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

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