Free Traffic Legal Advice

Apologies, I hadn't opened the access. It should work now. Thank you.

Thank you - so I am appealing to the tribunal's discretion/mercy? But not with a really strong case I suppose as I did park in the wrong place.

I will risk losing the reduced rate as it looks like I can only go to tribunal after the 14 days have passed and it reverts to £130. K&C haven't yet supplied that code that allows me to open a tribunal appeal.

Weighing up whether to take a punt at this.

Here is a new link to the response letter from K and C: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ozBhz87h5qmnFufej3OEeegnOlo0Fd_9/view?usp=drive_link

Penalty Charge Notice Number: KE64630116
Vehicle Registration Number: RK18PFJ
Date of Notice Issue: 09/12/2024

Hi all,

I KNOW I should have come to you first - but I responded to this ticket with an appeal outlining the following (annoyingly I don’t seem to have access to my actual response?):

I parked in this pay-as-you-go bay on the Monday morning and I saw the parking suspension sign from my window and noted that the dates on the sign were from the previous week - ending on the Friday past.
I logged in the PaybyPhone app and paid for my parking.
When I returned to my car I saw I had a ticket. A K&C council worker was in attendance at the same time, removing the sticker which listed the passed dates from the sign. At this point, I noticed that there was a sticker with the current day’s (Monday’s) date on it, above the expired dates at the bottom. Please see my photo here - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oce3QUNk72JuC-slayt7yowDjDMn6lJD/view?usp=drive_link

I argued that a) the signage was unclear because there were multiple dates on the same sign (which may well be allowed?) but confusing that the earlier dates were at the bottom.
b) I clearly had the right intentions as I paid for my parking on the app. I thought, though I can’t prove/test it, that the app usually prevents me from paying where there is a suspension in place.

It seems from the dates on the stickers on the sign that there was a suspension in place the previous week, and perhaps this was extended last minute to further cover the Monday, which would explain how the signage was laid out.

Anyway, on Saturday I received a very computer says no response from the council reiterating the PCN, which irked me somewhat, though I realise I did park in the suspended bay  ... Here is their response: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gALR0iWiJIIe7h-8vXaTfW-lVzMCkHZO/view?usp=drive_link

Do I have any grounds to appeal again? Maybe there are some rules about suspension signage? Or do you think I just have to accept this one and move on?

Many thanks,

Krissi

Thank you so much for your responses.

I think it is worth me appealing the adjudicaton "in the interests of justice" as you say. I have nothing to lose. Though I don't have any new evidence as they request...

I am not a lawyer, but I truly believe I didn't drive into the road at the time they say.

From my layman's perspective: the council has firstly not proven how they maintain the timestamp on the CCTV/whether it is linked to the atomic clock, and secondly, the contested time is a second over a minute. Perhaps I can cover both a burden of proof and de minimis argument?

Many thanks,

Krissi

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