Re: PCNs: CR18869039, CR18892314, CR18892176, CR18958503
I appeal the above PCNs on the basis of the following reasons.
That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
I am a resident within the school street, and I received no notice at all in regard to the restriction being in place.
Furthermore, there was no advanced warning sign except when a driver passes the junction, and it too late. Again, it is state on the Croydon site the following:
There is absolutely no opportunity to take an alternative route once the driver has entered into junction.
Furthermore, this route has been taken by me on weekday morning school runs and even leading up to the enforcement of the healthy school street scheme, there was never any indication any restriction was going to take place.
There is no advance warning sign when turning into Stroud Green Way from Long Lane, then continuing right onto Stroud Green Way.
Please see signage and this is the ONLY one, so there is no advanced warning beforehand.
Finally, in regard to this point, the **** of such signage, along with the restrictions were not conveyed to the residents whom live within the restricted school area.
The signage is at the Junction of the contravention, there is NO earlier warning on Stroud Green Way as vehicles enter from Long Lane. Furthermore, this is very recent restriction, considering I have been using this route for the past 6 years.
Continuing Contravention
The above PCNs were sent sequentially, however I was not aware of the initial PCN. Thus it would be deemed disproportionate to punish multiple times, as the driver was not aware.
I would like to draw the councils attention to the following case:
2160273606
The appellant does not deny the contravention but states that he was travelling to Highgate hospital and was a stranger to the area and made the same mistake twice in one day as a consequence of which he received two PCN's
I am satisfied form the evidence that the contravention did occur. However I also find that as the there is a time lag in issuing a PCN by post, a motorist can unwittingly continue to make the same mistake until they receive notification of the PCN and in these circumstances I find the second PCN issued to be a continuing contravention and allow the appeal in relation to the second PCN under case number 2160273606 but refuse the first PCN issued under case number 2160273661
I would also like to draw attention to the following case
2170368185
The appellant told me when attending on 14 September explained that it was dark when he had mistakenly parked in a business bay near to where he lived. He said that he was concentrating on the zone letter and omitted focussing on the crucial word "business" element in the signage.
I understood that he had been issued with nine penalty charge notices. The explanation for the repetition was absence on business abroad,
The appellant told me that of the nine he had paid one and paid this at the discounted rate.
Administrative cancellations had resulted in there being now only three penalty charges outstanding and it was these that were under appeal to me.
The appellant has effectively accepted responsibility for the mistake he made.
The issues which have the focus of the Tribunal are those of quantum and the appellant argument that the contravention should be regarded as a "continuing offence" for which only a single penalty charge can legitimately be sought.
I mentioned during the course of the hearing that the "continuing offence" argument might be taken as failing as there were times in the day when the public at large could lawfully park in the bay.
More importantly I indicated that daily penalty charges were generally seen as legally unobjectionable in this Tribunal although adjudicators could on occasion be persuaded in their discretion that a single penalty charge alone was appropriate on account of there being but a "single driver mistake".
I decided against ruling for cancellation on the basis of "continuing offence" arguments presented.
I was more impressed by appellant arguments about the quantum of the combined penalty charges sought being excessive.
A starting benchmark is the regard I have for the financial consequences of impounding had the Council proceeded down that route as opposed to successive daily penalty charges.
Impounding would have cost £265 without daily storage charges. Some or all of daily storage charges are frequently waived where there is genuine explanation of absence abroad. This Tribunal regularly sees that as reasonable.
The Council has not persuaded me that there is sufficient justification for a further payment as high as £390.
The factors I have described have resulted in me upholding only the first and last of the three penalty charges under appeal.
The consequence is that the appellant must now pay £260 within 28 days to avoid further escalation.
In total, there are 8 PCNs and it is grossly and disproportionately to pay them all, when I was not even aware of the first one.
Thank you,
Best wishes,
They sent the 4 PCNs, but no way to make an appeal, as they took the appeal on the first basis.
The above should be emailed in this case?
Also, they have provided no tribunal referral code on any of them.
