I have an appeal hearing tomorrow advice needed please

[michelle1981]

Hi

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere but i did look at loads of other threads and couldnt find the answer!

 

I got a ticket from Ealing council in the post claiming i had parked during a restricted time. I thought it was after 18:30 my but on the pictures sent it stated 18:29:56... Is this allowed??

 

I appealed to the council but they refused my appeal I have now appealed to PATAS (parking & traffic appeals service) and i have a hearing tomorrow, it is in central london, Am i wasting my time going or do i have a chance?

 

Surely there should be some grace time, i mean £100 for 4 seconds!!!

 

Any advice would be much appreciated... is there any law on grace time? is there anything i should or should'nt say at the appeal? should i not waste my time & money travelling to central?

 

Thanks

Michelle

[green_and_mean]

Pictures are for the most part irrelevant its the time on the PCN that is important. Assuming its a waiting/parking during restricted hours there should have been some observation period which would have placed you parked in contravention more than 4 secs before the end of the restriction. Adjudication cannot rule on the harshness of a PCN only its legality if you appeal that it was only 4 secs before therefore a bit mean you will not win, you would have to argue that the time was so close it was in your opinion and clock gone 18.30 and therefore you parked in your mind legally. Having said that there is the matter of when you were first seen parked.

[Al27]

Where does the time of 18:29:56 come from?

[Steve__M]

Was it issued by CCTV?

 

For CEO-issued tickets, I believe the ticket is normally issued before the photos taken.

 

The answer may be that you won't know whether it's worth it unless you go.

 

Sounds to me that if the appeal is going your way that you try to get them to cancel it as opposed to "recommending" that the council cancel it on the basis that the council have already demonstrated unreasonable pettiness and are unlikely to act on a recommendation to turn down £100 of free cash.

 

I guess it's possibly too late to check whether the bay, signage and ticket were fully compliant?

[lamma]

I suppose one question is isn't your clock allowed to be four seconds out.

[michelle1981]

So are you saying there is no grace period?

 

The PCN was sent by post and the time states 18:29, there are 3 pics inclosed times starting from 18:29:07 - 18:29:56 - 18:30:13

I guess i arrived by their time at 18:29:07 i obviously thought it was after 18:30 so this is my arguememt.

 

What do you think my chances are?

[michelle1981]

i have checked the signs they are all fine as far as im aware, i honestly thought it was after 18:30.

 

Yes it was issued by CCTV

[michelle1981]

Where does the time of 18:29:56 come from?

 

 

A picture on the PCN

[green_and_mean]

I suppose one question is isn't your clock allowed to be four seconds out.

 

I very much doubt even the swiftest CEO would spot a car parked in contravention and manage to issue a PCN in 4 seconds which would suggest that the car was parked more than 4 secs before 18.30.

[Spunkymonkey]

Hi Michelle.

 

If they can prove that you were parked during the restricted hours then they're entitled to enforce. That holds even if it's by one second. So, even though it's clearly unreasonable, there's no legal reason for them not to ticket you at 4 seconds to the cut-off.

 

Having said that, according to your timepiece you parked after 1830 hrs and their evidence shows it as just 4 seconds before. That introduces a question of which time was correct.

 

I'd suggest that, in order to use a 4 second infringement as evidence, they would need to provide evidence that their time (presumably a camera timestamp?) was accurate. Most quartz timers are stated as accurate to +/- .5 seconds per day by the manufacturers (I used to be a watchmaker ) so if it hadn't been checked for a while their time is likely to be far more than 4 seconds out.

 

If they're relying on such small time intervals, they should be able to provide evidence that the time was "spot on" which wouuld mean having calibration and setting records for the instrument they're relying on.

 

Normally none of this would be an issue, but if they're relying on it as evidence of a 4 second infringement then obviously the accuracy and correct setting of their equipment is critical!

 

No guarantees on this at all, but it's certainly worth raising at the appeal hearing

[michelle1981]

I very much doubt even the swiftest CEO would spot a car parked in contravention and manage to issue a PCN in 4 seconds which would suggest that the car was parked more than 4 secs before 18.30.

 

 

On the original PCN there are 2 pics with 2 times, 18:30:13 and 18:29:56 on the rejection of a appeal letter there are also 2 pics 18:29:07 & 18:29:56 so i am presuming the earliest the camera caught me there was the 29:07 still less than a min tho!

[Steve__M]

Why aren't all Londoners marching in the streets against CCTV enforcement of this kind!

 

Can you hope to get an adjudication in your favour by suggesting that they have not established the accuracy of their clock?

 

Or at least a recommendation to cancel based on the fact that it is unreasonable (though the recommendation may not get you far).

 

Seems like you'll only find out if you go. I know I'd go! There is a principle!

[Spunkymonkey]

Just seen the extra posts - even for a minute, they could be expected to demonstrate that their equipment was in order and, if calibration is specified by the maker, that it was in date. Check your own clocks and watches sometime against a time signal - you may be surprised how much they drift - so still worth raising

[Steve__M]

I very much doubt even the swiftest CEO would spot a car parked in contravention and manage to issue a PCN in 4 seconds which would suggest that the car was parked more than 4 secs before 18.30.

