London Tribunals - October 2017

A council can't give this vehicle a PCN

In the month of October 2017 there were 213 Appeal decisions.

Of those 133 were found in favour of the motorist so that is a whopping 62% win rate.

There were 5 cases worthy of note.

Yellow box junction - turning right - 2170423341

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred in Cricklewood Lane at 3.49pm on 13 May 2017.

Paragraph 7(1) of Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 states that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.

Paragraph 7(2) states that this prohibition does not apply to any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn.

I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. I am allowing the appeal because the car stopped within the box to make a right turn out of the box and was prevented from completing the right turn by a stationary vehicle in front which had also made the right turn. Whilst I accept that the van in front had technically completed the right turn, it would make a nonsense of Paragraph 7(2) for the right turn exemption not to apply just because the next vehicle making the right turn manages to clear the box rather than having to stop within it.

The usual council argument is that it is only turning right out of a box, not into it, that forms the exemption. Another adjudicator is not bound by this decision.

Mixed up letters - very mean but the law - 2170419606

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Golders Green Road without payment of the parking charge on 16 May 2017. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1055.
　
The Appellant states that he paid for parking until 1111 and produced a text from paybyphone confirming this for location 5885. However, the Council's evidence shows that this was for vehicle registration mark LR05GMZ. However, the Appellant's vehicle was registration mark LR05GNZ.

It is clear, as the Appellant contends in his notice of appeal that he made a simple mistake when entering the vehicle registration mark. However, this is a matter of mitigation only and not a defence to the contravention. As the Adjudicator I have no power to cancel penalties on the basis of mitigation. The Council did reoffer the discounted penalty of £30, but this was not taken up by the Appellant and the Council now seeks the full penalty of £60. I have no power to direct them to accept the discounted penalty.

Although I accept that the Appellant made a simple error, as I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and the penalty charge notice was lawfully issued, I must refuse the appeal.

If the car registration had been provided over the telephone it might have been possible to argue that it was the council's error.

Tilling Road - the wrong sign - 2170429199

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to perform a prohibited turn.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Tilling Road at its junction with Brentfield Gardens, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to turn left when the sign shown in the images clearly indicates ‘no left turn’.

However, in their Notice of Rejection the Enforcement Authority say the sign is a white arrow on a blue sign. This would be a different contravention.

Either the sign is incorrect or the Enforcement Authority have mistaken the location.

The Adjudicator is only able decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the contravention alleged did occur.

Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.

Both signs are at the location but if the evidence isn't clear the council can lose.

Late for a funeral - not an exemption

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a no entry restriction in Torrington Park at 5.11pm on 7 July 2017.

I have looked at the images submitted by the Council. These show that Mr L’s car was driven through two no entry signs in Torrington Park. There was a no entry sign attached to a post on either side of the traffic island which stated that there was a no entry restriction except for local buses. There was also a Bus Only marking on the road surface. It is clear from the evidence that the alleged contravention did occur.

Mr L appeals on compassionate grounds because he says that he was driving two sons to the funeral of their father and that time was very tight. An Adjudicator has no power to take account of mitigating circumstances when deciding whether to allow or to refuse an appeal. The Council has already considered, and decided not to accept, the mitigating circumstances explained by Mr L.

The adjudicator really had no choice in this case.

Moving traffic - how many days are 28? - 2170469036

The Appellant has not attended and the Authority is not represented.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Finchley Road/Bridge Lane on 27 June 2017 at 17.27.

The Appellant's case is that he had anticipated that the exit would be clear.

He also takes a point on the Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the time permitted time for representations to be considered and referred me to the case of Atlas - v Barnet case number 2170053479.

I have considered the evidence and I have allowed this appeal on the truncated period point that an Authority must consider representations. I have copied into this decision the relevant part of the Atlas case.

"Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. {effectively 28 days + 2 days}

Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made, an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.'

Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations.

I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued."

