London Tribunals - March 17

Oxford Avenue, N14

In March 2017 there were 120 Appeals which were won out of 231 which were heard which means that the motorist won 52% of the time, a slightly better than average result.

 

The following eight decisions, including two which were lost, are worthy of note.

 

Adjudicator refuses through gritted teeth.

 

The CEO’s photographs show sufficiently clearly that, as the driver (whom I have heard in person) does not dispute , the vehicle was observed in the early hours of the morning parked other than with all its wheels on the carriageway.

 

Parking a vehicle other than on the carriageway is unlawful throughout London (save at those locations where the Local Authority has exercised its powers to permit it and signed the exemption accordingly The prohibition is imposed by statute ( s15 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended), and no signs are therefore required. As in many other areas of activity motorists are presumed to know the law, and are bound by it whether they are aware of it or not. It is referred to in the Highway Code with which all motorists should be familiar. It is irrelevant in law that no actual obstruction was caused to pedestrians, who are in any event legally entitled to access to the entire footway, not merely that part of it which a motorist may consider sufficient for their needs. It is never a defence to footway parking to say that had the vehicle been parked entirely on the carriageway danger or obstruction might have been caused. If this is the case at a particular location the vehicle must simply be parked safely elsewhere.

 

Whist it might certainly seem a little peculiar that the Council is expending its resources enforcing what is, at this type of location and at this time of night, a minor example of the contravention in question, I am unable to find that the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully and the Appeal must therefore be refused. (2170052895)

 

Dot matrix = self evidently inadequate signage (heads you win...)

 

Mr S.  appeared before me at a Personal Hearing on 10th March 2017, to represent his Wife, the Appellant [as registered keeper], to explain the contention personally. Mr S. also attended on behalf of his Daughter who was the driver at the relevant time.

 

The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the vehicle, at the relevant time, on the material date, to be at a location subject to an 'event' restriction, during which vehicles are obliged to display of an applicable and valid permit, and assert the absence of such permit display in respect of the said vehicle.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in the written representations (supported by photographic capture) which Mr S. reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

 

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, signage Authorization and notes made by the Civil Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: still frames revealing the said vehicle in situ, and an image of the adjacent signage notifying motorists of the restriction.

 

The Enforcement Authority adduce annotated maps/plans and undated images; these are of limited evidential value since the knowledge of the annotator is not known and it is not possible to correlate some images to the position of the said vehicle.

 

No evidence is adduced of the event or any event day signs advertising the material date as an event day.

 

Of crucial importance in an 'event' operative restricted area is the inclusion of clear and unambiguous information for the motorist regarding the 'event' triggering the operation of the same.

Mr S. indicated that there was a distinct lack of event signage in the vicinity, and challenged the notion that any such signage was adequate by submitting photographic capture showing the use of supplemental portable notification devices (dot matrix signs). (2170061692)

 

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

 

Don't park on double yellows to buy a newspaper (a schoolboy error)

 

The appellant attended the personal hearing on the 11th March 2017.

He disputed the PCN on the basis that the CEO had indicated that he was open to a bribe and had himself parked in contravention.

 

The appellant stated that he only stopped to buy his elderly mother a newspaper and was away from the vehicle less than a few minutes when he saw the CEO who held out his hand to the appellant and said he had already issued the PCN but could help the appellant appeal which the appellant clearly interpreted to be an invitation for a bribe. In addition the appellant noticed the CEO parked in front of him on the same double yellow lines in an unmarked vehicle and remaining there for a period of time after the appellant moved away.

 

The allegations made by the appellant relate to the alleged behaviour of the CEO which is a matter for the local authority to consider and investigate.

 

The issue for me to decide is whether or not the alleged contravention did occur and whether there is any valid exemption available to the appellant.

 

The photographs taken by the CEO clearly show the appellant's vehicle parked on double yellow lines which is an instant contravention. Purchasing a newspaper does not amount to a loading/unloading activity which requires the use of a car in order to fall within the loading and unloading exemption.

 

Considering the evidence carefully I am satisfied that the contravention did occur and can find no valid grounds for this appeal. I am also satisfied that the enforcement officer was entitled to stop on the double yellow lines in order to issue the appellant with a PCN as part of his powers of enforcement and there was nowhere else nearby where he could have legally stopped in order to carry out his duties. I therefore do not find there to have been any procedural impropriety which affects the validity of this PCN.

