income to the council. Discuss![/p][/quote]Spot on, your remarks are very true indeed. So the people who are putting the thumbs down must be council/police workers.! bosco1
  • Score: 1

5:30pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Nigel Wise says...

A council spokesman said: “The CCTV cars are covered by a traffic order exemption, which applies when they are being used in the council’s service to enforce parking contraventions."

Really! The unnamed 'spokesman' obviously works in or has received this disingenuous information from the Parking Department. This misleading statement clearly demonstrates that the Parking Staff at Kingston seem to have no idea regarding the laws surrounding enforcement under the TMA 2004. They are therefore not fit to be employed in this capacity. They are acting illegally themselves whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law.

With reference to civil enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 the Chief Adjudicator of the TPT stated in her Annual Report of 2008-2010 at end of paragraph 5.3 as follows:

“ . . in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case – there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement”

TRO is an acronym for a Traffic Regulation Order. TMA is an acronym for Traffic Management Act. This is the Law laid down by Parliament.

Kingston Parking Department backed up by Council Officers will stop at nothing, including breaking the law themselves, in their relentless pursuit of penalty money. This is one of the worst examples of Kingston Council's revenue driven enforcement.

http://www.trafficpe
naltytribunal.gov.uk
/downloads/TPT_AR_08
_10.pdf

You will need to copy and paste the above link into your browser.

Thank God that the neighboring Borough of Richmond saw sense years ago and removed these vehicles form their roads.
A council spokesman said: “The CCTV cars are covered by a traffic order exemption, which applies when they are being used in the council’s service to enforce parking contraventions." Really! The unnamed 'spokesman' obviously works in or has received this disingenuous information from the Parking Department. This misleading statement clearly demonstrates that the Parking Staff at Kingston seem to have no idea regarding the laws surrounding enforcement under the TMA 2004. They are therefore not fit to be employed in this capacity. They are acting illegally themselves whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law. With reference to civil enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 the Chief Adjudicator of the TPT stated in her Annual Report of 2008-2010 at end of paragraph 5.3 as follows: “ . . in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case – there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement” TRO is an acronym for a Traffic Regulation Order. TMA is an acronym for Traffic Management Act. This is the Law laid down by Parliament. Kingston Parking Department backed up by Council Officers will stop at nothing, including breaking the law themselves, in their relentless pursuit of penalty money. This is one of the worst examples of Kingston Council's revenue driven enforcement. http://www.trafficpe naltytribunal.gov.uk /downloads/TPT_AR_08 _10.pdf You will need to copy and paste the above link into your browser. Thank God that the neighboring Borough of Richmond saw sense years ago and removed these vehicles form their roads. Nigel Wise
  • Score: -3

6:07pm Fri 7 Feb 14

alroutemaster says...

As an ex-Police Traffic Warden (you remember us, we were the ones who didn't have targets!) I'd argue with this. My local council tried this and parked blocking an emergency fire exit on double yellows. Publicity in my local Guardian got that stopped........
As an ex-Police Traffic Warden (you remember us, we were the ones who didn't have targets!) I'd argue with this. My local council tried this and parked blocking an emergency fire exit on double yellows. Publicity in my local Guardian got that stopped........ alroutemaster
  • Score: 4

8:19pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Nigel Wise says...

A council spokesman added: “If drivers complied with traffic regulations then the CCTV car could be sent to ensure safety in other places, such as outside schools.

“Places where the CCTV vehicle can park to gather evidence at this location are limited.”

This Council spokesman or at very least the person who gave the 'spokesman' the 'information' ought to be named and shamed. If he or she wishes to spout these nonsensical, downright misleading and spurious proclamations he/ she ought not to be able to do so from behind a cloak of anonymity. So please own up whoever you are.

These vehicles were first introduced to ostensibly monitor schools. They are a complete waste of time at doing this. In the entire area of The Borough of Bournemouth the cars issued a total of only 91 fines for the contravention of stopping on school Zig-Zags in the year 2012-2013. The resulting penalty money meant that they were operating at a considerable loss.