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

More adjudicators disagree with this decision than agree

Keep those Appeals flowing.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

London Tribunals - September 17

In the month of September independent adjudicators at London Tribunals made 245 decisions and of those 158 were in favour of the motorist, which is a magnificent win rate of 64%

Notable decisions included:

Postman using his own car (2170387441)

The present case relates to an alleged contravention of parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. It is accepted that this was a restricted street, it is accepted that the Appellant parked during prescribed hours.

The Appellant though avers that he had parked to carry out his duties as a postal worker employed by the Royal Mail. The vehicle in question, was not owned by the Royal Mail, nor is it liveried as such. The Appellant states that he was working delivering mail, he returned to the vehicle and that he informed the CEO who was making out the ticket that this is what he had been doing.

The Respondent rejects this and states:

Please be advised that working for Royal Mail and using a private vehicle does not exempt you from the restrictions in place

I can also confirm that the Notes recorded by the CEO do not support your statement and must advise that the CEO is deemed a credible witness by the London Borough of Barnet.

Taking each in turn, firstly, what is the exemption? The submissions provided by the Respondent argue that no exemption applies to a postal worker using a private vehicle. I disagree. The exemption is what is contained within the traffic management order, this reads:

26(1) Nothing in this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit a vehicle to wait in any restricted street:

While postal packets adjacent to any such street in which the vehicle is waiting are being unloaded from the vehicle, or, having been unloaded therefrom, are being delivered

The Order does not specify by whom the vehicle must be owned. There is at least the potential of an exemption.

Secondly, does the exemption apply? Here, the burden reverses, the Appellant must show on the balance of probabilities that the exemption applies to him. Firstly, I must judge what the Appellant says, he has not appeared in person, so I am not able to test his evidence.

However, I note the following: (a) he is consistent in his account, (b) he has provided evidence of his employment, (c) the time of the contravention, (d) the Appellant lives in EN4, the contravention took place in N12.

The Respondent does not approach this case as they did on 25 July 2017, there they said the Appellant had not discharged the burden. Now, they argue that their own CEO contradicts the evidence provided by the Appellant.

The CEO has not provided a witness statement. However, there is his note:

After issuing the pcn driver returned and says that I was delivering and he was working for royal mail then I told pcn has been issued and the only way can appeal for that ic9 male 175cm height medium build

It is not clear to me how this undermines the Appellant’s case, if anything, it is consistent therewith. The Respondent’s submissions as to the credibility of their CEO are neither here nor there. The CEO is not disagreeing with the Appellant’s account. As too, should I note, that the CEO’s credibility (and there is no reason to doubt it), is a matter for the Tribunal to judge.

The suggestion by the Respondent that no exempt activity was observed, is, in reality something I cannot test. The CEO has not provided a statement, simply because he or she does not write something down, does not mean it was or was not happening.

In my view, it was be very dangerous indeed for the Appellant to be untruthful to this Tribunal, he potentially would face disciplinary action at work and could even face criminal prosecution. Likewise, he has been consistent in his account throughout.

I am satisfied therefore that the exemption did indeed apply in this case and I allow the appeal.

Time not proven (2170397048)

Having heard the driver of the vehicle in person I entirely accept her evidence that the clock in her vehicle showed 4.16. the Council’s camera shows the vehicle stationary just after 16.14. Whilst I would be slow to apply the principle of de minimis in the case of a set time limit, nevertheless it does seem to me that in a case where a contravention turns on a matter of seconds the onus is on the Council to prove the accuracy of its timing to this degree. The Council states the camera is calibrated to the universal time signal, which no doubt it is, but no further details are provided as to how this occurs or how the equipment is set or checked. On balance on the particular facts of this case I am unable to be satisfied a contravention is sufficiently proved and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

(In this case the school keep clear zig zag markings must finish at 16:15)

Time not proven, again (2170412822)

The Appellant appeared in person together with his wife, the driver.

