Latest News

Parking adjudicators decisions

Parking Adjudicators Decisions

The following decisions have been summarised to make it easier to navigate. This section is very useful as you may well be able to find a similar case to your own. Of course every case is heard on its own merits and adjudicators decisions in one case are not binding on other cases.

We have grouped the following cases into different categories to make them easier to navigate.

These are just a very few of the thousands of cases which are heard each year. You are entitled to attend at the adjudicators offices and sometimes your local council in order to view appeal decisions.

The adjudicators websites also have “key cases” on them. These are worth looking at. You can also obtain the full details of the summarised cases below by typing in the case numbers below. There are two adjudicators: London Boroughs or outside of London

Please note that these summarised decisions have been provided in good faith. We accept no liability whatsoever for their accuracy. Different adjudicators can arrive at different decisions therefore just because one adjudicator has ruled one way in a certain case it doesn’t mean another one will. There are many factors that an adjudicator will consider before reaching a decision and every case is different and judged on its own merits.

Page Quick Index:

Simply click on the heading below to go straight to the section or scroll down through all the decisions.

1: Penalty charge notice not received by motorist or PCN not issued correctly or motorist driving off (Free)
2: Not perusing a penalty charge notice within 6 months and delays on the part of a council (Free)
3: Disabled and loading (Free)
4: Council should use discretion in some circumstances (Members only)
5: Defects in a penalty charge notice (Members only)
6: Defects in a notice of rejection (Members only)
7: Condition of signage and road markings and confusing or illegal signage (Members only)
8: Yellow line T-bars (Members only)
9: Dimensions of parking bays and Parked within a bay (Members only)
10: Motor cycles parking on foot ways (Members only)
11: Parked in a taxi rank (Members only)
12: Statutory declarations (Members only)
13: Conflicts with TRO’s (traffic regulation order) (Members only)
14: Pay and display bays (Members only)
15: Parking at out-of-order metres (Members only)
16: Hired Vehicles (Members only)
17: Loading/ unloading (Members only)
18: Parked in suspended bays (Members only)
19: Parking limited to a specific period (Members only)
20: Clamping & towing (Members only)
21: Vehicle removals (Members only)
22: Residents parking bays (Members only)
23: Bank Holiday Parking (Members only)
24: CCTV Enforcement (Members only)
25: Bus stops and bus stands (Members only)

1: Penalty charge notice not received by motorist or PCN not issued correctly or motorist driving off.

“GHOST TICKETING”.

Westminster City Council vs Terrance Chase

This appeal concerned the case of Mr Chase who parked his car on a metre which allegedly showed a penalty time of 62 minutes.  Mr Chase however said in his representations to the council that the car was not there at the relevant time and no PCN was issued.  It was also stated “If a PCN is not properly issued and served then the council could not pursue any penalty [by virtue of section 66 (I) and paragraph 1 (1) (a) of schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Act 1991.  The chief parking adjudicator at the time allowed the appeal on the basis of “Mr & Mrs Chase say that the car was in the vicinity of Melbourne Place but strongly deny that it was on a meter or given a PCN.  The council relied on evidence as shown on the tax disc but details show that information was added to the PCN on 26th April.  It seems probable that this information was transferred from details of a different (submitted) PCN.  The council had provided no evidence that the attendant recorded these details contemporaneously on the street as evidence for the council’s case.  The adjudicator initially awarded costs against the council of £100 to which the council appealed.

This practice is known as ghost ticketing. It is more difficult since the introduction of digital cameras.

Since April 2008 a penalty charge notice can be sent by post if the Civil enforcement officer has started the process of issuing the ticket!

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.

In case number WC6 an appeal by a motorist before NPAS was allowed because the PCN showed the penalty charge in dollars rather then pounds!

On one occasion a local authority accepted that a penalty charge notice had not been served by either fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle. However the local authority argued that it wished to enforce the penalty on the basis that the parking attendant told the motorist that a PCN would be sent to him in the post. The adjudicator allowed the appeal and said that it was difficult to understand how a notice to owner could have been served in relation to a penalty charge notice that the local authority knew had never been properly issued!

The rules changed in 2008 so if a civil enforcement officer “has began the process of issuing a PCN” it can be served by post.

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL VS MR FLORINEL ROMETE – CASE NO 2120045220 March 2012

This case was simple. The motorist parked in a disabled bay but maintained that he did not receive a penalty charge notice. The adjudicator didn’t believe him. The council said that they affixed the PCN to his windscreen. The motorist won! He was riding a motorcycle with no windows!!!

2: Not perusing a penalty charge notice within 6 months and delays on the part of a council

On the newsletter from the Parking appeals and Traffic service (PATAS) of December 2003, they drew attention to the fact that a local authority had served a notice to owner outside the statutory 6 month time limit. Having not served a notice to owner within that time, the local authority was not entitled to pursue enforcement yet it continued to do so.

London Borough of Lambeth vs. Mr A Wilde

This briefly is the case where Mr Wilde appealed against the issue of a PCN.  His appeal was allowed.  However, the adjudicator said that he would have allowed the appeal in any event “on the basis of the unconscionable delay has occurred between the receipt by the council of Mr Wilde’s representations against the notice to owner and the service of the notice of rejection.  He also awarded costs of £91.00 against the council because of the delay.

 

Paul Richard Davies vs The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

In this case Mr Davies’ appeal was upheld because the council did not respond to his representations within a reasonable period of time.  The adjudicator stated “however, without suggesting there is any rigid time-limit in a case without extraordinary features.
I.    A notice to owner should be served within six months after the notice of a PCN upon which it is based After the expiry of that period it is still open to the authorities to show that the delay in service of the notice to owner was not unreasonable in all of the circumstances.
II.    An authority should respond to representations to a notice to owner in 2/3 months of receipt.  Again thereafter it is still open to an authority to show that the delay in considering representations was not unreasonable in all of the circumstances”.  He went on to say “if an authority fails to take a step to enforce a parking penalty within a reasonable time it breaches to obligation to act fairly”.

Quite simply if you don’t hear for 6 months then they shouldn’t pursue you.

 

3: Disabled and loading

London Borough of Southwark vs Mrs D Wanambwa

This is the case where the wife stopped to drop her husband off to go to the bank on a part of the road where loading and unloading was not allowed.  Mrs Wanambwa thought that taking the wheelchair out of a vehicle was unloading and claimed an unloading exemption although loading at that location was expressly prohibited.  The chief adjudicator Mr Martin Wood said however that this was not a case about unloading at all.  “The circumstances are squarely within the boarding/alighting exemption which does apply even where loading is prohibited”.   He allowed her appeal.

Now why would a council possibly continue to enforce this in any event.  In any event they were legally wrong to do so.

 

Hampshire County Council case PH 05027C

In this case a motorist received a penalty charge notice as he was parked in a loading bay. However the words “loading” were not painted on the road as required under TSRG Directions 2002 at 660.4. The council did have an exemption issued by the department for transport but that only covered direction 24 but not direction 25 which also says that the legend “loading” must be painted on the road. The appeal was allowed.

 

4: Council should use discretion in some circumstances.

In case number RF4 brought before NPAS, a pay and display ticket had been purchased from the machine but was displayed upside down so it could not be read. The motorist received a PCN and appealed. The adjudicator said that the council had not exercised discretion because their policy had no regard to particular circumstances of each case.

An adjudicator cannot cancel a PCN on compassionate grounds or for compelling reasons but he can refer the matter back to the council if he believes that they did not discharge their duty to do so.

 

5: Defects in a penalty charge notice

 

CASE 2110495570 – Anthony Turner V London Borough Of Southwark

The wording on the PCN must comply with the requirement in paragraph 1(g) and (h) to the schedule to The Civil Enforcement of parking contraventions (England) general regulations 2007, which reads “A Penalty Charge Notice served under regulation 9 MUST state (g) that the penalty charge must be paid not later that the last day of the period of the 28 days beginning  with the date on which the  penalty notice was served; (h) that if the penalty charge is paid not later that the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge  will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount.

The above wording must be exact even if alternative wording has the same effect. In this case in January 2011 the parking adjudicator allowed an appeal against a penalty charge notice issued by Southwark Council.

Rather than use the very specific wording in bold above the Southwark PCN stated
“the Penalty Charge of £120 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice. If the Penalty Charge  is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of this notice the amount of the Penalty Charge will be reduced by 50% to £60.
 The adjudicator confirmed that he accepted that the PCN does not contain on the face the required information which is mandatory. “I find that this amounts to a “procededural irregularity” and allow this appeal..
The wording on a Penalty Charge Notice must be exactly as per the regulations. It must read exactly as it does above in bold.

CASE NO 2080351250 Harrow vs  Mr John Evans

This was an important case as the penalty charge notice was defective as it didn’t state that “compelling reasons” could be given.  It was also a CCTV issued one and didn’t even state the right that a motorist has to view the evidence. Here is what the adjudicator said.

“It appears to the adjudicator that the PCN issued in this case is defective in that it did not state in full the nature of the representations that can be made under regulation 4 as required by Regulation 3(4)(b) civil enforcement of parking contraventions (England) Representations and appeals 2007. There appears to be no mention of the fact that representations may also be made on the basis of “compelling reasons” under s4(2)(b)(ii). Nor does there appear to be any indication of the effect of regulation 3 paragraphs (5) and (6) (right to view evidence). As required by regulation 3(4)(e).

Case No 2100010686 London Borough of Hounslow.

The penalty charge notice said on the front “unless this penalty charge notice is challenged” which the adjudicator said was in breach of para 1(g) of the schedule to the civil enforcement of parking contraventions (England) general regulations 2007. “and renders the penalty charge notice invalid”

We suggest that you check the wording on your penalty charge notice carefully.

Below in our members content we show over 50 more adjudicators decisions where the motorist has won. This will help you decide whether to appeal against your penalty charge notice.

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: Parking statutory Grounds for appeal






MENU