>> Will post more fully when I've got the written reasons.
Found the hearing process completely stress free, anybody who is confident and articulate would find it quite straightforward.
Train to Euston ran to the second so arrived at the hearing centre in Furnival St well in advance of appointed time. I know that bit of London like the back of my hand so it was an easy ride on the Brompton. Map and postcode information would have been fine if I didn't know the area, short walk from Chancery Lane tube and buses on Holborn. Streets seemed unusually quiet; Easter Hols or effect of first day of the new Ultra Low Emissions Zone?
After signing into the building and making myself known at the Tribunal's reception I was asked to sit in waiting area. Having been through airport style security at the Probate Office when lodging Mother out Law's will I was surprised by lack of any bag check. Was given a leaflet about conduct, which explained that in spite of informality I was attending a Judicial Hearing and I should call the Adjudicator Sir or Madam. Shaking hands is apparently not appropriate. Several other hearings going on around. The Adjudicators conduct hearings with doors open so that security will hear quickly if anyone kicks off. Was able to overhear one case where it seemed necessary to adjourn because a witness was not present.
Waited about ten minutes before being invited to proceed to adjudicators office. Was allowed to take my (unsearched) briefcase in but had to leave the Brompton at reception.
Adjudicator was seated behind a desk with a large computer screen angled so we could both see it. Nobody there from the Council. All the documents from both Council and myself were uploaded onto the screen - the Adjudicators were pioneers of the paperless hearing all but twenty years ago. She introduced herself as Mrs Fantinic. I know I'm knocking on but when Judges are 25 or so years your junior you begin to feel your age.
I went through the events on day with her, explaining which signs I'd seen and the markings on the road. Nearly came unstuck because I'd neglected to send some additional photographs taken last month to the Council but she agreed they were not controversial and admitted them. If she hadn't I'd have rolled with what I'd got rather than ask for adjournment. Pointed out salient features of road markings etc and similarity to one of the 'significant cases' on their website. Although 20 years old this involved a near identical set of circumstances on same stretch of road. She read it but made clear that it was not binding one her - I knew this but said I thought she might regard it as persuasive.
After about 15 minutes we got to the 'anything else to add' stage. She then said she was persuaded and would allow my appeal. Offered to type up reasons while I waited but I said I was happy to wait for them to arrive by post.
At risk of TL:DR full text of decision is here:
The Appellant attended in person and appeals on the basis that the contravention did not occur.
I found the Appellant to be a credible and reliable witness. The Appellant explained that he was not aware that he was parking in a resident permit holders' bay when he parked his vehicle. He explained that it was a Sunday and he was unable to park in the two roads with bays in which he had hoped to park due to the suspension. He entered the road on which the alleged contravention occurred and noticed a sign indicating that parking restrictions only applied Monday to Saturday. He continued down the road until he saw a space in the bay. He noticed that permit holder bays had that text written on the road by the side of the bay, and therefore assumed that the place he parked was subject to the restrictions in the sign that he had seen at the entry to the road (i.e. only applied on Monday to Saturday).
On discovery of the PCN when he returned to his vehicle, the Appellant noticed that there was a break in what had appeared to be one solid line of bays. The break had been obscured, or at least not clearly visible, due to parked vehicles and so he had not noticed. The Appellant also then noticed that there was a sign indicating resident permit holders only, but he told me that it is at least nine feet from the ground and he had to crane his neck to look at it.
I considered the evidence before me in full, including photographs of the street, of the signs and of the road markings near to other bays. I note that the sign regarding the resident permit holders’ bay is smaller than the other restriction sign, which is repeated twice along the road. I also note that there are some permit bays, which have additional writing next to them, which I accept might be confusing to motorists.
On the basis of the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the restriction relied on was adequately brought to the attention of the motorist due to the position of the sign, the different road markings for different permit bays and the fact that the break between the two bays with different restrictions was not clearly visible when in use.
I therefore allow this appeal.
Cordelia Fantinic
Adjudicator
8th April 2019
This case was in London where, for historical reasons, the Tribunal is separate from that in rest of England and Wales but the process at he Traffic Penalties Tribunal is near identical. Part of my motivation in pursuing this was to test drive a process that comes up regularly in delivering general advice at work.
I can now say with confidence that the process is simple and informal and provided you have a case rather than just mitigation and get your evidential ducks in a row it's easy.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Apr 19 at 13:58
|