The vehicle stopped on the markings at what the Appellant’s wife believed to be 16.15. I accept her evidence that she relied both on the clock in her vehicle and, more importantly perhaps, on the time on her mobile phone which is set to a satellite. The issue in this a case is therefore simply what the time actually was; and the onus is on the Council to prove that the vehicle was within the prohibited hours. Although I note the Council’s evidence as to the setting of the time by the atomic clock it seems to me that when it comes to proving he time within a margin of seconds evidence is required in the form of a log or otherwise showing that the required checks were in fact made on that day. On balance I am not satisfied that a contravention is sufficiently proved in this case and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

Adjustment for the Equality Act not obvious (2170412629)

The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. Mrs. Butler says that she did pay-to-park although she concedes she entered one incorrect digit. She says that she is dyslexic and says that she has previously been advised by a ‘Traffic Warden’ that it is permissible to move the vehicle from one location to another within paid-for time without having to pay again and she assumed the same applied on this occasion. Mrs. Butler has provided evidence of the payment.

The Civil Enforcement Officer’s record merely confirms that no payment had been made to park this vehicle at this location at this time.

I allow appeals in cases where payment has been wrongly ascribed due to a mistake by the Enforcement Authority’s system or operator. However, primary responsibility lies with the motorist to ensure that payment has been made for the correct time, vehicle and location.

I have no reason to doubt that Mrs. Butler made a genuine error but amounts only to 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.

The claim is often made by a motorist that he parked on the advice or with the permission of an Enforcement Officer. It is an easy claim to make and a difficult claim to disprove. Whenever the claim is made I would look to see if there is any supporting evidence. In this case Mrs. Butler has not provided any supporting evidence and the advice she claims to have received is unlikely on its face. If it were accurate there would be no need for individual location codes at all. I am not satisfied that he was advised in the terms she has described.

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.

Keep those Appeals coming. If you have a good case you have a better than evens chance of winning.

Your appealingly


Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - August 2017

Another good month for the motorists who were brave enough to take their case all the way to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

There were 187 decisions.
Of those, 122 led to a cancelled PCN when the Appeal was allowed.
That is a fantastic 65% win rate for the motorist.

Three cases were noteworthy

Bailiff fees ordered to be refunded (2160528070)


Unless the address of the parents was on the warrant the bailiff had no business in even being there. It is not uncommon however for bailiffs to lean on family members to pay a debt which is not theirs when the motorist in question cannot pay. Expert help in this situation is available by phoning the Bailiff Advice Online phoneline on 01643 841886 between 9am and 6pm Monday to Friday.

Not 'not paying' but not 'not displaying' (2170170199)


PayByPhone text errors (2170343209)


Why would you even realise that a sign facing the opposite way from you has to be searched for? The sign telling you the hours and payment methods doesn't even refer you to it whereas arrows pointing towards meters are common.

Please remember that any decision by an adjudicator is not binding on another adjudicator or even themselves. each case is dealt with one its own facts although other decisions may turn out to be persuasive.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - July 2017

I'm back and will try to catch up.

There were 232 appeal decisions of which 142, that is 61%, went the way of the motorist. Given that the chances of winning are above 50% then it is, in the long run, better to fight to the end than to pay up at 50%.

As you can see from the above extract of the tribunal register Barnet Council continue to ticket Royal Mail vans, make them do representations and write Appeals to the tribunal only to throw the towel in every time which wastes £30 of council tax each time = £270 just burnt. It also wastes the time of the fleet department at Royal Mail.

Extracts from other interesting tribunal cases, all allowed unless otherwise indicated:

Not on the zig zags (case 2170226373)

Do remember that another adjudicator is not bound by the above decision, it is not a precedent.

Zig zags not allowed across a junction (2170274875)

The school in question is St Joseph's RC Schools in St Joseph's Grove

Yellow box exit was clear on entry (2170279722)

Incontinence not a medical emergency (2170214680)

However harsh & unkind that may seem the decision is legally correct as the exemption in the Traffic Order will be for medical emergency.

Zig zags only apply to one side of the road (2170282159)

The question of what is the restricted area when it comes to school keep clear markings is one one which the courts have yet been asked to rule (unless you know otherwise). The sign refers to being 'on' the markings so if you are not on the markings I would argue you have not committed a contravention. Clearly though it would not be wise to stop in the middle of the road to allow children to board or alight.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance