Free Traffic Legal Advice

ive also found these previous cases

-   
•   2240406329 – Appeal allowed where brief absence to escort a child was accepted under the boarding/alighting exemption.
•   2240435225 – Tribunal rejected Harrow’s view that assisting a child before boarding nullified the exemption.
•   2240372023 – Disabled passenger escorted into a hotel; exemption upheld despite Harrow’s refusal to recognise it.
•   2030235349 – Assisting a wheelchair user into a bank ruled exempt; council incorrectly focused on loading.


not sure if those will add any weight to a cost order

I said it is a high bar.

You could add that Harrow knows your father is disabled and has a BB and also behaved unreasonably with the BB mishap as well as ignoring the exemption and appears not to have taken the case on its merits and has acted unreasonably in past cases.

There is no hearing - you just ask for costs. But you have to do this as soon as possible and not weeks later.

This has wended its way to a refused cost award. I think the costs should have been made because Harrow was well aware of the situation. 

And yes you can attend a costs hearing - I got that wrong.

----------

Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 20 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Decision Cost award refused
Direction -
Reasons
1.The Appellant is making a costs application in respect of an appeal which I allowed on 18th July 2025. The Appellant attended that hearing, and also attended the costs application today. The Council has not attended and has not made any representations in respect of this application.

2.The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993 set out that: 12(1) An adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to subparagraph (2) make such an order –(a) against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed) if he is of the opinion that that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or(b) against an enforcement authority where he considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable (2) An order shall not be made under subparagraph (1) against a party unless that party has been given an opportunity of making representations against the making of the order. Costs orders are made sparingly, and the test is a high one.

3.I allowed this appeal on the basis, having heard the Appellant’s oral evidence, that I was satisfied that the exemption to the contravention, set out in Article 11 of the relevant Order, had been satisfied. This exemption creates an exemption in circumstances where a vehicle is waiting, "for so long as may be necessary to enable that person to board or alight from the vehicle or load thereon or unload therefrom their personal luggage”. The Council did not seek to challenge this decision by way of review/judicial review.

4.The Appellant from the outset had raised the issue of an exemption within her online representations and also provided detailed medical evidence relating to her father, who was the person being assisted at the relevant time.
In correspondence dated 28th October 2024, the Council did not respond to the issue of the exemption. In its Notice of Rejection, dated 21st January 2025, it also did not address the issue of any exemption, as raised by the appellant.

5.Prior to its Case Summary, the EA at no stage responded to the Appellant’s reliance upon an exemption. Within its Case Summary it contends that “in order for the boarding/alighting exemption to apply activity mut be seen taking place”. This is not a strict reflection of the relevant Article, but rather, appears to be a somewhat clumsy attempt to indicate that, if no exempted activity is observed, it is unlikely that a council will conclude that the activity is taking place. However, it was not correct to say that the exemption may only be established when there is observation of the exempted activity. I indeed concluded that the exemption had been established, notwithstanding the CEO’s evidence but having heard and accepted the Appellant’s detailed oral evidence.

6.I accept that the preparation of this appeal was onerous for the Appellant. The fact that, until the Case Summary was drafted, no acknowledgment was made of her reliance upon an exemption, was extremely unhelpful and adds fuel to the Appellant’s contention that the Council dealt with this case incompetently. It was unclear, within the Council’s correspondence, as to whether the Council was a) unaware of the exemption contained within its own Order, b) had not properly considered any exemption, or c) had considered it and decided it was inapplicable. In any event, its position was unclear until the filing of the Case Summary and its dealings with this case were unimpressive.

7.However, notwithstanding these deficiencies, I have to apply the strict legal test. In light of the fact that no exempted activity was observed, I find that the Council’s refusal of the appeal and subsequent resisting of the tribunal appeal was not wholly unreasonable, and that the Council’s behaviour falls short of being frivolous or vexatious.

8.I must therefore decline to make a costs order in this case.