Case won on basis of permission as it was bound to do IMO.
-------------------
2240384408
The Appellant did not attend the hearing of the appeal, but Mr H attended in person as her Authorised Representative. He was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. The Authority did not and were not due to attend the hearing or to be represented.
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s was parked adjacent to a dropped footway on the 31 March 2024 on Shelley Avenue. They rely in evidence on the CEO’s notes and their photographs of the vehicle.
Mr H does not dispute the fact that he had parked adjacent to a dropped footway. It is his case that he had the consent of the occupier of the residential premises outside of which vehicle was parked. He explained that he lives in Shelley Avenue and parking places can be scarce and on the evening of 30 March 2024, the only space available was adjacent to a driveway to a residential property. Accordingly, he spoke to the occupier of that property, and he consented to Mr H parking adjacent to his driveway overnight. Mr H gave the occupier his number so he could call him if it was necessary for him to move his vehicle. Mr H has produced a letter from the occupier, a Mr K, which confirms “that Mr H had my consent to park in front of my drive entrance on this occasion”.
Mr H confirmed that he did not pay Mr K to park and he also confirmed that the driveway was not a shared one.
One of the statutory exemptions to the said contravention is where “the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises. This exemption does not apply in the case of a shared driveway”.
I found Mr H to be a reliable and credible witness, and I accept his evidence and the evidence contained in the said letter from Mr K. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the said exemption applies in this case, and I allow the appeal.