The real reason that they are deployed elsewhere than outside schools is due to their ineffectiveness at schools and that they are therefore unprofitable at school locations.

In fact they invariably endanger the lives of children whilst engaged in this activity outside schools.

In any event the Secretary of State for Transport's Statutory Guidance means that the vehicles can only be used at very limited locations for Parking Enforcement.

Kingston's vehicles therefore routinely operate in total disregard the March 2008 Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State for Transport which states (at para. 48) that parking enforcement by means of CCTV should be used only where on-foot CEO enforcement is difficult, or sensitive, and is not practical.

This shows that CCTV (including fixed cameras) should not be used for parking enforcement in most of the places where they are in Kingston. Note the word AND above.

http://assets.dft.go
v.uk/publications/tm
a-part-6-cpe-statuto
ry-guidance/betterpr
kstatutoryguid.pdf

You will need to copy and paste the above link into your browser.

Will the person responsible for these misstatements by the 'spokesman' please contact the newspaper and give your name. Then please give a full answer and explanation to all of the points that I have raised here. Your silence will otherwise be taken by most people as being your full agreement with all that I have stated.

I then have several other questions for you all of which have so far remained unanswered for months by the Head of Parking at Kingston.
A council spokesman added: “If drivers complied with traffic regulations [in Cox Lane] then the CCTV car could be sent to ensure safety in other places, such as outside schools. “Places where the CCTV vehicle can park to gather evidence at this location are limited.” This Council spokesman or at very least the person who gave the 'spokesman' the 'information' ought to be named and shamed. If he or she wishes to spout these nonsensical, downright misleading and spurious proclamations he/ she ought not to be able to do so from behind a cloak of anonymity. So please own up whoever you are. These vehicles were first introduced to ostensibly monitor schools. They are a complete waste of time at doing this. In the entire area of The Borough of Bournemouth the cars issued a total of only 91 fines for the contravention of stopping on school Zig-Zags in the year 2012-2013. The resulting penalty money meant that they were operating at a considerable loss. The real reason that they are deployed elsewhere than outside schools is due to their ineffectiveness at schools and that they are therefore unprofitable at school locations. In fact they invariably endanger the lives of children whilst engaged in this activity outside schools. In any event the Secretary of State for Transport's Statutory Guidance means that the vehicles can only be used at very limited locations for Parking Enforcement. Kingston's vehicles therefore routinely operate in total disregard the March 2008 Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State for Transport which states (at para. 48) that parking enforcement by means of CCTV should be used only where on-foot CEO enforcement is difficult, or sensitive, and is not practical. This shows that CCTV (including fixed cameras) should not be used for parking enforcement in most of the places where they are in Kingston. Note the word AND above. http://assets.dft.go v.uk/publications/tm a-part-6-cpe-statuto ry-guidance/betterpr kstatutoryguid.pdf You will need to copy and paste the above link into your browser. Will the person responsible for these misstatements by the 'spokesman' please contact the newspaper and give your name. Then please give a full answer and explanation to all of the points that I have raised here. Your silence will otherwise be taken by most people as being your full agreement with all that I have stated. I then have several other questions for you all of which have so far remained unanswered for months by the Head of Parking at Kingston. Nigel Wise
  • Score: -2

6:52am Sat 8 Feb 14

JPR says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
A council spokesman said: “The CCTV cars are covered by a traffic order exemption, which applies when they are being used in the council’s service to enforce parking contraventions.&quot
;

Really! The unnamed 'spokesman' obviously works in or has received this disingenuous information from the Parking Department. This misleading statement clearly demonstrates that the Parking Staff at Kingston seem to have no idea regarding the laws surrounding enforcement under the TMA 2004. They are therefore not fit to be employed in this capacity. They are acting illegally themselves whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law.

With reference to civil enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 the Chief Adjudicator of the TPT stated in her Annual Report of 2008-2010 at end of paragraph 5.3 as follows:

“ . . in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case – there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement”

TRO is an acronym for a Traffic Regulation Order. TMA is an acronym for Traffic Management Act. This is the Law laid down by Parliament.

