Timed out by 2 secs on school street Options

[stamfordman]

I've been helping someone with an appeal for the Elizabeth Avenue school street restriction and just checked the register and this one came up yesterday. The restriction starts at 8.30am. Am I right that Mr Burke has refused this one on 2-3 secs over? I presume the appellant didn't make the case properly but even so...

CN IZ1390726A
Contravention date 05 Dec 2019
Contravention time 08:30:00
Contravention location Elizabeth Ave (Northbound)
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date
Decision Date 27 Mar 2020
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The allegation in this case is failing to comply with a sign indicating restrictions on vehicle entering a pedestrian zone. Mr. Bello disputes this on the basis restrictions began at 8.30am and by his own ‘time piece’ the time was not yet 8.30am. He says that he expects a leeway given that different timers do not always agree.

The Enforcement Authority’s case is that their lane watch cameras synchronise multiple times during the day with GPS.

Mr. Bello has not identified whether he relied upon the vehicle clock, his own watch or mobile phone or some other device. Neither has he established that his time piece should be preferred to the Enforcement Authority’s timer.

The enforcement camera footage shows the vehicle entering the pedestrianised zone at 08.30.02-03.

Mr. Bello nearly managed to enter the pedestrianised zone before the beginning of the restricted hours. However, the prudent motorist would not take a chance in such circumstances. I am not satisfied Mr. Bello has established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 - 17:41

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

As the accuracy only has to be +/- 10secs we know we could have won this, though it was the hanging judge

[stamfordman]

I feel bad for Mr Bello but Burke is surely out of order here. Is it possible to make a complaint about adjudications to the tribunal as an observer?

[PASTMYBEST]

I feel bad for Mr Bello but Burke is surely out of order here. Is it possible to make a complaint about adjudications to the tribunal as an observer?

I would doubt you would get anywhere because you do not have all the facts

[cp8759]

I think Mr Burke is out of order and would lose on a judicial review.

[PASTMYBEST]

I think Mr Burke is out of order and would lose on a judicial review.

I think that he is out of order as well but wouldn't want to say on JR without seeing the appeal submissions

[stamfordman]

Can the evidence pack be requested.

[DancingDad]

Mr. Bello has not identified whether he relied upon the vehicle clock, his own watch or mobile phone or some other device. Neither has he established that his time piece should be preferred to the Enforcement Authority’s timer.

I suspect that this line is the issue.
To me it is the single most salient point, I knew the time was close and checked my car clock before entering...etc etc

Would seem that Mr Bello was reliant on something, quite possibly querying the accuracy of the council time, that could easily be disputed.
We have seen similar where appellant asserted they relied on their timepiece and as such de minimis was accepted.
Guidance on yellow lines says don't issue PCNs within 2 minutes of restriction start time for this reason.

We need to see the full facts to comment further but even with Burke living up to his name, I suspect Mr Bello didn't play his cards right.

[stamfordman]

Yes I said that Mr Bello probably messed up here but I would still expect the adjudicator to consider the proximity of the timing knowing that normally this would be allowed. Mr Bello must have made some reference to the timing and the tribunal can't expect all appellants to be experts in what to say.

[DancingDad]

Yes I said that Mr Bello probably messed up here but I would still expect the adjudicator to consider the proximity of the timing knowing that normally this would be allowed. Mr Bello must have made some reference to the timing and the tribunal can't expect all appellants to be experts in what to say.

Don't disagree in the slightest but even though I think many of Burke's decisions are questionable and this one especially, we do not know what was said or presented.
Playing Devil's Advocate, if the guy relied on some technical issue, signage not being clear or simply disputed the accuracy of council time, there is no winning argument being put forward. Yes it would be nice for the adjudicator to look at the timing and dismiss but they are entitled to decide on the facts and arguments put forward.
Considering the comments on mitigation, I'm wondering if Mr Bello put forward anything substantial.
The fact on the timing is simple, the guy was in contravention.
Easy enough to have put forward a reliance on car clock, phone, watch, any of which possibly also synchronises with atomic clock and the argument that while the council clock may be super accurate the motorist cannot be expected to have the same accuracy and can only rely on what is in front of them.

[roythebus]

A prime example would be listening to DAB radio where the time it takes for the dAB signal to be processed an be about 20-30 seconds. similarly listening to internet radio as I do at home sometimes, there is a delay of well over 40 seconds on the internet radio, the DAB radio and an FM radio all tuned to the same BBC local station. Even on 2 DAB sets on at home, there's a delay of about a second in the processing time.