The tribunal decisions on this tend to be made on drivers acting on info to hand that only results in trivial incursion in time.
The first case below is very generous in my view but that adjudicator really doesn't like restrictions without council clocks!
---------
Case reference 2250224565
Appellant Emily Caffyn
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM EK12FAO
PCN Details
PCN LJ3241877A
Contravention date 17 Mar 2025
Contravention time 09:26:00
Contravention location Elmcourt Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons 1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted for use by pedestrians and vehicles of an excepted class only.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in the written representations..
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, governing Traffic Management Order provisions, together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from images showing the said vehicle passing signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce further images of the signage at the location.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The restriction at the location is intermittent; the morning period of operation is from 8.15 until 9.30 a.m.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 9.26 a.m.
The contemporaneous capture shows, by virtue of the clock counter integral to the camera, that the said vehicle passes the signage at 09:26:27.
The Appellant contends that such time may not have 'matched with her car's clock. '
5. Since the signage does not display an integral clock, motorists are obliged to accept the reliability of their own time-informing methods.
Unless signage is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time upon which the Enforcement Authority rely, variations will occur.
Indeed no evidence is adduced to establish the accuracy of the clock integral to the camera.
Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I Allow this Appeal.
-------
Case reference 2240414258
Appellant Jane Caro
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM NL55LVT
PCN Details
PCN BT22290647
Contravention date 10 Jun 2024
Contravention time 14:31:00
Contravention location Kempe Road J/W Chamberlayne Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons The Appellant's representative, Mr S. Caro, attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today, 17th October 2024, to explain the contention personally.
Mr Caro also attended in the capacity of witness as to fact since he was the driver at the relevant time.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted for use by pedestrians and vehicles of excepted classes only.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in the written representations, which Mr Caro reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from showing the said vehicle passing the applicable signs notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority also adduce a map/plan and images of the signage both at the location and those signs positioned in advance in the vicinity.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations advanced by Mr Caro.
Mr Caro indicated his familiarity with the locale and the operative periods of the traffic regimes, and the regularity with which he travelled the route; Mr Caro expressed his vehemence at ensuring he only did so before/after the restricted hours.
Mr Caro contends that he had specifically addressed the time before proceeding and the time piece consulted by the Appellant verified to him that the permissible period had not yet been reached; since Mr Caro was aware of the particular time-piece running fast he was most certain that he was travelling at the location well before the restriction commenced.
5. The pertinent restricted period is stated on the signage as commencing at 2. 30 p.m.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 2.31 p.m.
The Enforcement Authority states in its Case Summary (which is not, of itself, evidence) that 'the time recorded....is the correct time,' and that the clock within that camera device is set 'by the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).'
No evidence is forthcoming with regard to the method of calibration of the same, or to substantiate its accuracy.
Moreover, the calibration of a camera-clock may be subject to variance during its period of use.
Unless signage incorporates or is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time upon which the Enforcement Authority rely at the point of passing, variations will occur.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
---------
Case reference 2240408302
Appellant Sarfraz Hassanjee
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM OY68LYC
PCN Details
PCN PN74994586
Contravention date 10 Apr 2024
Contravention time 18:59:00
Contravention location Barking Road / Wellington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons The issue in this case is effectively what the time was when the Appellant entered the bus lane. Was it immediately after 7.00 as indicated by the Appellant’s mobile phone and vehicle clock; or was it 18.59.24 as shown on the CCTV footage? The answer to this question naturally depends on the accuracy of the timepieces in question. Times shown on mobile phones are usually accurate. The Council, surprisingly, has provided no evidence as to the accuracy of its recording equipment and how it is maintained and checked for accuracy. In a case where the difference is only a matter of seconds I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle entered the bus lane during its operational hours and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
---------
Case reference 2250161578
Appellant Julian Banres
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM PJ74 KDZ
PCN Details
PCN CU69981035
Contravention date 12 Feb 2025
Contravention time 14:03:00
Contravention location Holmes Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons 1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted against use by vehicles of such classes.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in his written representations.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven/parked contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, governing Traffic Management Order provisions together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from showing the said vehicle passing the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce a further image of the signs at the location and an image of signage positioned in advance in the vicinity.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 2.03 p.m.
The driver contends that he had specifically addressed the time before proceeding along the designated route. The time piece/s consulted by the driver in the said vehicle verified to him that the restricted period had not yet been reached.
The Enforcement Authority refers in its Case Summary to the approved device certification and camera approval including the camera's internal time-clock.
Since the signage does not display an integral clock, motorists are obliged to accept the reliability of other time-informing methods.
Unless signage is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time upon which the Enforcement Authority rely, variations will occur.
I find the variance in the present instance to be de minimis.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I Allow this Appeal.
