PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN for stopped in a restricted school area 5seconds before restrictions lift, Appeal now submitted thanks for your assistance.
JustinBedford
post Sat, 5 May 2018 - 17:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 May 2018
Member No.: 97,834



So I received a PCN from my council for parking to collect my son from his after school club. The clock in my car said it was past 4:30 so I parked thinking I was outside of restricted parking times but have now received PCN with time stamp of (16:29:54.012) just under 6 seconds from time when restrictions lift 16:30

Appreciate thoughts on grounds for appeal.

video from PCN

This post has been edited by JustinBedford: Wed, 9 May 2018 - 08:22
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sat, 5 May 2018 - 17:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 6 May 2018 - 20:21
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Their sheer venality and rapacity just beggars belief. OP, you really must take this to adjudication if necessary; this PCN is just blatant money-grubbing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JustinBedford
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 15:12
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 May 2018
Member No.: 97,834



Are there any signage requirements for the use of CCTV for enforcement. As I dont recall any enforcement notices in the local area apart from the sign saying about operating hours and average speed camera signs. I think there is currently a paper notice attached next to the sign indicating changes will get a photo of that as soon as possible as this may be a notice about change in enforcement in this area.

TMA guidance 8.12 on approved devices states :the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs. I know in other areas of town they have traffic enforcement using camera signs up but I dont recall seeing any in this area?

In my appeal I also intend to reference article 3486 on approved devices as mentioned in government guidance as this mentions about approved devices having accuracy within plus or minus 10 seconds is this worthwhile as an argument.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...20073486_en.pdf

3. The device and visual counter must—
(a) be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and
(b) be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to
the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period.

This post has been edited by JustinBedford: Tue, 8 May 2018 - 15:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 15:29
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (JustinBedford @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 16:12) *
Are there any signage requirements for the use of CCTV for enforcement. As I dont recall any enforcement notices in the local area apart from the sign saying about operating hours and average speed camera signs. I think there is currently a paper notice attached next to the sign indicating changes will get a photo of that as soon as possible as this may be a notice about change in enforcement in this area.

TMA guidance 8.12 on approved devices states :the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs. I know in other areas of town they have traffic enforcement using camera signs up but I dont recall seeing any in this area?

In my appeal I also intend to reference article 3486 on approved devices as mentioned in government guidance as this mentions about approved devices having accuracy within plus or minus 10 seconds is this worthwhile as an argument.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...20073486_en.pdf

3. The device and visual counter must—
(a) be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and
(b) be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to
the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period.


was going to dig that out when i returned from my long weekend. to my mind , how can they enforce to within 6 seconds when the margin of error is 10 seconds. cant be fair that


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JustinBedford
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 17:36
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 May 2018
Member No.: 97,834



So I decided to go and photo the signs in the area. Looks like there is a new traffic enforcement sign that is present just at the camera pole. However it also has a proposed TRO notice on the same camera pole and also under the parking restriction sign.

Following the website and looking for the location it's listed under proposed TRO changes. Unfortunately the council website then fails to allow you to see what the proposed changes are as the links don't work but it says objections due by 18th May. So I find the signage to be misleading if the proposed TRO is I assume the use of camera monitored parking restrictions.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 20:18
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,055
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, IMO you are dancing on the head of a pin with this.

Dear Mr. Parking,
The evidence shows that according to the authority's camera I parked at ***.54, some 6 seconds before the prohibition ceased to have effect. I do not dispute that this is the authority's record. For information, my in-car clock showed ***.

With respect, even if the authority's camera was absolutely accurate - which it would be for the authority to establish - then the contravention would still be covered by the principle of de minimis as the traffic sign which accompanies the road marking is not placed at right-angles to the carriageway and is therefore unreadable until a motorist stops. Even if the authority were given the most favourable construction of events, by the time that the motorist had read and absorbed the information conveyed by the sign the prohibition had ended.

De minimis supports the grounds that the contravention did not occur and I am therefore making representations to this effect.

and any other points....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 22:07
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Certainly at this point I would not go too much further with the challenge wording.

I would add a para to the effect that I am totally aware of the No Stopping restriction and its end time and would not have stopped on the markings unless I was certain that the restriction had ended. At that time, plenty of nearby options were available.

I would also add, right at the end......
If the council choose not to accept de minimis or to exercise their discretion in cancelling this unnecessary PCN, I require proof that the CCTV clock was accurate to less then the 6 seconds in question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 22:18
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 23:07) *
I require proof that the CCTV clock was accurate to less then the 6 seconds in question.

