Case reference 2240353572
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Southwark
VRM GU09 PUA
PCN Details
PCN JK13006481
Contravention date 20 Feb 2024
Contravention time 17:07:00
Contravention location ZENORIA STREET
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in a loading place without loading
Referral date -
Decision Date 25 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
1. The Appellant attended in person. Lee Woolward attended on behalf of the Authority.
2. The Appellant explained that she had parked in the belief that she was using a paid for parking bay, which provided 30 minutes of free parking. The Appellant obtained a free session and has provided evidence of that. The Appellant discovered a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issuing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on her return to her vehicle, and he informed her that she was parked in a loading bay. The Appellant has submitted photographs and a short recording to show the signage in place. The Appellant submits that it is poorly positioned and that from the view from her car, the sign indicating 30 minutes free parking appeared to apply to the bay that she parked in
3. Mr Woolward submitted that the signs were in the correct place and that the words "loading only" on the carriageway made it clear that the bay in which the Appellant's vehicle was parked was for loading only. Mr Woolward commented that the carriageway markings had been repainted within the last year. Mr Woolward said that they had put the signs on separate posts to avoid potential confusion of having two different restrictions on one post.
4. The Appellant commented that the Authority could have placed the two signs on the single post and included directional arrows to inform the motorist of the restrictions on either side of the post.
5. The CEO's photographs show the Appellant's vehicle parked in a marked bay, which has the words "loading only" along side it. There is a sign about one metre high adjacent to the vehicle, on the footway side, which informs motorists that the bay is for loading only. There appears to be a space for another vehicle ahead of the Appellant's vehicle.
6. The Authority has provided a Google Street View of the road, which shows that the sign that the Appellant relied on is attached to a lamppost that is adjacent to the next bay along from the loading bay. The loading bay and the parking bay are divided by a dash line.
7. On the evidence before me, I find that the loading bay was adequately and clearly marked by carriageway markings and an upright sign. The position of the parking bay sign post within the bay in front was adequately clear to inform a motorist that its restrictions did not apply to the loading bay.
8. I found the Appellant to be a credible and reliable witness and I believed what she told me. I accept that the Appellant did not notice the loading sign and parked in the belief that she was parking correctly. However, these are mitigating circumstances. The Adjudicator is unable to allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances. It is only the Authority that can cancel a PCN based on mitigation, and they have decided not to do so on this occasion.
9. On the evidence before me, I find that the contravention occurred. The Appellant has not established a statutory ground of appeal. This appeal is therefore refused.
10. Mr Woolward confirmed that the Authority would accept the reduced charge of £65 in settlement of the PCN, to be paid within 28 days of this decision.