Kingston Parking Department backed up by Council Officers will stop at nothing, including breaking the law themselves, in their relentless pursuit of penalty money. This is one of the worst examples of Kingston Council's revenue driven enforcement.

http://www.trafficpe

naltytribunal.gov.uk

/downloads/TPT_AR_08

_10.pdf

You will need to copy and paste the above link into your browser.

Thank God that the neighboring Borough of Richmond saw sense years ago and removed these vehicles form their roads.
They should get the sack
and a fine.
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: A council spokesman said: “The CCTV cars are covered by a traffic order exemption, which applies when they are being used in the council’s service to enforce parking contraventions." ; Really! The unnamed 'spokesman' obviously works in or has received this disingenuous information from the Parking Department. This misleading statement clearly demonstrates that the Parking Staff at Kingston seem to have no idea regarding the laws surrounding enforcement under the TMA 2004. They are therefore not fit to be employed in this capacity. They are acting illegally themselves whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law. With reference to civil enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 the Chief Adjudicator of the TPT stated in her Annual Report of 2008-2010 at end of paragraph 5.3 as follows: “ . . in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case – there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement” TRO is an acronym for a Traffic Regulation Order. TMA is an acronym for Traffic Management Act. This is the Law laid down by Parliament. Kingston Parking Department backed up by Council Officers will stop at nothing, including breaking the law themselves, in their relentless pursuit of penalty money. This is one of the worst examples of Kingston Council's revenue driven enforcement. http://www.trafficpe naltytribunal.gov.uk /downloads/TPT_AR_08 _10.pdf You will need to copy and paste the above link into your browser. Thank God that the neighboring Borough of Richmond saw sense years ago and removed these vehicles form their roads.[/p][/quote]They should get the sack and a fine. JPR
  • Score: 1

10:44am Sat 8 Feb 14

EurfylJohn says...

Nigel Wise is right.
Nigel Wise is right. EurfylJohn
  • Score: 0

10:54am Sat 8 Feb 14

EurfylJohn says...

The camera named on VCA certificate is wrong and does not exist! The correct name for the camera is actually WCC E261 MP

No WCC261 in our product model. Only WCC-E261 exists.



Sam / General Manager

WONWOO ENGINEERING CO.,LTD
7F/201, Techno Park Ⅲ. Biz-City, 36-1, Samjeong-Dong
Ohjung-Gu, Bucheon-city, Gyunggi-Do Korea
www.goodome.com
The camera named on VCA certificate is wrong and does not exist! The correct name for the camera is actually WCC E261 MP No WCC261 in our product model. Only WCC-E261 exists. Sam / General Manager WONWOO ENGINEERING CO.,LTD 7F/201, Techno Park Ⅲ. Biz-City, 36-1, Samjeong-Dong Ohjung-Gu, Bucheon-city, Gyunggi-Do Korea www.goodome.com EurfylJohn
  • Score: -6

5:43am Sun 9 Feb 14

Beverly RA says...

Why when its nasty news about Kingston Council its always a spokesman who answers, yet when there is rarely good news the Lib Dem Councillors queue up to talk to the press?
Why when its nasty news about Kingston Council its always a spokesman who answers, yet when there is rarely good news the Lib Dem Councillors queue up to talk to the press? Beverly RA
  • Score: 1

8:41am Sun 9 Feb 14

Nigel Wise says...

Beverly RA wrote:
Why when its nasty news about Kingston Council its always a spokesman who answers, yet when there is rarely good news the Lib Dem Councillors queue up to talk to the press?
We will have to see if anyone has the courage to name themselves to the newspaper. I doubt it very much.
[quote][p][bold]Beverly RA[/bold] wrote: Why when its nasty news about Kingston Council its always a spokesman who answers, yet when there is rarely good news the Lib Dem Councillors queue up to talk to the press?[/p][/quote]We will have to see if anyone has the courage to name themselves to the newspaper. I doubt it very much. Nigel Wise
  • Score: 1

