53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN Redbridge

Dear all,

Driver was on their way to work and thought they had entered the road before the 8am restriction. Their recollection is that the time on the car was 7:59.

The time stamps on the council images show the car entering 53 seconds after the 8am restriction.

Can this be appealed?

Here is the image of the Pcn:

And here is a close up image from Google maps of the signage at the entrance of Rutland Road (the portion of the road which has the restriction):

Two things.

The closeness in time within a minute can win on its own at the tribunal.

Looks like they have the term time signs with no dates, which have also been rubbished at the tribunal.

Could anyone help with the wording of the challenge?

Does this challenge work:

I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach

According to the still images accompanying the PCN, the vehicle entered the zone at 08:00:53, only 53 seconds after the restriction came into effect at 8:00 am. However, the time on my car was not showing 8:00 and I had entered the road thinking that any potential restriction had not yet started.

I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period immediately after the restriction began.

Such a minimal difference clearly falls within a reasonable margin of timing variation between clocks and recording systems. Entering the zone less than a minute after the restriction began did not endanger pedestrians nor undermine the purpose of the restriction. This is plainly a de minimis case — one so minor that enforcement would be disproportionate and contrary to the spirit of fair regulation.

2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage

Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The  sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.

Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.

Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.

3. Request for Discretion

Even if a contravention is technically made out, I respectfully ask the council to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN, taking into account that:

a) The entry occurred less than one minute after the restriction took effect; and

b) The signage was ambiguous in its “term time only” wording.

c) If the clock on the video recording device is accurate, then this was an honest and very minor mistake, not a deliberate attempt to contravene the restriction. The enforcement of such a trivial breach would be disproportionate and contrary to the public interest.

In summary:

The entry occurred only 53 seconds after the restriction start time;

The signage was unclear regarding “term time only”; and

The council should apply discretion and cancel the PCN on grounds of fairness and proportionality.

I look forward to your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.

Best wishes

I would take out all that point 3 discretion - it's unnecessary.

Our member Hippo is hot on the signage so see if he chips in. 

Scrap point 1 You should not admit to anything

You should go with something along the lines of your clock showing  7.59 so no contravention save the technical bit for tribunal where we can give you winning arguments re timing and the sign

Is there a reason why it's better to make these arguments at tribunal rather than now? Wouldn't it better to get all the points at this stage so that there's a better chance to get it all cancelled and not go tribunal.

I would take out all that point 3 discretion - it's unnecessary.

Our member Hippo is hot on the signage so see if he chips in.

+1

OK, as per advice, I have removed point no. 3 and have amended point no. 1:

I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach

According to the still images accompanying the PCN, the vehicle entered the zone at 08:00:53, only 53 seconds after the restriction came into effect at 8:00 am.

I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period immediately after the restriction began.

Such a minimal difference clearly falls within a reasonable margin of timing variation between clocks and recording systems. Entering the zone less than a minute after the restriction began did not endanger pedestrians nor undermine the purpose of the restriction. This is plainly a de minimis case — one so minor that enforcement would be disproportionate and contrary to the spirit of fair regulation.

2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage

Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The  sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.

Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.

Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.

For these reasons, I ask the PCN to be cancelled.

Best wishes

To whom is the PCN addressed, you by name?

You refer to 'driver' in the third person. The procedure has nothing to do with the driver, it's the registered keeper whose details appear as addressee who must respond.

To avoid stumbling at this procedural hurdle, pl tell us who's who here?

Pastbybest is saying just say something like:

I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.

To whom is the PCN addressed, you by name?

You refer to 'driver' in the third person. The procedure has nothing to do with the driver, it's the registered keeper whose details appear as addressee who must respond.

To avoid stumbling at this procedural hurdle, pl tell us who's who here?

Yes it is the registered keeper who drove and will be submitting the rep.

Pastbybest is saying just say something like:

I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.

OK have amended. See below. Should I also remove the second para under no. 1? Or is it all now good to go? Many thanks.

I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach

I checked my car clock and it was not yet 8am, so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.

I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period (53 seconds) immediately after the restriction began.

2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage

Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The  sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.

Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.

Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.

For these reasons, I ask the PCN to be cancelled.

Best wishes,

There is a good reason to keep the more technical points for appeal. The council will not accept any of your points.They will say their cameras are calibrated to the atomic clock and so are accurate. They will also completely dismiss De minimis and discretion is not something they know the meaning of. Knowing they will dismiss you do not give them an open goal by saying Yes I was in breach but only a bit so let me off, Let them give the reasons they will help at tribunal

There is a good reason to keep the more technical points for appeal. The council will not accept any of your points.They will say their cameras are calibrated to the atomic clock and so are accurate. They will also completely dismiss De minimis and discretion is not something they know the meaning of. Knowing they will dismiss you do not give them an open goal by saying Yes I was in breach but only a bit so let me off, Let them give the reasons they will help at tribunal

Leave out the second paragraph of point 1