Here's another case from yesterday. It's worrying because Newham issued this at 9:26 when the restriction ended at 9:30 and usually we'd think this is out of scope of appeal.
But the headteacher won the day on evidence she waited til 9:30.
-----------
2240392858
1. The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of failing to comply with the restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone at the location.
2. The Appellant attended the hearing by telephone.
3. The Enforcement Authority relies upon footage of the incident, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation, location photographs and correspondence.
4. The Appellant contends that she did not enter the street until after the restricted period had come to an end. She is very familiar with the location and tends to drive into the street at different times. She is a headteacher in the locality, and on the day in question, was going to a different school on business. She has told me that she is well aware of the restrictions at the location, and on many occasions, if the restrictions are still in force, she has parked in the adjoining road for a short time, before entering, to ensure that she is not in breach of them. On this particular occasion, she parked in the adjoining street - which she believes is called Old Street - as it was shortly before 9.30am. She was listening to BBC Radio 6 and waited until she heard the announcement that it was 9.30am, before driving into the street. This announcement corresponded with both the clock in her car and also her FitBit clock, which she looked at in order to double check the time. She therefore contends that the clock on the CCTV footage did not show the correct time on the day in question.
5. I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter, including the Appellant's oral evidence which I found to be credible and cogent.
6. The footage relied upon by the EA shows the vehicle turning left into the street. The restriction signage appears unambiguous, prominent and unobscured.
7. The EA contends in its Notice of Rejection that the cameras at the location are self-calibrating, and that, "they synchronise their times with a trusted time source (NPL/NTP)............ the units synchronise throughout the day multiple times, usually around 4 or 5 times". The NoR further states that the camera systems are certified as approved devices authorised by the Secretary of State. The Case Summary itself is not evidence, but a statement of the EA's position. The EA, despite being on notice that the Appellant was challenging the accuracy of the clock as set out on the CCTV footage, has not provided any detailed evidence in support of its contention that the CCTV clock was accurate at the relevant time.
8. Having heard the detailed oral evidence of the Appellant today, and in the absence of any evidence relating to the synchronising of the clocks, I find it more likely than not that the Appellant drove into the street during unrestricted hours.
9. I therefore allow this appeal.
