Free Traffic Legal Advice

Which is your car - both though are well into the last minute at 18-21 secs.

So good shout on de minimis (triviality).

I would say, go for it and take them all the way !

Reason is that if the council want compliance to the exact second, why haven't they put a clock up at the sign ? We have them at railway stations after all ! A recent adjudication at London Tribunals ruled that without such a council clock, motorists have to rely on their own clock and these are mostly not synchronised with the national atomic clock and certainly never with the council clock.  The decision was that councils, in the absence of a council clock displaying the time, cannnot therefore expect exact compliance, and must accept some variation. Of course the motorist is also expected to be reasonably diligent in keeping his clock as accurate as possible. If your clock had been 5 minutes out then you'd have a weaker argument.

The one thing you must NOT do in your reps, is claim the council CCTV clock is inaccurate, because they will easily refute this and you'll lose.  Best to say that your clock showed it was OK to pass the sign, and how do the council expect you to know the time the council are relying on to serve a PCN, because there is no council clock at the sign

Hopefully, somebody on here will know the LT Case where this was very recently decided.

Sorry on holiday at present in the island of Hippocrates;  but I have seen a Sean Stanton-Dunne decision re Brent which invokes the maxim of common sense.  I will try and dig it out. And a Belinda Pearce decision too.

The latter:  2240403896 cf: 2240196951

Thank you again!

Interestingly in the appeal, the adjudicator says the authority showed no evidence of calibration, which was one ground I thought about raising.

Should I question this too, and put them to proof? As well as running the de minimis and lack of clock next to the signage argument?

Please can you advise if this draft representation could be improved? Thank you.

"Dear Sir, Madam,

In brief background, I live in the street where the restriction which is the subject of this case is located and I always seek to respect it because I approved of its installation earlier this year to let school children cross more easily, which we use every day.

I make formal representations against the above PCN on the following grounds.

1)   My car showed 9am

I distinctly remember the morning of the alleged contravention because I glanced at the clock in my car before making the turn to check whether I could use that route. It showed 9:00am or I would not have turned because I am aware of the 7-9am restriction. I even argued with a protester who opposed the restriction scheme when it was installed earlier this year because he had been sent from another borough, and didn’t understand the importance of the zebra crossing for school children in our road.

2)   The authority should display a clock near a timed restriction

The crux of this case is the need for the authority to allow for reasonable variation between the time on the camera, and the time shown in one’s car.

In case 2240403896, the ETA Adjudicator Belinda Pearce, ruled that “the Enforcement Authority cannot expect motorists to be aware of the time upon which it itself relies unless that time is shown by way of public clock; in the absence of the same motorists are obliged to rely upon their own time pieces and the Enforcement Authority must thereby accommodate naturally occurring variances.”

That Adjudicator further comments “No evidence is adduced of a clock accompanying the signage demonstrating the time upon which reliance is placed by the Enforcement
Authority.” I note the absence of such a clock around the signage of the Boundaries Road scheme in my case and attach photos to prove such absence.

Further, in the council’s reply to my informal representations, they provided no evidence of the calibration of their camera despite mentioning that it was checked. I note this lack of proof but cannot comment further in the absence of a calibration certificate. Ms Pearce noted “No evidence is adduced as to the calibration of, or accuracy of, the camera recording equipment.”

From the above, I advance that there was an allowable variation between the official time and the time shown by my car’s clock which meant that I thought the turn was permitted.

3)   The rule of de minimis applies

The same Adjudicator, Ms Pearce, ruled that “I find that if the 18 seconds incursion is accurate, it is such as to be a minimal incurrence; I import the principle of de minimis.” I propose that the same de minimis principle be applied here as the variation between my clock and the camera’s clock was approximately 39-40 seconds which is again within an allowable range and my turn was a minimal infraction, if it was one at all.

Based on the above, I contend that the infraction did not occur and that the authority should cancel the PCN.

I would add that I consider that the authority is being vindictive and acting without common sense here as I clearly didn’t seek to breach this restriction, and further, they should have applied a de minimis standard.

You can't search by those terms - there is a list of key cases under various headings though.

Your reps look OK - I'm dubious about the idea of a public clock and Belinda Pearce is one of the more friendly adjudicators. The essence is timing so close as to be immaterial.

A better way of knowing times on the hour is to wait for the BBC time signal on one's radio. 

Thank you. Are you aware if "de minimis" has been defined anywhere? Is it 59 seconds..120 seconds?

There is no definition of 'de minimis', because it is subjective and depends on circumstances, but we all know it when we see it. Unfortunately adjudicators all have different viewes on what is and what isn't de minimis.. Some even refuse to recognise it at all, even though it is a well-established legal principle.