I was the representative.

And cp8759 and a few others observed too. A nice day for all. But not all adjudicators have to follow it. And this will be their response.
It really is important to lead with the most crucial point because the Halton High Court case says they do not need to consider all points.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdfRoadworks decision won by The Wizard:
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 2240295228
Appellant Ricardo Bowden
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM R111 KBO
Decision Cost award allowed
PCN Details
PCN PN75145284
Contravention date 07 May 2024
Contravention time 09:22:00
Contravention location Barking Road / St. Bartholomews Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Council has indicated that the Appeal is no longer contested.
Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 02 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Decision Cost award allowed
Direction -
Reasons
This is an application by Mr Murray-Smith on behalf of the Appellant for costs, following the allowing of the Appeal on the 15th October 2024. After adjourning the hearing of the Appeal to give the Council the (further) opportunity to explain the traffic management purpose being served by the presence of the box junction markings when the cones were in place the Council indicated that the Appeal was no longer resisted. It wrote to the Appellant stating that the PCN should not have been issued.
The grounds of the application are clearly set out by Mr Murray-Smith in his written application of the 24th October, and these were the grounds put forward with some amplification on a telephone hearing on the 18th December 2024 following which I reserved my decision. No representations in response have been received from the Council but I am proceeding on the basis that the claim would be resisted.
It seems to me that the issue to be decided is whether the Council’s decision to reject the representations and/or the decision (initially) to resist the Appeal can be categorised as “wholly unreasonable” (I do not consider that this is a case where the Council could be said to have acted frivolously or vexatiously).
The representations were in the following terms:-
“The footage shows that the road was blocked-off due to cones across the carriageway, such that traffic could not turn right from Barking Road into 1 St. Bartholomews Road. As St. Bartholomews Road is a one-way road, no traffic could emerge from that road onto Barking Road, so at the material time the box markings served no purpose whatsoever and did not therefore fulfil their statutory purpose. It follows that the penalty charge should be cancelled”
The Council’s rejection notice, although quoting the representations, shows no sign that this issue was actually considered at all. It contains what are clearly a number of pro-forma paragraphs relating to box junctions generally, but the effect of the roadworks and the possible effect on the statutory purpose was not mentioned.
These representations were adopted as the initial grounds of appeal. The Council resisted the Appeal at that stage but out of nine points raised in response only one dealt in any way with the grounds relied on. The Council stated “ Roadworks does not stop the enforcement of box junction unless signs are present. In this instance no signs was (sic) present.
Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that although the original representation did not contain the level of legal detail subsequently provided by Mr Murray -Smith in his skeleton argument of the 30th August, the essential point was made clearly enough and, in my judgement, demanded either an acceptance by the Council or some reasoned argument why the statutory purpose was fulfilled despite the presence of the cones. Rejecting the representations whilst maintaining silence on the matter was in my view a wholly unreasonable course to take. Likewise resisting the Appeal with only the most cursory (and in context incorrect) reference to the point, which the Council had by that stage ample time to consider was also wholly unreasonable.
I therefore find that the criteria allowing the making an order for costs are made out and I can see no good reason why such an order should not be made. The amount claimed, £84, seems to me to be reasonable and proportionate to the amount at stake in these proceedings and I make the order as requested.