 

If I was a bored spotty oik watching the CCTV then *I'd* be having competitions with my smelly mates to see who can issue the most ludicrously unfair PCN.

[michelle1981]

i just checked my DAB radio time as that is automatically set (from where i dont knw?) lol and that is almost 2mins faster than my phone which is near enough the same as the clock in my car.

i have alsways thought the time in my car was a bit ahead, i set it this way to try get places on time.

 

i guess it is just going to be at the discretion of the ajudicator whether he/she thinks this is unfair and agrees that ealing councils clock could have been out.

 

I will let you all knw tomorrow how i got on.

 

thanks for your advice.

[green_and_mean]

You still have not told us what time is on the PCN instead of the photos?

[lamma]

there is this http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Transport/Transport%20Briefings/codepracticecctvcamera.pdf

[michelle1981]

You still have not told us what time is on the PCN instead of the photos?

 

 

Sorry the PCN which was sent by post states 18:29:00

[green_and_mean]

Sorry the PCN which was sent by post states 18:29:00

 

So it was not issued 4 secs before then was it? I know its not much of a difference but if you start going on about 4 secs at the hearing they will just point out what I have. You need to find out if it was an 'instant' ticket or if any observation was given as is usual with a waiting restriction. If it wasn't you would be better off claiming an exemption such as loading or alighting rather than argue about the time.

[Spunkymonkey]

there is this http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Transport/Transport%20Briefings/codepracticecctvcamera.pdf

 

 

 

Which contains this:

 

2.3.12 The equipment must be synchronised to the ‘Rugby’ atomic clock, or signal from recognised similar independent output. The last Rugby Clock update (time signal by radio wave every minute) should be checked on the stop-start frame at the beginning of each period of operation. The stop-start frame is displayed at the beginning and end of each recording. If a Rugby Clock update has not occurred for at least 72 hours, it should be done as soon as possible. This may mean leaving the system on until an update has been received, as in some areas, updates occur mainly at night due to problems with other equipment in the area interfering with the Rugby Clock signal.

 

Given the short time of the alleged contravention I'd certainly be asking them for evidence that they've complied with this paragraph of the procedures. There's a very good chance they haven't (the staff are only employees after all - think motorway toilets and their "checked every 25 minutes" signs!!!). Even if they have complied, it's unlikely they will have thought to bring evidence with them.

[green_and_mean]

Which contains this:

 

 

 

Given the short time of the alleged contravention I'd certainly be asking them for evidence that they've complied with this paragraph of the procedures. There's a very good chance they haven't (the staff are only employees after all - think motorway toilets and their "checked every 25 minutes" signs!!!). Even if they have complied, it's unlikely they will have thought to bring evidence with them.

 

The procedures are guidelines not a legal document. Unless you can provide evidence the clock was not syncronised if they say it was the adjudicator will more than likely go in the Councils favour since to do otherwise would be accusing the Council of lying something he has no proof of.

[sameagle]

It's only a minor point, but I think that the Rugby clock no longer exists - Cumberland is in my mind, but I'm not certain.

 

Something to do with the masts at Rugby being dismantled by BT, I think.

 

Sam the Eagle

[Spunkymonkey]

As a published Code of Practice, they have a little more weight than a "procedure" or "guideline". If the Council can be shown not to have followed it then that is admissible as supporting evidence.

 

They (the council) are also accusing the OP of lying - she says that she parked after 1830 hrs. They need proof of this and, if the proof they offer has been gathered without regard to the Code of Practice, then she has grounds to ask the adjudicator to disallow it.

 

To Michelle - a small point from the above.

 

If this had happened to me, having checked my clocks and found that they are slow (in other words I actually parked later than my car clock said) I would enter the appeal hearing with a firm and clear attitude that I parked after 1830 hrs. We all know it can be intimidating going towards something like this, but my approach would be politely but firmly that:

 

"I parked [not I thought I parked] after 1830 hrs, not before. I have checked the clock I used at the time and found it was 2 minutes slow. That means that it was two minutes more past the restricted hours than I believed it to be. The council are claiming I was one minute before according to their CCTV system. What evidence do they have that they'd complied with section 2.3.12 of the Code of Practice for CCTV enforcement which deals with the time accuracy of their system?"

 

I would not budge one inch from the assertion that I parked after 1830 hrs because, as soon as I said "I think" the council could say "you were mistaken". You don't want to give them that chance!!!

[lamma]

this guidance is led by Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement which has a fair bit to say about camera enforcement especially paras 7.2 - 7.9

[green_and_mean]

As a published Code of Practice, they have a little more weight than a "procedure" or "guideline". If the Council can be shown not to have followed it then that is admissible as supporting evidence.

 

They (the council) are also accusing the OP of lying - she says that she parked after 1830 hrs. They need proof of this and, if the proof they offer has been gathered without regard to the Code of Practice, then she has grounds to ask the adjudicator to disallow it.

 

 

The Council are not accusing her of lying they are accusing her of parking before 18.30. My point is without proof to the contary if the Council state the clock is sync'd then the balance of probability is that it is. If she had asked prior to the hearing for records and the Council failed to provide them that would be another matter. Using your logic you can turn up at a hearing accuse the CEO of not being trained and without a copy of his qualification the PCN would be cancelled. You cannot just turn up and make a claim without evidence to back it up.