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