 

Appeal refused. (2170020935)

 

Don't fall over & then expect the council to show any compassion

 

Mr G, the Appellant, appeared before me accompanied by his son, Mr N G.

 

The Appellant accepted that at the time the penalty charge notice was issued his disabled badge was not displayed. However, he explained that there was a very good reason for this. He has difficulty walking and uses an elbow crutch. He had exited from the vehicle to make sure that it was parked fully within the disabled bay, before displaying his badge. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this he fell over. He was assisted by a passerby – a Mr Joseph – who has provided a signed witness statement confirming these facts. The passerby took Mr G to a wall nearby where he could sit down and Mr N G was telephoned to come to his father's assistance. While this occurred, the officer issued the penalty charge notice (quite properly) to the vehicle but out of eyeshot of the Appellant.

 

I accept this evidence as true. It does not amount to a defence to the contravention, but I do consider it to be compelling mitigation. I strongly recommend that the Council on this occasion exercise their discretion not to enforce the penalty in the light of my findings of fact. (2170053559) (Why the heck did the council not cancel this PCN before the tribunal stage?)

 

Paid but not paid, by phone.

 

Mr Q appeals against the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice to his vehicle for parking on 10 October 2016 in the High Street.

 

Mr Q attended the hearing. He explained he is a frequent user of the pay by phone system and also uses the other systems operated by other Authorities throughout London.

 

When he parked his vehicle Mr Q used the App on his telephone to pay for parking. He is registered with the pay by phone company and all details are held by them for the two vehicles he uses. His payment card is also registered with the company. On making the “payment” by entering the details and the CVV number of his card he left the vehicle. Half way through the time he purchased he checked on his phone and using the screenshot sent by the company and saw he had a number of minutes left.

 

On returning to the vehicle he noted the Penalty Charge Notice. He informed the Enforcement Authority of his payment and initially he was advised there was no trace of his using the system on the day. However later the company accepted he had been on the system but claimed the CVV was not entered so payment was not made. However neither the Enforcement Authority or the Company have offered any explanation as to how Mr Q received the countdown screen shot if the CVV number had not been entered and a payment made.

 

As Mr Q had not previously had any difficulty with the system he did not take a photograph of the screenshot he relied on 10 October 2016. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

 

Mr Q is a reliable witness and is very conversant with the pay by phone system. I have no reason to doubt his account of what happened. I find he did all that was required of him to make the payment and for some technical reason the company failed to take the payment. He was entitled to rely on the screen shot he was sent by the company to show he had paid to park. I see no reason why Mr Q should pay the Penalty Charge for a technical fault with the system he used. Neither the operating company or the Enforcement Authority have any valid explanation for the screen shot being sent if the steps taken by Mr Q were incomplete. It is logical that the screenshot can only be created and sent following completion of the information required to take a payment or indeed a payment taken.

 

I am satisfied the error lies with the pay by phone company and not Mr Q. The appeal is allowed. (2170069504)

 

Council want to enforce on private land, or is it?

 

The Appellant is represented by Mr R.

 

The Appellant's case is that the vehicle was outside no 26 Oxford Avenue. It is private and the Authority has no jurisdiction to issue a Penalty Charge Notice.

 

Both parties have made extensive submissions as to whether the road was adopted. There is no conclusive evidence from either side. The evidence is not particular persuasive either way.

 

The Authority says that the map it supplied proves that Oxford Avenue is adopted. I do not see why or how. As Mr R points out, he has never said that the whole of Oxford Avenue is not adopted. He is saying that the adoption stopped short of the Appellant's address. He drew my attention n to the yellow line stopping short of the Appellant's address. There is also a strip of paving across the carriageway. There is no apparent purpose for this save to separate one part of Oxford Avenue from another. Mr R asks a not unreasonable question - why can the Authority not produce primary documentation of the adoption?

 

On the other hand, Mr R has been engaged with what appeared to be lengthy discussions with the management company of the estate some time before 2010 to the point that the latter has informed him that there would been discussion. If the relevant section of Oxford Avenue has not been adopted since 2015, I would have thought that the Appellant would have received bills for maintenance and certainly bills for street lighting. Mr R says that there are none.

 

I think that one has to start from basics. The contravention occurs when any person causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath.

 

A road means, according to section 142 (1) of the he Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes. It is irrelevant whether the road is privately owned or maintained by the public, see R on the application of Dawood v the Parking Adjudicator PATAS and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1411.

