ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2260217373
Appellant Capital Hire Management Ltd
Authority London Borough of Southwark
VRM LM73WYG
PCN Details
PCN JK17768201
Contravention date 04 Dec 2025
Contravention time 16:59:00
Contravention location CHAMPION PARK (WESTBOUND) TOWARDS DENMARK HILL
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date -
Decision Date 05 Aug 2026
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Phillip Morgan attended as authorised representative for the Appellant Company. The Authority had been expected to attend, but then sent a message this morning stating that it would not be attending.
Mr Morgan submitted that the Authority's evidence should not be admissible as, on 17 July 2026, he had requested attendance of the Authority at the hearing. A copy of this email is before me. Mr Morgan invoked paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 1996, which states:
“Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.”
I accept that Mr Morgan, as authorised representative for the Appellant served notice on the Authority requiring its officer's attendance at the hearing. The Authority has not attended. Therefore the evidence of the approved device is not admissible and this contravention has not been proved.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
Decision Date 08 Sep 2026
Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson
Previous decision Appeal allowed
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This is an application by the enforcement authority to review the original Adjudicator’s decision. This is on the basis that the appellant’s representative did not specifically require the attendance of the person who signed the document, but rather ‘an officer’ of the authority. The authority argues that ‘Paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 provides that documentary evidence ceases to be admissible only where the appellant serves notice requiring the attendance of "the person who signed the document" relied upon by the Authority. The statutory requirement is specific. The legislation does not provide that evidence becomes inadmissible merely because an officer of the Authority has been requested to attend and does not do so.’
Mr Morgan, the appellant’s representative, responds firstly on the basis that if it is possible that an adjudicator has made an error of law, the remedy is judicial review of the decision in the High Court, not an application for review of the decision by another adjudicator. More specifically, he also points out that there was no statement in the evidence producing the CCTV evidence, confirming that the evidence came from a type of camera authorised by the Secretary of State. There is only the general authorization for the authority to use a particular type of camera for enforcement purposes.
When he therefore required the attendance of an officer, he was in effect saying ‘if there is such a statement in existence, it will not be accepted in evidence unless the officer who signed the statement attends the hearing, in accordance with Paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996’.
The parties were therefore somewhat arguing at cross purposes, with the authority maintaining that the appellant had not requested the person who actually signed the statement, whereas the appellant was really pointing out that no such statement have been submitted in evidence. An appellant can hardly be expected to name the person required to attend, if that person has never been identified in a served statement.
It would have been helpful had the appellant’s representative originally made clear that the CCTV evidence was not acceptable in the absence of a statement producing it, and that such a statement, if served in due course, would itself not be accepted unless the person signing the statement joins the hearing at produce it and answer any questions that might be relevant. The adjudicator making the original decision would then have been likely to accurately state that CCTV evidence was inadmissible on the basis that no statement had been served producing the evidence.
I therefore find that the original adjudicator correctly decided that the CCTV evidence was not admissible, not primarily on the basis that person making the supporting statement had not attended the hearing, but because no such statement appeared in the evidence at all.
For the benefit of the authority, I clarify that in order for CCTV evidence to be properly admissible, evidence of the certification of the type of device used for enforcement purposes by the Secretary of State for transport must be produced, and in addition, a statement from an officer producing the actual recording, and confirming that the recording was made by a type of device so approved.
I can identify no legal grounds for disturbing the overall result of the original Adjudicator’s decision. This application is therefore dismissed.