Sorry yes 74 seconds.
A few cases.
---------
Case Details
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 Details
Case reference 2240414702
Appellant Chloe Butler
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM KW24DZX
PCN Details
PCN BT2245488A
Contravention date 25 Jun 2024
Contravention time 08:15:00
Contravention location Clarence Road junction with Willesden Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 10.30 a.m. today, 9th November 2024; I spoke with the Appellant on the contact number provided.
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 and challenge comprehensively stated in her written representations (with supporting screen shots) which she reiterated and further detailed during the Telephone 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.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's written and oral representations, and supporting documents.
I had the opportunity to assess and question the Appellant during the Hearing, I found her evidence to be cogent and credible, and I accepted it in its entirety.
The Appellant indicated that her arrival time at the School was aimed at being before the children attended; an explanation for non-receipt of other Penalty Charge Notices before the said vehicle was duly registered may be due to arrival before the restriction started.
I note that the clock counter on the contemporaneous recording demonstrates that the said vehicle comes into view 50 seconds after the restricted period commencement time.
I cannot be satisfied as to the accuracy of the camera time recorder, and I find a differential of less than one minute to be minimal, I therefore import the principle of de minimis.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
----------
218015398A
"This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being stopped in a restricted area outside a school when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred in Clovelly Avenue at 4.14pm on 8 March 2018.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and also the site images submitted by the Council. These show that Mr Byanouni's vehicle was stopped on entrance markings in front of Colindale Primary School. They also show that there is a sign at the location warning motorists that there is no stopping on the entrance markings between 2.45pm and 4.15pm Mondays to Fridays.
Mr Byanouni appeals because he says that he stopped to pick up his children from school. He says that he is well aware of the restrictions and that the clock in his car showed the time of 4.15pm. The Council says that its clock is calibrated according to the Atomic Clock, ensuring 100% accuracy. The CCTV timing shows the vehicle stopping at 4:14:18.
I accept the evidence of Mr Byanouni that the clock in his car showed the time of 4.15pm. I find that the alleged contravention did not occur. There must be some application of common sense. Motorists cannot all be expected to wear time pieces calibrated to the exact second according to the Atomic Clock. A motorist reading an ordinary watch will not be able to know the time calculated to the exact second."
--------
Case Details
Case reference 2240392858
Appellant Caroline Stone
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM FR67FHB
PCN Details
PCN PN63348648
Contravention date 24 Jun 2024
Contravention time 09:26:00
Contravention location Samson Street / Old Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
1. Reasons 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.
---------
Case Details
Case reference 2240304850
Appellant Samuels Electrical
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM MK66WLZ
PCN Details
PCN ZY06965107
Contravention date 10 Jun 2024
Contravention time 08:15:00
Contravention location Leahurst Road J/W Fernbrook Crescent
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons A Telephone Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. today, 2nd November 2024. I spoke with the Appellant Company's representative, the driver Mr J. Samuels, on the contact number provided.
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 stated classes.
2. The Appellant Company denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in Mr Samuels' written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed during 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 a single restrictive sign notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority also adduce a map/plan with correlated undated images of signs: 2 advance notices comprising small roundels on blue information boards. These images are of limited, if any, evidential value since I know not if the signs were present and visible at the material time.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with Mr Samuels' written and oral representations.
The footage shows a solitary restrictive sign on the left hand side of the road; the blue backed information boards are also solitarily positioned, one on the left hand side of a road, the other on the right hand side of another road.
Mr Samuels' challenges the adequacy of the signage, since he contends that no advance notification was seen and the single restrictive sign was not discernible until the motorist was already passing it.
I had the opportunity to assess and question Mr Samuels at the Hearing, I found the Appellant's evidence to be cogent and credible, and I accept Mr Samuels' contention regarding the insufficiency of signage.
5. Further I note that the restricted period in question commences at 8.15 a.m. and that the said vehicle passes the sign, according to the camera clock, at 32 seconds past 8.15 a.m.
I know not the calibration quality of the clock counter on the contemporaneous recording; even after synchronization fluctuations/variations will occur.
I find a less than 1 minute variance to be minimal therefore I import the principle of de minimis.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that a contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