 

Oxford Avenue is clearly a road in that it is a definable way of passage between two points. The issue is therefore whether the general public, and not merely a special class of the general public, has access to the road and that the public has access at least by tolerance of the owner of the road.

 

In Deacon v AT (A Minor) [1976] RTR 244, the Court held that the prosecutor seeking to prove that there is public access to the road must prove the general public used the road. It is not sufficient to prove that a restricted class of the public e.g. the residents and visitors of an estate has access to the road.

 

In this case, there is no evidence of any level of use of the section of Oxford Avenue save by residents or visitors. It is therefore not a road to which the public has access. There is there no restriction on footway parking at the location. I allow the appeal. (2170061863)

 

Payment for the other side of the road is OK

 

The Appellant attended in person.

 

The facts are not in dispute. The Appellant parked his car in Brent Street and sought to pay for his parking by app. It turned out that the location number selected was for the other side of the street. The Appellant does not dispute that the sign for the bay in which he parked showed a different location number but he had not seen this when he was using his app in his car.

 

The Authority submits that it is permissible to have two location numbers on the same street because different tariffs may apply. It is therefore the driver's responsibility to ascertain and use the correct location code.

 

I do not disagree with the above as a general principle. However, not only is there no difference in tariff between the two sides of the road, and this is well known to local residents, the Authority does not challenge the Appellant's assertion that one can purchase a ticket from one side of the road and use it on the other.

 

The Traffic Management Order requires the payment by inserting money into a ticket meter for "that parking place". It follows that if machines on both sides of the road can be used, both sides of the road is the same "parking place". The Authority has not drawn my attention to anything in the TMO that says that payment by phone or app should be treated differently.

 

Even if the Authority is somehow saying that the two sides of the road are in fact different "parking places", I would say that it is incumbent upon the Authority to make this clear.

 

The Appellant also makes the point that the app refers to Brent Street. It does not offer a choice as to where in Brent Street.

 

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow appeal. (2170081805)

 

Safety is motorist's first priority, revenue raising is the council's?

 

The appellant, who appeared before me today, said that his hearing aid batteries had failed as he was driving he being unable to continue with his journey in safety without being able to hear sound he stopping in this bay close to an opticians to replace his batteries.

 

The appellant had I noted provided this explanation to the issuing officer and he supplied supporting evidence from the optician concerned.

 

I was satisfied as to the evidence given and adduced by the appellant as to this incident and found as a fact that he had been prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control the exemption in that regard being applicable. (2170093473)

 

Just to remind you that decisions by an adjudicator are not legally binding, not even on themselves. They are persuasive so claim their support but don't poke the adjudicator in the eye with them, adjudicators like to make their own decisions so just mention the decision exists and leave it at that.

 

I have given you the tribunal references so you can look at the original decisions if you wish, and print them, form here.

 

If you want to look at all contraventions which have taken place in, say, Oxford Avenue, then you can search the register by completing at least 2 fields. Type BARN in the Enforcing Authority box and you can then select Barnet Council, type OXFORD% in the location box and you will get all road names which start with Oxford and perhaps put 1/1/16 in the from box so you don't get too many results. Have fun.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - August 2016

In the month of August there were 149 Barnet cases decided at London Tribunals of which 89, a lovely 60%, went the way of the motorist.

There were a dozen interesting decisions, and they appear in the words of the adjudicator below.

Wrong evidence

On 7th July 2016 Mr N attended the hearing.

He maintained that in the early stages of these proceedings he had been sent the wrong evidence or at least the evidence he had received did not show the vehicle concerned stopping on the box junction.

He stated that he had sent the DVD to this Tribunal.

I cause a search of the Tribunal but the DVD could not be found.

Nevertheless I will make a decision on the evidence before me and will reach a conclusion as to fact based on that evidence.

As stated above at the hearing stated he had never been sent conclusive proof that his vehicle had stopped on the box junction.

He had not looked at the DVD in the evidence pack provided by the local authority because he assumed it would have been the same as the one he had been sent initially.

Mr N made representations on 16th May 2016 to the effect that the only evidence he received did not show that his vehicle had stopped on the box junction.

The local authority issued a notice of rejection dated 23rd May 2016, in which they stated that they would send DVD evidence under separate cover.

On the 26th May 2016 the local authority sent a letter stating that they had enclosed contravention footage.

On 6th June 2016 Mr N sent an e-mail stating that the evidence enclosed still did not show any offence.

At the hearing Mr N asserted that he had been sent footage that did not show the vehicle in the box and that is why he appealed. He said that the penalty notice did not disclose a VRM. The on-line evidence did not show the vehicle had stopped. that is why he requested independent footage, which, he asserted, did not show any contravention.

On balance i am persuaded that he was sent the wrong evidence and that he was misled.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

Council fundamentally misdirects itself.

The Appellant Company is represented by Mr K who was the driver at the material time. The Authority was not represented.

Mr K said that he was unloading. His representations were rejected by the Authority who said that there was no evidence of unloading.

Mr K wrote again and offered some evidence of unloading. The Authority declined to change its mind stating that:"The loading exemption does not apply when a vehicle is double parked."

Section 85 (5) provides:
"The third exception is where—
(a) the vehicle is being used for the purposes of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or is being loaded from or unloaded to any premises,
(b) the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and
(c) the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary and for no more than 20 minutes."
There is therefore a loading/unloading exemption for double parking. The Authority has fundamentally misdirected itself on the law.

I find that this amounted to a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal.

Room to exit the yellow box

The appellant attended the hearing.

The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

I have looked at the DVD footage.

I accept that the appellant's vehicle stopped in the box junction but it was not owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. The vehicle that was stationary did not move off before the appellant's vehicle cleared the box junction. There was sufficient space behind the stationary vehicle for the appellant's vehicle to stop outside the box junction.

The appellant's vehicle did not therefore stop owing to the presence of that vehicle.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

Intervening car in your way in a yellow box junction

Mr Q denies the contravention. He states that his car was not stopped in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The contravention occurs if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that all or part of the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The Enforcement Authority does not have to prove that the vehicle caused any obstruction to other road users.

I find that the CCTV footage shows that the appellant’s car drove into the box junction at a time when the exit towards which Mr Q was driving was free. At the time that Mr Q drives his car into the box there is a red car to his left but this car is proceeding towards the offside lane exit. After the appellant‘s car is in the box the red car manoeuvres in front of the appellant’s car thereby preventing Mr Q from driving his car out of the box. I find that the appellant’s car is stationary for 3 seconds. I am not satisfied that the appellant’s car entered and stopped in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The car had to stop because another car executed a manoeuvre after Mr Q’s car had entered the box.

I allow this appeal.

Learner driver keeps stalling (as they do sometimes) on school zig-zags

The appellant denies the contravention stating that she is a driving instructor and that her student was nervous as it was only their second lesson and kept on stalling.

The local authority do not dispute this but say that the appellant's vehicle was seen stationary for approximately 20 seconds which constitutes stopping rather than a mere pause.

Considering the evidence carefully I am not satisfied that the contravention did occur bit find that the appellant pulled over as part of a road traffic manoeuvre and to avoid an accident.

I therefore allow this appeal.

Boarding and alighting confused by the council

The appellant's case is that he stopped in this goods vehicle only loading bay to collect his disabled father, who was suffering from cancer, from a restaurant.

The council in its rejection notice stated that the appellant had said that he was assisting a mobility impaired passenger alight the vehicle and that there is no loading/unloading exemption in respect of bays of this type.

The appellant did not say that he was assisting his father alight the vehicle and the availability or otherwise of a loading exemption is not relevant to whether or not a boarding/alighting exemption applies (which it appears on a cursory examination of the TMO it may well).

I am not satisfied against this background that the council properly considered the representations made to it as it is required to do under the Regulations and find for that reason that a procedural impropriety on its part has occurred in these proceedings.

The appeal must accordingly be allowed.

Using the footway as a long term car parking space

The Appellant said that her vehicle was on the pavement for several days and had apparently received several penalty charge notices. She has not stated whether the vehicle had been moved in between these dates. The Authority had not said otherwise.

The Appellant's submissions about not knowing that one cannot park on the pavement in London is wholly untenable. At the appeal stage, Her focus is that she should only be penalised once.

The Authority said that it can issue a ticket every 24 hours. It has not offered any authority for this proposition. There is some authority to support this approach but even these authority restrict this to restrictions which do not run overnight. It does not therefore apply to the present case anyway.

The starting point is that one wrong doing should only be penalised once. The Authority has not offered anything which goes against this point.

I allow the appeal. I take it that the Appellant will not complain if her car is removed should this recur. She will find that the removal charges cost more than three PCNs.

Pay by phone registration error

The allegation in this case is that at the time of issue of the PCN the vehicle was parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket. Mr. R does not in fact dispute this but he says that he had used the pay-by-phone system to register for the 3 hours free parking afforded at that time.

The Enforcement Authority acknowledge that Mr. R had registered for the free period but that the vehicle registered had the VRM ‘58XOB’. The VRM for Mr. R’s vehicle is ‘ZZ58XOB’.

The primary responsibility lies with the motorist to ensure that payment has been made for the correct time, vehicle and location. However, I allow appeals in cases where a parking period has been wrongly ascribed due to a mistake by the Enforcement Authority’s system or operator. In this case Mr. R says that his vehicle was already registered with the pay-by-phone system.

The Enforcement Authority say that the details are read back to the user and it may be that Mr. R has been fortunate on this occasion. However, I do not feel able to say that the error was Mr. R’s on this occasion and accordingly I allow the appeal.

Stopped in yellow box when exit clear

I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not appear and was not represented.

The Authority has produced the details of a link to their website on which I have viewed CCTV footage. The footage shows that the exit lane of the box junction was clear when the appellant’s vehicle entered it. Further, it shows that the vehicle stopped only briefly in the box junction when there was sufficient space to move forward. The vehicle was not forced to stop in the box because of stationary traffic.

I find as fact that the exit lane was clear when the vehicle in question entered the box junction. I find as fact that the vehicle was not forced to stop because of stationary traffic. The components for the contravention have not been met. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

I allow the appeal.

Pregnant & vomiting

Mr and Mrs T attended the hearing. The Authority was not represented.

Mrs T was pregnant at the time and suffering from sickness. She needed to stop to be sick and she needed to be close to her home because the road goes uphill and she had her young child with her.
I accept Mrs T' account. The vehicle was stopped for a reason beyond her control.

I allow the appeal.

Previous motorist's payment receipt (Moxon Street car park)

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock when in Moxon Street car park on 4 April 2016 at 18.54.

The Appellant case is that when he went to obtain his voucher, which allows 1 hour free parking, the machine issued him with a receipt.

I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that this penalty Charge Notice cannot be upheld for the following reasons;

First, I find that the Appellant had not exceeded the 1 hour free time parking allowed at this location.

Second, I find that it is not the Appellant's fault that the machine gave him the receipt of the previous user.

Third, whilst it would have helped if the Appellant had viewed the voucher issued to him, I find that he had a reasonable expectation that the machine would issue the correct voucher.

Taking these matters together I find that this Penalty Charge Notice is not proved.

The appeal is allowed.

Yellow box junction - intervening vehicle

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of vehicle, at the time, on the material date; namely at a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle entered the defined area and stopped. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing penalty charge notice contending that the manner of driving of a vehicle ahead caused the said vehicle to become so positioned.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the restriction.

It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.

The restriction, as set out in Paragraph 7 (1) of Part 11 of The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, as amended, prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of) from entering and becoming stationary or stopping within the cross-hatched area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The essential element is the presence or otherwise of stationary vehicles causing the vehicle in question to stop.

The photographic capture was examined to evaluate this aspect in conjunction with the Appellant's representations; by virtue of the brevity of the contemporaneous footage extract and the fact that it commences after the said vehicle has already entered the cross hatched area, evidentially it is not possible to determine all criteria necessary to establish a contravention.

Indeed the Appellant's contention, with regard to the interloping vehicle executing a right-hand turn, is borne out by the evidence.

It is accepted that split-second judgement calls are necessitated by driving conditions, but the need for a vehicle to await room for clearance before commencing a manoeuvre across such a junction is the only option available to a motorist to avoid contravening the prohibition.

In this instance, on balance I accept that the said vehicle was rendered stationary on the cross-hatched area by a vehicle unexpectedly impeding its path after the said vehicle had entered the junction; therefore I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

---

These cases are not binding precedents but they do give you useful pointers as to whether your facts are such that you too might get a favourable decision if you go to the tribunal. If the discount is no longer available then you might as well. To save time you can have your case considered 'on the papers' but better results are generally obtained by an in person hearing at the tribunal centre in the Chancery Lane area. Make the event a bit of a day out and have a good lunch or do some sight-seeing whilst you are there.

Keep those appeals flowing.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - February 2016

In February 2016, there were 162 decisions at the tribunal for Barnet Council of which 85, that is 52%, went the way of the motorist. That is a typical result.

The indivdual decisions were a mixed bag of various topics and the interesting decisions, in the written reports of the traffic adjudicators, all of which led to the PCN being cancelled, were as follows:

Dedicated disabled bays - The Appellant’s wife, a disabled badge holder, parked in what she thought was a disabled bay. The bay had the legend DISABLED and the sign read Disabled permit holder 095 only. She thought that the number referred to a zone as she was unaware that there could be bay reserved for the exclusive use of one particular badge holder. The Appellant argues that the sign is misleading and challenges it.

The sign is not permitted by the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. It does not comply with 661A and its permitted variants – the wheelchair symbol is missing and the word permit replaces the word badge. Neither does it comply with any of the 660 signs or their permitted variants as the word disabled is not allowed. As such the sign must have special authorisation of the DoT, but no such authorisation has been produced. In these circumstances I find that the sign substantially non- compliant.

Footway was actually private land - The Appellant attended this hearing together with a friend who lives in the block of flats she was visiting when this Penalty Charge Notice was issued to her vehicle.

The contravention the Appellant is said to have committed is set out in s15(1) Greater London Council (General Powers)Act 1974 - Save as provided in subsections (3), (4), (7) and (11), any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

The Appellant says that she parked on the pavement adjacent to the access or slip road to the block of flats and this was part of the property owned by the freeholders of the block. Her friend confirmed this.

The council maintain that as the public have access to the area and no proof has been given that it is private land the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.

From the photographs that the Appellant showed me, the area in question is quite clearly part of the block of flats and is an access road or forecourt. Between it and the carriageway is a public pavement broken only by dropped footway for access.

There is another pavement between the access road or forecourt and the block of flats. Whilst the public would have access to it if visiting the block of flats, but for no other purpose
given the public pavement referred to above, it does not make that area into a road other than a carriageway or a footpath.

I allow this appeal as I am not satisfied that where the vehicle was parked was a road other than a carriageway or a footpath.

Bunns Lane Car Park 3 hours free - he allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. Mr. A says that he parked on a Saturday, read the tariff board and believed he was entitled simply to park without payment.

The Enforcement Authority have provided a photograph of the relevant conditions of use plate. There is a box giving the tariffs for the bay. This indicates ‘Saturday 8am-6.30pm Up to 3 hours No Charge/Free’. The Enforcement Authority rely on a statement at the bottom of the box ‘FREE PARKING SESSION MUST BE REGISTERED BY PHONE’. However, beyond the use of capitals this direction enjoys no special prominence.

I regard this as a borderline case. However, having considered the matter carefully I do not feel able to say that the signage was clear and adequate to inform the motorist. Accordingly I allow the appeal.

Crossing the bus lane to access premises - The Appellant's case, which I have heard from him in person, is that having executed a lawful U-turn he entered the bus lane in order to gain access to adjacent premises where he had a pickup to make. The relevant Traffic Management Order contains the usual exemption allowing vehicles to cross a bus lane for
such a purpose. The issue in this case is therefore essentially whether in all the circumstances the Appellant's vehicle would fall within that exemption. The distances are quite short and there seems to me some force in the Appellant's submission that it would be unsafe to require his vehicle to pursue a zig-zag course of leaving the bus lane only to turn back across it immediately.

In my judgement the exemption for crossing does not require the vehicle to cross at a right angle and only at a right angle. There are questions of fact and degree in these cases. The
Council has not provided a copy of the CCTV evidence and in its absence it seems to me probable on the particular facts of this case that the exemption would apply. The Appeal is
therefore allowed.

Signing of the overnight waiting ban - I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the Appellant . The sign shown in her photograph indicating the presnce of an overnight prohibition on waiting for buses and lorries has no application at all to the single yellow line. It is simply the sign required by regulations to be present in every street within a Zone prohibiting overnight parking by HGVs. Motorists are required to be aware of the meaning of legally prescribed traffic signs and must take steps to familiarise themselves with them if
necessary. It also looks as if, given the fact that previous PCNs have been issued, the Appellant ought to have been well aware of the waiting restriction in place whether or not those appeals were allowed.

Nevertheless I take the view that where an issue as to the clarity of signage arises a failure by a Council to follow the recommendations of the Traffic Signs Manual, the official government guidance, inevitably puts the Council in some difficulty . The TSM Chapter 3 Para 12.11 specifically recommends that where there are two types of Zone at the same location a time plate to indicate the waiting restriction should be co-located with the overnight parking sign to avoid possible confusion. In the circumstances I am just persuaded that the signage was not as clear as it should have been and on this occasion the Appeal is allowed. The Appellant, however, should note that she cannot continue to plead ignorance or confusion indefinitely.

Single yellow line across a dropped kerb - This vehicle on the council's case was parked adjacent to a lowered footway.

The vehicle was resting on a single yellow line which runs alongside that lowered footway.

There was no dispute that the appellant had parked outside of the yellow line's hours of restriction.

The appellant submitted that given yellow line restrictions were not in force he believed he could park as he did.

There is both a prohibition on parking at this spot adjacent to the lowered footway AND a waiting restriction at it indicated by the single yellow line.

I was satisfied however having noted the appellant's submissions on the point that the marking of a single [as opposed to a double] yellow line alongside this lowered footway
misleads the motorist into thinking that he can park adjacent to it outside of restricted hours applicable in respect of the yellow line notwithstanding the prohibition that is in place. I was not for that reason satisfied that the prohibition on parking adjacent to a lowered footway at this location was clearly communicated to the motorist and found that the contravention had not therefore been proved.

Keep those Appeals coming. If your PCN is at full value you have nothing to lose by making

an Appeal to London Tribunals once you have a Notice of Rejection at full price (i.e. no 50% discount)

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 9 March 15 - moving on

Here are the stats for the most recent week at PATAS:

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	52	1110	5	Higher than normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	23	34	68	Higher than normal

The number of new appeals got over 1,100 for the first time this year. Perhaps this is a sign of spring when more traffic wardens come out to play?

Motorists in Barnet continued to find it worth the effort to contest their PCN.

There were 4 notable cases:

1.   Footway parking in Victoria Rd, NW4 is not enforced so this PCN was cancelled.

2.   An Uber driver was moved on by a traffic warden who then proceeded to send him a PCN in the post which wasn't cricket. It has been cancelled.

T3.   The car was moving at the time the photos were taken. The motorist said they were turning around, not parking. Another cancelled PCN.

4.   An adjudicator said that motorists do not have to research match days in advance, they may not even know there is a stadium somewhere near where they are driving to. It is the signs that, legally, count. The PCN has been cancelled.

Keep those challenges flowing. It's usually worth the effort.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 23 Sept 13 - Chaotic

 

In this particular week there were 63 appeals of which 35 were allowed or 55.5555555555%

 

Let's call it 56%

 

The very first case of the week was a "do not contest". The council often throw the towel in at the last minute and waste their £40 fee. Luckily no-one, as in a resident, was on their way to the hearing centre for it.

 

There was the usual argument about whether a PCN was handed to the drive or not. this time the driver was believed.

 

A typical case about the time it takes to collect a visitor voucher. Again the motorist was believed.

There was a reasonable expectation that footway parking is allowed in Rectory Lane due to years of it not being enforced. We really are entitled to clarity in this area.

 

The Saracens Event Day saw Barnet Council fail to get over the try line as they can't prove which days are event days.

 

Here are the adjudicator's comments about a September 2011 PCN

 

This contravention occurred on 22 September 2011. The appellant complains that the first correspondence she received from the council in regard to this matter was on 5 April 2013.  I have read the chronology of proceedings given by the council in its case summary it submitting that it has complied with all statutory requirements in its handling of this case but this allegation is now more than two years old and noting the delays that have occurred particularly that between the issue of the first notice to owner on 31 October 2011 and the charge certificate on 5 April 2013 I have concluded given its staleness that to allow enforcement to proceed would be oppressive and prejudicial to the appellant's conduct of her appeal. I do not for that reason find the contravention proved.

 

In a PayByPhone case there was no evidence form the Verrus system. That played against the council.

 

A bay in Ballards Lane was oddly marked and it wasn't clear the motorist was outside the bay. The PCN was cancelled.

 

The council quoted a 2003 Act about dropped kerbs but it was S86 Traffic Management Act 2004 so the council lost.

 

The council failed to deal with representations properly. That is not unusual and is a procedural impropriety so the PCN was cancelled.

 

The council failed to supply the cctv for a bus lane offence so their case was lost.

 

The council said there was no attempt to pay but their clearly was. There clearly isn't a PCN any longer.

 

There were two cases about footway parking in Barnfield Rd where the bays are not properly signed so the PCNs were cancelled.

 

More footway parking in Gervase Rd.

Mrs S. took a point about the reduced penalty because she made informal representations but had not received a reply. She also took issue with the signage at the location.

Mrs S. accepted that her vehicle was partially on the pavement. She said however that pavement parking is allowed on Gervase Road. The Authority did not disagree as such. It said that the vehicle was not in a pavement bay.

Mrs S. says that the signage at Gervase Road is chaotic. There are upright blue signs which indicated that parking partially on the pavement is permissible. These signs do not refer to bays. There are then full pavement bays and partial pavement bays. One confusion is therefore whether one should park fully in a full pavement bay when the blue upright signs require motorists to park partially on the pavement.

In any event, the Authority has not provided any evidence of signage that says that vehicles must park in bays, nor has it provided evidence to show that the upright signage has clearly indicated that pavement parking is not allowed at the exact location.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

 

Quite a quiet week overall but still lots of hope for those who persist and appeal through all 3 stages.

 

Keep those appeals coming.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS w/c 8 April 13

More than 3 points required to turn this beast

Another good week at PATAS, the home of the independent adjudicator, where 37 parking tickets were cancelled, 212 were upheld and 2 were sent back to Barnet Council to think about offering some clemency. So that was a 75% win rate for the motorist.

Interesting cases include:

A vehicle had broken down. The PCN was cancelled. Why couldn't NSL or Barnet Council have cancelled the parking ticket? There was another case like this later in the week.

In Fredericks Place a vehicle was parked on the pavement which is normal for that location. The PCN was cancelled.

In an argument about pay-by-phone the records of Verrus were described as being of limited evidential value so it is worth arguing if you have paid.

A motorist doing a 3 point turn, which included going onto a crossover, received a PCN except that he was never served with it so the PCN was cancelled.

A suspension sign was poorly sited so that PCN was cancelled.

One of my favourites. A PCN was issued at 10:18 and payment was made at 10:19 so they evidently were both taking place at the same time as both the act of paying and the act of issuing a PCN each take more than 60 seconds to process. Trying to carry on and collect a penalty charge in such a situation is ridiculously mean. The joke is that the motorist only wanted 10 minutes of parking which they had paid for. If Eric Pickles gets his way they would be allowed 10 minutes grace and the lives of everyone would be improved.

 

Another case of delayed payment which took 7 minutes which I would say is not that unusual for pay-by-phone. The adjudicator felt bound to refuse as the PCN is legally correct but recommended to the council that they cancel the ticket all the same. The spirit of the parking rules had been complied with.

 

Inside a CPZ a parking ticket was given to a motorist on a single yellow line who had looked at the bay times and they were over. Thus the assumption was made that the single yellow lines were also OK to park on. It is not always the case. Often at junctions a single yellow may be for longer than the CPZ bays. In Woodside Close for example there is a single yellow line which is from 7am to 7pm and yet the zone is 8am to 6.30pm (I think, but is certainly of shorter duation). Keep an eye out when driving.

 

A parking ticket was cancelled as the motorist wasn't given enough time to collect a voucher.

 

The final case shows you the level to which NSL & Barnet council will stoop. It relates to a case of parking with 2 wheels on the pavement. Here is part of the adjudicator's comment:

 

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of the vehicle at the time, on the material date. The Enforcement Authority assert the said vehicle to have been parked otherwise than wholly on the carriageway; the Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as set out in his written representations.

The Enforcement Authority's adduced evidence of the location bears out the Appellant's explanation that he had adopted the parking position so as to be parallel to other vehicles parked at the rear of the bank. The photographic capture endorses the fact that there is provision for legitimate parking at the rear of the premises.

In light of my foregoing observation on the evidence, and by virtue of the fact that I had the opportunity of meeting and assessing the 88 year old Appellant, whose oral evidence I found to be cogent and credible and I accepted it in its entirety, I make a recommendation to the Enforcement Authority. (to cancel the parking ticket)

 

Those stroppy eighty eight year olds have got to be kept in line.

 

Please keep submitting your appeals to PATAS. It is worth the slight effort.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance