Free Traffic Legal Advice

Case Reference   Date Registered   Surname   Forename   PCN   PCN Location   Latest Outcome Date   Outcome
2160068174   15/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen      BZ96258994   -    14/03/2016   Appeal allowed
2160067251   10/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen   m   BZ96250245   Waldegrave Rd   14/03/2016   refused
2160067411   15/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen      BZ96266675   Waldegrave Road   14/03/2016   refused
2160068108   15/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen      BZ96261795   -    14/03/2016   Appeal allowed
2160067309   10/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen      BZ96250460   -    16/02/2016   Appeal allowed
2160068436   15/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen      BZ96259454   -    14/03/2016   Appeal allowed
2160067331   10/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen           BZ96251521   -    16/02/2016   Appeal allowed
2160067273   10/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen   -    BZ9625053A   -    16/02/2016   Appeal allowed
2160067375   10/02/2016   Chiu   Doreen   -    BZ96251066   -    16/02/2016   Appeal allowed
2160068254   04/04/2016   Chiu   Doreen   -    BZ96258837   -    11/04/2016   Appeal allowed
      row(s) 1 - 10 of 10      

I consider I have however a duty in cases where there are cumulative penalties for the same, effectively a continuous contravention, to have regard to a general principle that the total demand for penalties should not be exorbitant.

The Council may not have been at fault in issuing three separate penalty charges for Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday that is to say three consecutive days.
What I think has been unfortunate is that the Council has not really responded to the main point which is for the cases to be met by a single penalty charge.
I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.
In the present case the Council has not really dealt with this multiple aspect of the charges.
I consider the correct response taking all in all is for me to uphold the penalty charge of £130 solely in respect of Thursday 13 March (the Adjudicator at the adjudication stage is not able to reset the initial discount).
I am allowing the appeals arising from penalty charges incurred by mistakes on the two previous days.

I intend to record here what I wrote following the attendance in person of the appellant.

"I heard in person from the appellant in connection with this appeal and have corresponded thereafter with the Council in the case, principally with regard to the quantum of cumulative penalty charges.

It is now established that there are solely four outstanding penalty charges, all essentially similar, and these arise from occurrences on consecutive days.

The appellant was fundamentally mistaken in any belief that residency or indeed a resident permit permitted him to override the prohibition that was indicated by a pair of posts bearing signage prohibiting vehicular entry at times, times when the his car was recorded passing them.

The appellant has been fundamentally mistaken in believing that I would be entitled to overturn the penalty charge because of the extended time/inconvenience issues involved in selecting another route or indeed the extent of CO2 or toxic emissions that his and other vehicles might create by selecting another route.

I am not persuaded issues regarding the positioning of the posted signage and the design of the signs justify any cancellation of the four penalty charges sought from the appellant and which are today pending my adjudication. I am satisfied that on four occasions reported the alleged contravention occurred. I consider the signs and their import obvious to an alert and experienced driver.

The Council has in the correspondence it has conducted since the hearing, one attended by the appellant but no Council representative, described how warnings were dispatched by post to the DVLA registered address for the vehicle. I have noted that the Council appears reluctant to reduce the penalty charges sought, either by number or amount in this case. It references the warnings described as part of its justification for persisting in its pursuit of four penalty charges. Despite any warnings despatched I remain of the opinion that there is very substantial mitigation, that is to say fair reason to mitigate the financial extent of the cumulative penalties.

It seems to me that in seeking to pursue four full penalty charges for repeated instances on consecutive days totalling £520 the Council is being rigid in a manner which I continue to view and indeed condemn as exceptionally harsh and on that account wrong.

I am pleased to say that in the document entitled Adjournment Evidence Form the Council an officer corresponding with the Tribunal on the Council's behalf has written that it will give due careful consideration to recommendations that I make.

Being currently satisfied that the contraventions did occur on each of the four days I currently consider I shall in the absence of additional submissions be obliged to record the appeals as refused.

Had these proceedings been brought under the Traffic Management Act 2004 I would have very probably decided to have issued formal recommendations urging the Council to cancel the second and third in the sequence of four.

I do not consider that I have legal powers to direct the cancellation of that pair nor do I have powers to make formal recommendations given this is not a Traffic Management Act 2004 case.

I am encouraging the Council to consider carefully and again mitigating the £520 indicated as sought. In view of the Council remarks about recommendations I shall await its reply on these before giving any final ruling in this case."

I shall also record that since writing the above the Council on 15 January notified me that it was agreeable to re-offering the discount so that each of the four outstanding penalty charges could be settled by the appellant at the rate of £65 each.

As I am satisfied the Council has proved its case and the contraventions under appeal did occur. I have now concluded the adjudications as pending before me. I have recorded the penalty charges for the appeals in the Tribunal register as £65.

It will be sensible therefore for the appellant to now pay the outstanding penalty charges at the £65 at level as sought by the Council and to do so promptly (28 days).

I am unable to assist the appellant with the total cancellation of penalty charges. In my ruling the total penalty charges as now sought is not demonstrably exorbitant given the repetition of what occurred and I have concluded the adjudication accordingly.
Authority Response    Recommendation not accepted due to

Thanks, but I’m satisfied that the individual notices are in order and prefer not to publish my car registration here. Your assistance is much appreciated and I will post back if I am successful in requesting that they exercise their discretion to cancel some of the fines.