Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,
Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have to offer me.

I live right next to a school street, and I am fully aware of the times the entry to the road is restricted. I have never received a ticket for this street before now (it has been in place for almost 2 years).

I received a ticket suggesting I had entered the road at 15.58 when I was sure it was past 4pm when I drove in.

My initial appeal to Brent council was denied and I took it to tribunal. I suggested that the council should have to prove that the time stamp on their CCTV (showing 15.58.59) is accurate.

They provided a certification of "Approved Devices" from 2011 (11 years before this particular school street was put in place) and a certificate signed by an enforcement camera operator which confirms that a contravention has occurred. It is not clear whether this was signed at the time of the contravention or afterwards during a review of the footage, and certainly makes no reference to the accuracy of the time.

I don't believe that either item proves the accuracy/maintenance of the time stamp on the camera.

I referred to another case in my tribunal bumpf, where a congestion charge ticket was revoked because "according to an appeal body, Transport for London failed to confirm that the camera had been synchronised with the atomic clock, meaning that it was unable to prove the timing."
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/traffic-fine-revoked-over-accuracy-of-cameras-vzsflb2nq#:~:text=Doubts%20have%20been%20raised%20over,accuracy%20of%20the%20camera%20system.

I believe this is the same as my situation. However, the appeal was refused:
Conclusion
I am satisfied on the evidence, most notably the CCTV evidence that the contravention occurred.
I have to make a decision on the evidence which clock I find the more reliable, the appellant's or the
Enforcement Authority's on a balance of probabilities.I find on balance, when considering the
summary of facts that the Enforcement Authority's clock is the more reliable.
I am further convinced by the Approved Device Certification relating to the CCTV camera in question
as provided in Evidence C.
I note that the appellant has cited other cases in her favour but each case is decided on its merits.
There is no grace period allowed in respect of this contravention.
The appellant's representations amount to mitigation only and not a ground of appeal. The Court of
Appeal held in the case of Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540 that no
Adjudicator is entitled by law to take mitigation into consideration.


I don't know whether I have any opportunity to take this further, though I would really like to, as I am so sure I didn't break the rules! If you have any thoughts as to where I could go with this I would love to hear them.

Many thanks,
Krissi

You are only likely to be granted a review if the adjudicator has made a clear error such as misinterpreting the regulations and that doesn't seem to be case here.

Cases are won on de minimis (triviality) but once you go beyond a minute as here it gets harder.

I don't know if the camera certification has legs - others will.

Thank you for your swift responses. I do wish I had found and consulted this forum before, but I really feel that I am in the right here and so I hoped my honest and un-strategic response to the PCN would be listened to. We live and learn I suppose.

I have created a google drive with the evidence provided by Brent and my responses. Please let me know if any trouble accessing these.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LvF7rKh2NmKvhYtNNerWqy7U3e3bHNnQ?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Dfsx2FBKdR5gfDmt8QG7gyKUx9tKTnld?usp=drive_link


The PCN is BT21882094
The Tribunals case ref is 2240286001

Thank you

I think the adjudicator was wrong in law, but you'll need to use 'interests of justice'.

De minimis has been ignored, in fact the adjudicator went so far as to say: There is no grace period allowed in respect of this contravention.

There is, it's called de minimis.

Miriam-Webster dictionary defines this as:

'lacking significance or importance : so minor as to merit disregard'

IMO, the adjudicator is obliged to establish the facts and then apply the law, not just consider the narrow limits of an appellant's appeal grounds. If this were not the case then every appellant would be prospectively disadvantaged because they're not lawyers. 

I will drop the OP a PM to examine all the documents in the case and possibly craft a draft application for review. 14 days from the date of the decision.

It is impossible to advise re a review unless we have access to all the documents. Or at least one of us.

I did. I will take a look later tonight.

This statement is wrong as the VCA certificate refers to Parking Legislation:

I am further convinced by the Approved Device Certification relating to the CCTV camera in question as provided in Evidence C.

I will draft an application tomorrow for you. The Adjudicator is wrong on this point. In any event, a VCA certificate is irrelevant for this contravention; but she cited it and attached misguided weight to it.

PM sent.

Application filed.