I might soften that a tad and say "I ask that the council provide evidence that the CCTV clock was accurate to within 6 seconds at the material time". There is no need to demand anything, in fact it's fine if the don't (it just means they'll lose).


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 22:30
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Its DD or HCA i dont think you can go with both.

HCA's way no contravention could occur because it is trite law that you must be given time to stop to read and absorb the information given by a traffic sign. dismiss that and you have de minimis

DD the contravention did not occur coz your clock was wrong. You cant argue you know the time of restriction and that you are allowed time to read the signs, both, with ant credability

For me at this


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 22:35
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You can argue them both as alternative submissions. It's trite law that I could stop to read the sign, but if I am wrong about that, the council need to prove that the clock was accurate within 6 seconds to establish the contravention.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 07:11
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I would go on the de minimis time and margin of accuracy - it's clear you were familiar with the restriction and best to be consistent in the process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JustinBedford
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 08:21
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 May 2018
Member No.: 97,834



Thanks all have submitted the appeal based on de minimis. Will update on the outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 08:25
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 23:35) *
You can argue them both as alternative submissions. It's trite law that I could stop to read the sign, but if I am wrong about that, the council need to prove that the clock was accurate within 6 seconds to establish the contravention.


That's was my thought.......
Doing a motorist on a No Stopping restriction when they cannot see the sign without stopping is a perfect example of de minimis but does not excuse OP when they not only stop but park.
That council should have allowed time for reading the sign and that this would take them over the end of restriction is IMO all that HCA is suggesting.
Reliant on car clock is also not a guaranteed excuse but does explain why an aware motorist would park on ZZs when they could have easily parked across the road and been fireproof.
And with only a few seconds in question, can be taken as motorist reliant on signs and could not have been aware to a few seconds of the time that the council would be using.

End of the day, no matter what is put forward, either someone from the council will have an attack of common sense and cancel.
Or they wont and it will go to an adjudicator.
Who may as well have all the basic thoughts now, especially a question on CCTV clock accuracy.
I'll bet council can only answer with a basic approval certificate and a bland statement that the CCTV is synchronised daily/weekly/monthly.
And will be surprised if even that appears with a rejection. Which leaves an important question hanging for an adjudicator to ponder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JustinBedford
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 08:29
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 5 May 2018
Member No.: 97,834



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 09:25) *
Or they wont and it will go to an adjudicator.


Interestingly the councils online appeal system shows my appeal as an 'Informal Appeal' however the government guidance appears to suggest that a mailed PCN is actually an NTO and therefore should go direct to Formal Appeal review so the council doesn't really seem to be following the prescribed process from the government.

This post has been edited by JustinBedford: Wed, 9 May 2018 - 08:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 08:40
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (JustinBedford @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 09:29) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 09:25) *
Or they wont and it will go to an adjudicator.


Interestingly the councils online appeal system shows my appeal as an 'Informal Appeal' however the government guidance appears to suggest that a mailed PCN is actually an NTO and therefore should go direct to Formal Appeal review so the council doesn't really seem to be following the prescribed process from the government.


Don't worry about what the online page says.
This is a formal challenge and if the reject it must be with a formal Notice of Rejection which includes how to appeal to an adjudicator.

If it doesn't, you win anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 18:06
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



London tribunals decision 218015398A may be helpful. Not in a position to post it


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 19:37
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Excellent find Mr M
Copy for OP
QUOTE
218015398A
Decision Date...17 May 2018
Adjudicator....Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision...Appeal allowed
Direction....cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 20:32
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 20:37) *
Excellent find Mr M
Copy for OP
QUOTE
218015398A
Decision Date...17 May 2018
Adjudicator....Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision...Appeal allowed
Direction....cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
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.


What a venal and rapacious council. I suspect the adjudicator would have liked to say more but no doubt is under orders not to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 20:52
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE
There must be some application of common sense.


Key words and a resource often lacking in councils.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 20:57
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 21:52) *
QUOTE
There must be some application of common sense.


Key words and a resource often lacking in councils.



I take it we are exempting TFL from this regarding the congestion charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 21:20
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 21:57) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 21:52) *
QUOTE
There must be some application of common sense.


Key words and a resource often lacking in councils.



I take it we are exempting TFL from this regarding the congestion charge.


Not for a few fecking seconds we shouldn't.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:51
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here