1:12pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Scott Tracey says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
Beverly RA wrote:
Why when its nasty news about Kingston Council its always a spokesman who answers, yet when there is rarely good news the Lib Dem Councillors queue up to talk to the press?
We will have to see if anyone has the courage to name themselves to the newspaper. I doubt it very much.
That's just politics really though. It would be the same whichever party was leading. Officers are in departments and councillors are the public face and need your votes.
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beverly RA[/bold] wrote: Why when its nasty news about Kingston Council its always a spokesman who answers, yet when there is rarely good news the Lib Dem Councillors queue up to talk to the press?[/p][/quote]We will have to see if anyone has the courage to name themselves to the newspaper. I doubt it very much.[/p][/quote]That's just politics really though. It would be the same whichever party was leading. Officers are in departments and councillors are the public face and need your votes. Scott Tracey
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Sun 9 Feb 14

EurfylJohn says...

The image should be reported to the Police to see what they say.
The image should be reported to the Police to see what they say. EurfylJohn
  • Score: -2

1:32pm Sun 9 Feb 14

EurfylJohn says...

EurfylJohn wrote:
The image should be reported to the Police to see what they say.
Car was parked here:

https://maps.google.
com/maps?f=q&source=
s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q
=wheatfield+way+king
ston&aq=&sll=51.4095
53%2c-0.300751&sspn=
0.009021%2c0.020149&
vpsrc=0&ie=UTF8&hq=&
hnear=Wheatfield+Way
%2c+Kingston+upon+Th
ames%2c+United+Kingd
om&ll=51.411614%2c-0
.300429&spn=0.008967
%2c0.020149&t=m&z=16
&layer=c&cbll=51.411
709%2c-0.300465&pano
id=LZXvU3TkTZSFWvJVc
BiTrw&cbp=12%2c270%2
c%2c0%2c0

On 19th May 2012 @ 17.45
[quote][p][bold]EurfylJohn[/bold] wrote: The image should be reported to the Police to see what they say.[/p][/quote]Car was parked here: https://maps.google. com/maps?f=q&source= s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q =wheatfield+way+king ston&aq=&sll=51.4095 53%2c-0.300751&sspn= 0.009021%2c0.020149& vpsrc=0&ie=UTF8&hq=& hnear=Wheatfield+Way %2c+Kingston+upon+Th ames%2c+United+Kingd om&ll=51.411614%2c-0 .300429&spn=0.008967 %2c0.020149&t=m&z=16 &layer=c&cbll=51.411 709%2c-0.300465&pano id=LZXvU3TkTZSFWvJVc BiTrw&cbp=12%2c270%2 c%2c0%2c0 On 19th May 2012 @ 17.45 EurfylJohn
  • Score: -2

1:35pm Sun 9 Feb 14

EurfylJohn says...

https://maps.google.
com/maps?f=q&source=
s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q
=wheatfield+way+king
ston&aq=&sll=51.4095
53%2c-0.300751&sspn=
0.009021%2c0.020149&
vpsrc=0&ie=UTF8&hq=&
hnear=Wheatfield+Way
%2c+Kingston+upon+Th
ames%2c+United+Kingd
om&ll=51.411614%2c-0
.300429&spn=0.008967
%2c0.020149&t=m&z=16
&layer=c&cbll=51.411
709%2c-0.300465&pano
id=LZXvU3TkTZSFWvJVc
BiTrw&cbp=12%2c270%2
c%2c0%2c0
https://maps.google. com/maps?f=q&source= s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q =wheatfield+way+king ston&aq=&sll=51.4095 53%2c-0.300751&sspn= 0.009021%2c0.020149& vpsrc=0&ie=UTF8&hq=& hnear=Wheatfield+Way %2c+Kingston+upon+Th ames%2c+United+Kingd om&ll=51.411614%2c-0 .300429&spn=0.008967 %2c0.020149&t=m&z=16 &layer=c&cbll=51.411 709%2c-0.300465&pano id=LZXvU3TkTZSFWvJVc BiTrw&cbp=12%2c270%2 c%2c0%2c0 EurfylJohn
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree