Latest News

Adjudicators decisions (Moving Traffic Contraventions)

Adjudicators decisions for Moving Traffic Offences

On this page we have summerised over 50 adjudicator’s decisions which apply to different types of moving traffic contravention. For example yellow boxes, banned motor vehicles, not complying with an arrow, no right turn etc etc. Simply scroll down to the heading that applies to you and you will see cases where motorists have won – all summerised with case numbers.

 

(Quick links Menu coming soon)

 

Penalty charge notice not received by the motorist and defects in a penalty charge notice

In the case of Bell Vs London Borough of Southwark, a penalty charge notice had been issued by post for a parking contravention. The appellant stated that he had not received the PCN even though it had been posted by the council. Although the adjudicator said that where legislation provides for the service of a document by post service was deemed to have been effected 2 working days after the document was posted, he said this presumption was rebuttable. The local authority proceeded to issue a notice to owner because they had not received payment for the penalty, but the adjudicator found that they were not entitled to serve a notice to owner because the penalty charge notice had not been properly ‘issued’ under the 1991 act. He allowed the motorists appeal on the basis that the motorist had not received the penalty charge notice posted by the council.

 

CASE NO: 207 0117279 – Transport for London
Battersea Bridge Road/ Westbridge Road

This is an interesting case where a vehicle was hired but that the person who received the Penalty Charge Notice said that it was not his signature on the hire agreement.  The adjudicator said that “the position in law is that if the hire agreement is not signed, the Appellant is not deemed to be the owner.  On the evidence as it stands, I am not satisfied that the signature on the hiring agreement is the Appellant’s and I am therefore not satisfied that he is liable as the owner of the vehicle”.  The Appeal was allowed.  If you have not hired a vehicle or signed the hire agreement, then liability for a Penalty Charge Notice cannot be passed to you.

CASE NO: 207 0107195 – Borough of Islington
Morris Place

This is an interesting case as the Appellant said he did not receive the initial Penalty Charge Notice because it may either have been intercepted or because there were so many flats in his block and the postman delivered to a central point.  The adjudicator said “that the crucial Penalty Charge Notice was not served effectively that is to say ‘actually delivered’”.   The Appeal was allowed.  The local authority has to prove that the Penalty Charge Notice is correctly served.  Simply posting it to a motorist is not proof that the motorist actually received it – an interesting point!

CASE NO: 206 0292035 – Transport for London
Battersea Bridge

The position on this is that the owner of the vehicle said that he did not receive the original Penalty Charge Notice.   Transport for London could only show that the PCN was printed.  But, in any event, the adjudicator accepted that the Appellant did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice and therefore the Appeal was allowed.   It is up to the local authority to ensure that a Penalty Charge Notice is received.

 

 

Enforcement by CCTV

 

206 – 0543532 – London Borough of Islington
Leonard Street

This case was won because the Notice of Rejection issued by the Local Authority was not compliant with Schedule 6, paragraph 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 which states as follows:-

“Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 above but the Local Authority concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the Notice served under paragraph 2(7) above (the Notice of Rejection) must:

a)    state that a Charge Certificate may be served under Paragraph 6 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice of Rejection:

(i)    the Penalty Charge Notice is paid; or
(ii)    the person on whom the Notice is served appeals to a parking adjudicator against a Penalty Charge;

b)    Indicate the nature of a parking adjudicator’s power to award costs against any person appealing to him; and

c)    Describe in general terms the form and manner in which an Appeal to a parking adjudicator must be made and may contain such other information as the Authority consider appropriate.

However, the Notice of Rejection issued by Islington in this instance stated: Therefore within 28 days of the date of this letter, you should either pay the Penalty Charge or Appeal against our decision and if you do not do either – pay or appeal within the 28 day period, we may issue a Charge Certificate.”

It was argued that the wording does not make it clear that the period commences from the date of service of the letter and not the date of the letter itself and that therefore the Notice of Rejection is not compliant.  The Appellant supported his case by reference to another case at MPAS which was Case No: AY05003B (which was Lukha v Aylesbury District Council).

The adjudicator found in favour of the Appellant and stated “I am satisfied that the above authorities indicate that a strict interpretation is required when considering the mandatory requirements of the statute.  The Notice of Rejection in this case does not comply with those requirements and is therefore invalid and accordingly I must allow the Appeal”.  There are very strict guidelines on not just the wording of a Penalty Charge Notice but also other Notices that may be served during the process such as, in this case, the Notice of Rejection.  It is important to note that the 28 day period section on a Notice of Rejection must state as follows “The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the Penalty Charge Notice in question was served”.

CASE NO: 206 0542755 – City of Westminster
Oxford Street

In this case, the Penalty Charge Notice showed 6th November 2006 and the date of issue of 6th November 2006, however, the audit trail produced by Westminster clearly showed the adjudicator that the Penalty Charge Notice could not have been issued for at least two days after the 6th November.  The adjudicator allowed the Appeal and said “it is not open to the City of Westminster to produce false copies in evidence!”.

CASE NO: 206 0164512 – London Borough of Islington
Theberton Street

In this case there was no date of issue on the Notice, only the date of contravention.  Therefore the Appeal was allowed.  A Penalty Charge Notice must state both the date of issue and the date that the contravention actually occurred for it to be lawful even if the 2 dates are the same.

CASE NO: 206 0176963 – London Borough of Islington
Theberton Street

As was the case before, the Penalty Charge Notice did not state the date of the Notice “it is therefore invalid and unenforceable and I must accordingly allow this Appeal”. A Penalty Charge Notice must state both the date of issue and the date that the contravention actually occurred for it to be lawful even if the dates are the same.

CASE NO: 206 0109514 – City of Westminster
Oxford Street

This is another case where Westminster’s Penalty Charge Notice that did not show the date of the Notice.  The adjudicator said “the PCN issued to the Appellant’s vehicle records the date of the alleged contravention but does not include the “date of the Notice”.  The PCN does not therefore comply with Section 66.  It is consequently invalid and the Appellant is not obliged to pay the Penalty Charge”.  The Appeal was allowed.  A Penalty Charge Notice must state both the date of issue and the date that the contravention actually occurred for it to be lawful.

CASE NO: 207 0143971 – Waltham Forest Council
Hoe Street E17

This case concerned a Penalty Charge Notice that was dated over 28 days after the alleged contravention.  Also, no unit of currency was specified for the full penalty charge.  The adjudicator said that “either A or B would be fatal”.  Therefore, the adjudicator did not need to adjudicate.

Quite unbelievable that an authority would try and obtain money in this way.

CASE NO: 206 0096740 – Camden Council
Laystall Street

This was an interesting one as the Council rejected the Applicant’s formal Appeal but on the Notice of Rejection it referred to the Applicant’s Right of Appeal “28 days from the date hereof” whereas the Act requires the reference to say “28 days from the date of service” – which must, ‘inevitably’ be after 28 days from the date of issue.   This is the second Appeal to be upheld on this basis, the first was by the National Parking Adjudication Service in the case of Lukha v Aylesbury Vale District Council.  The Appeal was allowed.  Not only must the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice comply but also the text on the Notice of Rejection must comply.

CASE NO: 207 000963A – London Borough of Croydon
North End Croydon

The adjudicator was satisfied that the contravention occurred but that the owner had sold his car and produced the letter from the DVLA confirming this.   The Appeal was allowed.  You are not liable for a Penalty Charge Notice in respect of a vehicle that you did not own at the time.

 

 

Adjudicator’s decisions relating to a yellow box junction enforcement (Contravention Code 31)

In the following cases the motorists appeals were all allowed. You can refer the council or the independent adjudicator to these cases if you received a penalty charge notice in similar circumstances. Each case is of course considered on its own merits.

Entering and stopping in a box-junction when prohibited

Case number 2100203420 LB Hammersmith and Fulham

In this case the motorist did enter the box when the exit was not clear but the box was not marked correctly. It has double yellow lines running along the kerb. The original plan on the approved authorisation for enforcement issued by the department of transport did not have the double yellow lines. The appeal was allowed.

There should not be double yellow lines within a yellow box.

Place Invaders Ltd vs. Transport for London (Published Case)

In this case the parking adjudicator upheld the appeal of Place Invaders because “the evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case  does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box”.  It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the event that will or will not lead to the there being a contravention.  In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on TfL to prove the contravention I cannot find that it has discharged its burden of proof and I accordingly allow this appeal”.

CASE NO: 206 0183437 – London Borough of Camden
High Holborn

In this case, the taxi driver’s Appeal was upheld because of “the fact that at the time that he caused his vehicle to enter the box junction he did not have to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles, he could have carried on even if a bit off the line he wanted to follow”.

The offence is entering a box-junction when your exit is blocked by stationary traffic.  Although this motorist stopped in the box junction, at the time that he entered it an exit lane was clear even if it wasn’t the lane in front of him so his Appeal was allowed.

Case No: 2100226302 London Borough of Enfield

This was a very simple case. The video evidence simply didn’t show the vehicle entering the box when the exit was not clear. Appeal allowed!

It is not a contravention to stop in a box. Only to enter it when the exit is blocked by other vehicles unless you are turning right.

join


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content.

Please or [ Register ]. Get the information to appeal against your PCN!

Next: Contraventions for Moving Traffic






MENU