London Tribunals - March 18

In March 18 there were 245 decisions.
Of those 124, that is 51% were in favour of the motorist, a typical month.
The motorist only did so well because the council did not bother to fight on 72 occasions.

For a change, I'm going to give you examples only of appeals that were lost, with any comment I care to make after the decision.

Please don't abuse traffic wardens, it doesn't help.

The blue badge clock (or 'parking disc') must be of the format set down in law.

The adjudicator's decision is legally correct. Barnet Council's decision was morally dubious.

I would have liked to have seen the motorist's video as if that showed a complete failure by the traffic warden to attempt service, this decision would have been different.

It isn't recommended that you get out of your vehicle to instruct another motorist how to drive and then commit a moving traffic contravention yourself. Leave motoring contraventions to the police.

Don't stop to turn on a school keep clear marking, it is more dangerous than just driving past.

An interesting month. Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - February 18

In February 2018 there were 213 decisions at London Tribunals concerning Barnet PCNs.

Of those 144 went the way of the motorist, that is 67%.

In 101 cases out of 213 Barnet Council threw in the towel which saves them a lot of time.

It shows you that if the disocunt has gone you might as well Appeal even if you think you don't stand a chance as the council may be too busy to deal with your case.

 

Two cases were of interest.

 

Loading cannot always be evidenced with an invoice (2180015658)

 

In his original representations to the Authority, made shortly after the PCN was issued, Mr Chang said that he was unloading a computer tower for a friend, and that because his own clock was fast, he had mistakenly parked before 6.30 pm. He subsequently produced a short letter from a Ms Der-Shin confirming that he had delivered a computer to her at an address in this street at about 6.24 pm.

 

The Authority rejected these and further representations. They have treated the case as one where the loading or unloading exemption is being relied upon, but state that “No valid evidence has been supplied in order to corroborate the grounds of appeal, that a loading/unloading exemption was taking place at the time of the contravention being recorded.” In their Notice of Rejection they had stated, “In this case the council would require an invoice stating the delivery address, time, date and the customer’s signature.”

 

It is clear that the delivery that Mr Chang says he was making was not of commercial nature, since he stated at the outset that he was unloading the computer for a friend. Consequently it would seem unlikely that Mr Chang would have been able to produce an invoice. It is not however correct for the Authority to state that there is “no valid evidence” to corroborate the grounds of appeal. The corroborating evidence is the letter from Ms Der-Shin, whatever the weight I might choose to attach to such evidence.

 

Even though Mr Chang did not initially seek to rely on the loading or unloading exemption, explaining that he had simply made a mistake as to the time, it is still open to him to do so, provided he can show that the circumstances brought the exemption into play.

 

A private vehicle may wait on a single yellow line to allow for a delivery to be carried out, provided that the item involved is of sufficient bulk and weight as to require the use of a vehicle. I note that Mr Chang described the computer as a “computer tower” – at a point when he was not claiming the loading exemption – and I find it reasonably likely that that was an accurate description. I accept that such an item, as opposed to, for example, a laptop, would be quite heavy and bulky, and that it would be reasonable to park a vehicle close to premises in order to carry out such a delivery.

 

On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that, although he did not consciously park on this yellow line in reliance on the loading exemption, it did in fact apply, and so no contravention occurred.

 

I therefore allow this appeal.

 

False eyelashes won't get you off a PCN

That PCN had to be paid.

Keep the Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - January 2018

Gosh, reading all of January's Barnet Council decisions took twice as long as expected as there were twice as many Appeal decisions as usual. There were 366 and of those the motoist won 224 which is 61% and better than the average for London of 50%. This was mostly because, once again, Barnet Council decided to not contest many Appeals to the end, they simply cancelled the PCN. That was how 148 of the 224 Appeals were won. What you learn from this is that even if you don't think you have much chance you might as well make an Appeal if the discount has gone as the council may be too busy to fight.

There were't many really interesting cases.

Barnet Council failed to reject the representations in accordance with the Regulations (case 2170548427)

Ms Hyman did not attend the hearing listed today. I decide the appeal on the written evidence of both parties.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued when the appellant’s car was parked in a parking bay in Golders Green Road. The car was parked in a bay with location 5882. No payment had been made to park the car in that bay. Ms Hyman had inadvertently paid to park the car at location 5879 a parking bay on the opposite side of Golders green Road. Ms Hyman argues that she did pay to park the car in Golders Green Road and that the London Borough of Barnet has received £4.30. In representation made in response to the Notice to Owner Ms Hyman stated ‘it does not seem fair or equitable to punish me for making an innocent mistake, especially when the LB of Barnet has suffered not loss.‘

The Notice of Rejection states ‘it has been noted ..that you had made payment for a different bay at the same location and I do empathise however I must advise although you stated that the incorrect bay was paid for it is up to the motorist to make sure the correct details are entered and as such no exemption to the outstanding charge can be made’

Regulation 4 (2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 allows a representation against a Notice to Owner to be made either on the basis of specific grounds set out in Regulation 4(4) or under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii ‘that whether or not any of those grounds apply there are compelling reasons why in the particular circumstances of the case the enforcement authority should cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.’

Regulation 5 clearly states that the local authority is under a duty to consider representations made under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii.

In the case summary the local authority states that it considered the mitigating circumstances. This is not apparent from the Notice of Rejection. The Notice of Rejection clearly states that no exemption to the outstanding charge can be made. This is not correct. The local authority always has a discretion to cancel a Penalty Charge Notice. If Robin Moorwood who wrote the Notice of Rejection believes that there is no exemption to the outstanding charge it follows from this that discretion not to enforce the Penalty Charge Notice cannot have been considered.

One of the grounds of appeal set out in Regulation 4(4) is that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Procedural impropriety is defined as a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Regulations issued under that Act.

I find that the local authority has failed in its duty to consider representations made under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii. Therefore I find that there has been a procedural impropriety and I allow this appeal.

Leaves covering the double yellows (2170569052)

The Appellant parked his vehicle on double yellow lines as can be seen in the photographs taken by the civil enforcement officer who issued this Penalty Charge Notice.

The Appellant explained that she moved her vehicle onto the yellow lines without seeing them because it was at night and leaves covered them Moreover, that she had done so because a neighbour had asked her to make room for visitors as there had been a death in the family.

Temporary covering of lines by leaves do not invalidate a Penalty Charge Notice – if in doubt the leaves can be moved by the motorist to check any lines that may be there. The double yellow lines restriction does not require a supporting sign as the lines themselves are deemed to be adequate.

Whilst the circumstances described by the Appellant might amount to mitigation, that is a matter for the Enforcement Authority and is not a ground of appeal as such. It would appear that the Enforcement Authority have considered the circumstances, but decided, as they can, not to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. I do not regard the circumstances as compelling and therefore will not, as I have the power to do, direct the Enforcement Authority to reconsider their decision. I should add that even if I did, the Enforcement Authority could still refuse to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice on giving reasons why.

I cannot take into account the Appellant‘s means, or lack of, in determining this appeal. Enforcement is a matter for the council and the Appellant should contact them to discuss a payment pl

I have seen a different adjudicator find the opposite. That if a council wants to enforce in the snow, they must clear it.

Medical exemption (2170577775)

In his appeal the Appellant writes that:

At the time of the contravention was unable to move car because was recovering from an operation. my car was parked there the night before member of the family not knowing restriction during the day between 11 to 12 am I had gallbladder removed and suffered dysuria penile swelling, sorry happened. I have Cirrhosis is scarring liver liver damage. Diagnosed High functioning Autism and recovered from pneumonia. I was unwell mentally and physical

The council rejected this claim that the vehicle is prevented from moving by circumstances beyond the driver’s control (relevant exemption) on the grounds that the Appellant had not produced any medical documents confirming his claim. They do not refer to excerpts from the hospital discharge report that the Appellant has filed with his appeal. I accept that this is confirmatory evidence that supports the Appellant’s claim and that the exemption applies.

Not told to adhere to bay markings (2170587666)

The appellant disputes liability for the charge on the ground that there was no notice or sign stating that she could not park as she did she believing that she had parked in a legitimate parking space. She supplies supporting photographs of the location.

It is clear on the enforcement officer's photographs that the appellant parked outside of a bay but the council appears to adduce no evidence of any signage informing motorists that they must park within bay markings and given that is a live issue in this case I find that the contravention has not been proved.

Other adjudicators might find that the reason for the bay markings was obvious.

I won't tell you to keep the Appeals coming, as you did.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunal - December 2017

There were 184 hearings in December 2017.


Of those, 131 were won by the motorist, a sizzling 70%.

The results wouldn't have been anything like as good if Barnet Council hadn't decided to not contest 90 cases.

Only one case of interest (2170526082)

The appellant attended the hearing. I am satisfied that a contravention occurred.

The legislation imposes liability upon the owner of the vehicle.

Mr Subuc of Mayfair Trans Ltd is appealing that at the relevant time the penalty charge was incurred the relevant vehicle was subject to a Hiring Agreement. The local authority has contested this appeal on one ground only: that the hirer gave the same address as the hire firm. The appellant said that this was, "A nonsense."

He attended to contest the appeal on this basis.

I cannot find anything in the legislation that says this is improper.

As the local authority has not addressed any other issues I will therefore allow the appeal.

Not very deep thinking has gone on here. If you lived,say, in a flat above a hire company, where would you go to hire a vehicle? Yes, downstairs to the hire company that is on the spot.

This is a good time of year in which to make your Appeal to the tribunal if you have a Notice of Rejection. Clearly with Xmas coming soon, the council want to clear the decks so may just give up.

Yours appealingly


Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - November 2017

Sorry for the delay in posting. I will try to catch up. November 2017 was a very interesting month.


There were 168 Barnet cases decided at the tribunal of which 120 went the way of the motorist, which is 71%

More remarkably, of the 120 wins, 90 were because the council filed a DNC (Do Not Contest) form i.e. they gave up once the tribunal opened a case file but before an adjudicator had to make a decision.

There were 3 cases of note:

School zig-zags - stopped for a pedestrian (2170477227)

Mrs Rose-Price attended today. She was the driver on 21st July. Her husband, Mr Price is the registered keeper of the car.

Mrs Rose-Price states that she had gone to Ashmole Academy which is the school her children attend to pay for music lessons and revision books. The school had already closed for the summer holidays so there were no students in the school just a skeleton staff. Mrs Rose-Price drove into the school premises and made the payment. As she drove out of the school she heard on the traffic news that there was a problem on the North Circular. As she heard this news a pedestrian approached and Mrs Rose-Price stopped to allow the pedestrian to cross. She then checked her destination and proceeded.

I have had the benefit of hearing Mrs Rose-Price’s evidence today. I accept her account.

The footage shows the car stop and a person can be seen crossing in front of the vehicle.

In the case summary the local authority states that the footage shows someone alight the vehicle. This is inaccurate. No one gets out of the car. It does not appear to me that the London Borough of Barnet properly considered the footage.

I allow the appeal because I find that the car stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the road.

Zero and the letter O muddled (2170473361)

Miss Gothold appeals against the Penalty Charge Notice issued at 10.38 for parking in Golders Green Road on 7 June that required a payment to be made.

Miss Gothold has produced evidence to show a payment was made in the amount of £2.70 to park in the bay from 10.10 to 11.25. This is a payment system that Miss Gothold uses on a regular basis and the list of payments show this. The registration number as seen on the screen shot are all the same.

The enforcement authority’s case is that Miss Gothold made an error by entering “0” rather than “O” in the system. The registration ends with the letter O not the number. The vehicle has clearly been registered on the system correctly.

It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure the correct registration mark in entered onto the system. Regrettably this did not happen. It was, I accept a genuine error by Miss Gothold, but the fact is the mark entered was not the one registered for this vehicle. This amounts to mitigation which is a matter that lies entirely within the remit of the Authority. Mitigation cannot form a valid ground of appeal.

On the evidence I must refuse the appeal as payment was not made for the vehicle as registered.

(The Adjudicator was legally correct but the outcome does seem rather unfair)

Reason for the box junction (217044734A)

No evidence has been adduced of the relevant Traffic management Order invoking the box junction of which the cross hatching implements.

The Enforcement Authority adduce a map/plan, dated November 2015, demonstrating the extent of the cross-hatched area as at that 'current situation.' The Enforcement Authority suggest that 'box junction drawing' to be compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002.

Although the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 relaxes requirements on dimension specifics with regard to cross-hatched areas, the Appellant raised pertinent issues with regard to the invoking and implementation of such box junction, and received a response (in the aforementioned 19th September 2017 letter) to the effect that the 'box was installed to facilitate access into the retail site.'

The contemporaneous footage demonstrates that the cross-hatching extends further than that requisite to facilitate access.

The Appellant bought to the Hearing photographic capture of the current dimension of the box junction, establishing that the part formerly abutting the exit point has been burnt off so that it now complies with the statement as to access only.

The evidence before me lends itself to the interpretation that, at the point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice, the cross hatched area exceeded that of its purpose; its compliance with any Traffic management Order invoking it is questionable.

Evidentially therefore I cannot be satisfied that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

(This decision was one which turned on the particular facts of the case.)

Maybe the council or their contractors were short staffed in November 17 such that they were't fighting the majority of cases that month. The more Appeals the public makes the harder it will be for the council to fight them all.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance