I had a quick Look on the tribunal database and found a couple of refused case in this zone.
But both leave questions as to whether the adjudicators knew what they were doing.
-----------
Case reference 2240583583
Appellant Doctors Plus Ltd
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM LD20 OHX
PCN Details
PCN BT22624618
Contravention date 25 Jul 2024
Contravention time 10:20:00
Contravention location Dollis Hill Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Apr 2025
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
1. Reasons The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of parking during a parking/loading ban at the location.
2. The Council relies upon the contemporaneous evidence of the Civil Enforcement Officer, a copy of the PCN, a copy of the relevant legislation and correspondence.
3. The driver contends that the signage indicating the restrictions was inadequate. He says that he entered Dollis Hill Lane from the A4088 end. He contends that there was no visible signage, approaching the restriction from this direction, indicating the nature of the bay restrictions. He contends that there was no signage indicating which days were "match days" or informing drivers where this information may be obtained. He contends that subsequently he has identified one relevant sign but this was on the opposite side of the road and turned to face the pavement.
4. I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter
5. The CEO’s photographs show the vehicle parked and unattended in what appears to be a multi-vehicle bay at the location. It is parked at the end of the bay, the broken bay markings being visible to the rear of the vehicle. The CEO has provided a photograph of the signage relied upon by the Council. This signage indicates that parking is permitted for specified "EV" permit holders in marked bays on event days, 10am - midnight. The photograph is close-up of the signage and the wider context of the location cannot be established. The sign is not readily visible in any of the photographs taken of the vehicle by the CEO.
6. However, in one of the photographs taken by the CEO, the back of a sign is visible some way down the road behind the vehicle, on the same side of the road. In addition, a separate bay is also visible just before this sign. Having carefully considered and compared the CEO's photographs and the further photographic evidence provided at Enclosure H, I find that this sign is the Wembley Stadium Permit Zone signage, which indicates a No parking restriction on event days, between 10am and midnight, save for "permit holders in marked bays". This signage is on the right of the carriageway and I am satisfied, having considered the evidence contained in Enclosure H, that there is another sign on the left of the carriageway, which would be readily visible to a driver entering that zone. Given the direction in which the parked vehicle is facing, I find it likely that this signage was passed by the driver prior to parking. In addition, the Council's photographs of the entry point signage are annotated, "Dollis Hill Lane near the junction of A4088" and I therefore find it likely that these photographs shows the signage on the route taken by the driver, who contends that he entered from the A4088 "end".
7. I am satisfied that a driver is on notice, by way of the Permit Zone entry point signage, that all bay parking at the location is reserved for permit holders. There is no requirement for each bay to be individually signed. The onus is on drivers to then inform themselves as to whether an event is taking place.
8. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that a contravention has taken place and that no statutory ground of appeal or exemption has taken place.
9. I must therefore refuse this appeal.
--------
Case reference 2230372311
Appellant Sarah Wickenden
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM FL14 KUW
PCN Details
PCN BT19158131
Contravention date 22 Apr 2023
Contravention time 10:53:00
Contravention location Grasmere Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 Sep 2023
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle was parked in a permit holders’ only parking place without clearly displaying a valid permit or having a virtual permit.
I accept that the civil enforcement officer checked all the vehicle’s windows, was sufficiently close to take photographs. A penalty notice can be seen affixed to the vehicle.
The administrative practicalities of the parking scheme require a vehicle’s owner, at all times it waits in a bay or space, to pay for that time and display proof of that by way of a ticket or voucher or meter reading. With telephone payments the vehicle registration mark (VRM) and location requirements must be correct. Should the telephone or display requirements be omitted then a contravention occurs. The Scheme imposes owner liability. That implies that the owner may be liable even if he did not know about the contravention, which in turn implies liability without fault. An Adjudicator must balance any decision between fairness and administrative practicality. Sometimes the latter overrides the former. A Scheme requires that parked vehicles pay for their waiting time and that the payment is visibly displayed or duly made by ‘phone. Should either requirement be absent then a contravention occurs. I find that this principle must also apply to permit parking spaces.
The appellant has stated there were no signs on the side of the road where the vehicle was parked to indicate there were restrictions there. The appellant has provided evidence of a screenshot.
The evidence in this case leads me to conclude that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a permit parking area.
The sign must face the motorist much like the signs at the entrances to a controlled parking zone.
The evidence leads me to conclude that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in an area behind the sign and therefore in contravention.
The evidence leads me to conclude that a contravention occurred.
The circumstances described by the appellant are mitigating circumstances or extenuating factors. They do not amount to a ground of appeal. Mitigation moderates the seriousness of something but does not amount to a full ground of appeal.
The local authority has clearly considered the relevant circumstances but has chosen not to exercise their discretion in the appellant’s favour. Mitigation is the province of the local authority. An Adjudicator may only cancel a penalty charge notice if a ground of appeal has been established. An Adjudicator may not exercise their discretion and cancel or reduce a fixed penalty when mitigating circumstances and not a ground of appeal has been established. Mitigation is for the local authority. An Adjudicator is not permitted to mitigate a fixed penalty, a penalty fixed by law.
I have to find that t was entitled to issue the penalty notice. I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances.
A procedural impropriety is a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.
I am not persuaded that the local authority has failed to observe a requirement of the legislation.
In those circumstances, as I find that no ground of appeal
