Spotted these cases in Bromley from yesterday's tribunal.
Shows how some adjudicators are wise to this and that an appeal needs to be prepared for those who aren't.
The first allowed case is actually for signed bays; the second (refused by Mr Burke) I think is in one the unsigned bays as with the case in this thread.
------------
Case reference 2240567623
Authority London Borough of Bromley
Contravention date 04 Aug 2024
Contravention time 16:45:00
Contravention location Elmfield Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Decision Date 12 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard this appeal by telephone speaking to the driver Mr xxxxx.
His case is essentially that he parked in good faith and that there was no notice requiring him to park within the bay markings.
It is certainly, in my view, common sense that if a parking place is divided into parking places by white lines within the bay the motorist is expected to park within those lines. What else, after all, are they there to indicate? However the issue is whether the lines of themselves indicate that they are there not merely for guidance but that it is a legal requirement that vehicles park within them. Although it is not uncommon it is (and I speak from experience) by no means universally the case that Traffic Management Orders create such a legal requirement and it seems to me the motorist is entitled to be put on notice in a case where the particular TMO imposes such a requirement. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that it can be said the restriction relied on was sufficiently clearly indicated and the Appel is therefore allowed.
----------
Case reference 2240508511
Authority London Borough of Bromley
Contravention date 06 May 2024
Contravention time 13:38:00
Contravention location Murray Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Not parked correctly within markings of bay/space
Decision Date 12 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space. The Appellant does not dispute this but says that bushes and trees overhung the space making it impossible to park any closer to the kerb. They say that they needed to allow space at the passenger side to allow their 6 year old son who is autistic to alight. The Appellant asserts a number of failures by the Enforcement Authority in road maintenance.
The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer which show a clear example of the contravention with the vehicle proud of the lateral bay markings by something like 18ins to 2ft.
The photographs do show overhanging foliage. There may be merit in the Appellant’s criticisms. However, if for any reason there is insufficient space to fit the entire vehicle within the bay markings, then the bay is not available and the motorist must find an alternative place to park.
The Appellant has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
