Free Traffic Legal Advice

EA has burden of proof but only to prove someone passed the motor Vehicles Prohibited sign?

So is it incumbent on the driver to prove the 'Access Only' exemption applies?

Without full CCTV coverage and/or no definitive evidence for reason for access it comes down to balance of probability.

Journey without stopping is 1 min 15 secs.  Video evidence shows 1 min 35 secs on the estate. Adjudicator has to decide if the 20 secs difference is because the driver stopped for access. 52/48 in favour of appellant?

Residents aren't exempt.

The contravention is technically passing the first sign.

But there isn't a rat run contravention so they only issue a PCN if you exit within a (unknown) time threshold. We have one example of 1 min 35 secs. But you can drive through in 1 min 15sec if you don't stop.

They are speculating that you didn't stop.

But I'm coming around to thinking you have to provide some evidence to prove the Access Only exemption applies.

EA burden of proof only apples to passing the first sign?

I've only found the same Experimental traffic order. 12th Jan 26 to 12th August 2027.

Plus this:
https://engage.redbridge.gov.uk/lake-house-traffic

'Except for Access' allows anyone to access a property. Delivery and taxi drivers for pick up and and drop off. People doing school runs. Resident forgot something and nipped in to get it. In fact anyone can enter and if they park up for a couple of minutes it won't trigger the time threshold for a PCN.

Unlike a School Street restriction there is no specific exemption for residents..

It's a weird hybrid set up to catch rat runners but they will also issue a PCN to a Resident if they enter and exit under the undisclosed time threshold.

To be fair it has greatly reduced the rat runners but a combination of the wrong time threshold and Redbridge zero tolerance enforcement it'll lead to excessive PCNs.

I'm thinking the driver who gets a PCN has to prove they accessed a property when originally I thought Redbridge has to prove they didn't stop.

Indeed, the Authority has set a time threshold. If your journey is under the threshold there is a presumption that you didn't stop, so they issue a PCN - 53 code contravention.

The time threshold is speculative.
 
1 min 35 secs to cover 658m is only 15.5 MPH in a 30mph limit.  Plenty of time to pick up a passenger when a non stop journey at just under 20mph takes 1 min. 15 secs.

How heavy is the reverse burden to prove you stopped?

How heavy is the reverse burden to prove you stopped?

A reverse burden is generally "to the civil standard" (on the balance of probabilities).
As the authority would generally be unable to directly disprove any such defence, it would seem to fall to whether or not the adjudicator found the appellant (or their defence) to be credible.

I think you are too heavily fixated on the 20 second difference. That could be be any number of things, a car pulling in or out of a driveway/parking space, having to wait at a Give Way, vehicle going slow. That doesn't prove nothing.

In the absence of hard evidence of a visit to a property (or not) it will all be about the time difference and a credible explanation.

20 seconds is the plenty of time to pick up or drop off a passenger at the roadside. 

The Evri delivery drivers just seem to chuck parcels out of the van window, usually at the wrong house, so even less time needed.

The signs alone have reduced rat running so now there's rarely a queue at the exit.
Rat runners tend to speed. At 30mph it's a 59 second journey time. That's 35 seconds to play with.

Guilty as charged. I have been overthinking it whilst trying to understand how it works operationally and legally.

Not quite bog standard because they use the exit video and photos in their evidence. Timing is key on whether a PCN is issued or not.

The timing will certainly be applicable when claiming an exemption for Access.

They have the timing wrong so there will be unnecessary PCNs issued.