DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97385--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 8, 2025, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pastbybest is saying just say something like:
I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was
reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.
#Post#: 97387--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 8, 2025, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> To whom is the PCN addressed, you by name?
>
> You refer to 'driver' in the third person. The procedure has
nothing to do with the driver, it's the registered keeper whose
details appear as addressee who must respond.
>
> To avoid stumbling at this procedural hurdle, pl tell us who's
who here?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes it is the registered keeper who drove and will be submitting
the rep.
#Post#: 97388--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 8, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Pastbybest is saying just say something like:
>
> I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was
reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.
>
--- End Quote ---
OK have amended. See below. Should I also remove the second para
under no. 1? Or is it all now good to go? Many thanks.
I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach
I checked my car clock and it was not yet 8am, so was reassured
I was able to proceed before the restriction started.
I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the
council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is
accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and
occurred in a very brief period (53 seconds) immediately after
the restriction began.
2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage
Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted
time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was
in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted
access term-time only". The sign does not specify any term
dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and
end.
Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as
ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know
school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.
Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails
to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based
on it is therefore unreasonable.
For these reasons, I ask the PCN to be cancelled.
Best wishes,
#Post#: 97389--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: November 8, 2025, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is a good reason to keep the more technical points for
appeal. The council will not accept any of your points.They will
say their cameras are calibrated to the atomic clock and so are
accurate. They will also completely dismiss De minimis and
discretion is not something they know the meaning of. Knowing
they will dismiss you do not give them an open goal by saying
Yes I was in breach but only a bit so let me off, Let them give
the reasons they will help at tribunal
#Post#: 97390--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: November 8, 2025, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
>
> There is a good reason to keep the more technical points for
appeal. The council will not accept any of your points.They will
say their cameras are calibrated to the atomic clock and so are
accurate. They will also completely dismiss De minimis and
discretion is not something they know the meaning of. Knowing
they will dismiss you do not give them an open goal by saying
Yes I was in breach but only a bit so let me off, Let them give
the reasons they will help at tribunal
>
--- End Quote ---
Leave out the second paragraph of point 1
#Post#: 97391--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: Captainships
Date: November 8, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK will remove that para and submit. Thank you all!
#Post#: 97396--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 8, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The tribunal decisions on this tend to be made on drivers acting
on info to hand that only results in trivial incursion in time.
The first case below is very generous in my view but that
adjudicator really doesn't like restrictions without council
clocks!
---------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Notice.
Reasons
vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location
at a time when restricted for use by pedestrians and vehicles of
an excepted class only.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge
Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and
challenge as stated in the written representations..
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, governing Traffic Management Order
provisions, together with contemporaneous photographic evidence:
CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from images showing
the said vehicle passing signage notifying motorists of the
restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce further images of the signage
at the location.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was
examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the
Appellant's representations.
The restriction at the location is intermittent; the morning
period of operation is from 8.15 until 9.30 a.m.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 9.26 a.m.
The contemporaneous capture shows, by virtue of the clock
counter integral to the camera, that the said vehicle passes the
signage at 09:26:27.
The Appellant contends that such time may not have 'matched with
her car's clock. '
5. Since the signage does not display an integral clock,
motorists are obliged to accept the reliability of their own
time-informing methods.
Unless signage is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time
upon which the Enforcement Authority rely, variations will
occur.
Indeed no evidence is adduced to establish the accuracy of the
clock integral to the camera.
Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that the contravention
occurred, accordingly I Allow this Appeal.
-------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Notice.
Reasons
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 reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Notice.
Reasons
when the Appellant entered the bus lane. Was it immediately
after 7.00 as indicated by the Appellant’s mobile phone and
vehicle clock; or was it 18.59.24 as shown on the CCTV footage?
The answer to this question naturally depends on the accuracy of
the timepieces in question. Times shown on mobile phones are
usually accurate. The Council, surprisingly, has provided no
evidence as to the accuracy of its recording equipment and how
it is maintained and checked for accuracy. In a case where the
difference is only a matter of seconds I am unable to be
satisfied that the vehicle entered the bus lane during its
operational hours and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
---------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Notice.
Reasons
vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location
at a time when restricted against use by vehicles of such
classes.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge
Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as
stated in his written representations.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle
was so driven/parked 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, governing Traffic Management Order
provisions together with contemporaneous photographic evidence:
CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from showing the said
vehicle passing the applicable signage notifying motorists of
the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce a further image of the signs at
the location and an image of signage positioned in advance in
the vicinity.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was
examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the
Appellant's representations.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 2.03 p.m.
The driver contends that he had specifically addressed the time
before proceeding along the designated route. The time piece/s
consulted by the driver in the said vehicle verified to him that
the restricted period had not yet been reached.
The Enforcement Authority refers in its Case Summary to the
approved device certification and camera approval including the
camera's internal time-clock.
Since the signage does not display an integral clock, motorists
are obliged to accept the reliability of other time-informing
methods.
Unless signage is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time
upon which the Enforcement Authority rely, variations will
occur.
I find the variance in the present instance to be de minimis.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred,
accordingly I Allow this Appeal.
#Post#: 97401--------------------------------------------------
Re: 53 seconds into restricted time- pedestrian zone PCN
Redbridge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 8, 2025, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's a blue sign case from last week.
-------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This appeal was listed for a Teams hearing. The Appellant
attended and was represented by Mr Phillip Morgan. The
Enforcement Authority relied on the evidence submitted in
advance.
The CCTV footage shows the Appellant’s vehicle turn right into a
side road and drive past upright signs on both sides of the
road. These show diagrams of a motorbike and a car on a white
background in a white circle edged by a red roundel. That is a
recognised sign for stating no access to motorbikes and cars.
The times of restriction appear on the signs. There is an
exemption for permit holders.
The appeal raises several issues. The first to come to attention
is the fact that there is a blue plate that has been posted
under the restriction signs. This states: School Streets
Restricted Access Term-time only”. That is not a prescribed
sign.
It may be the intention of the Authority to let motorists know
that the restriction does not apply all year round but it is
unclear how the ordinary driver would know when it is term time
and when it is not. Different establishments have diff term
times. This sign may cause confusion. Signage is supposed to be
clear and unambiguous. That is not the case here.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page