3. Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road  (Read 11341 times)

0 Members and 156 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #60 on: »
I submitted a hastily written appeal last night before midnight to get one in before the deadline covering all the points on here, including the bit about my contention on there being no signage about the event in the CPZ boundaries. With that said, am I still able to edit what I submitted?

Apologies for being flip-floppy, but what you have all brought up recently is actually quite a bit more compelling than what was discussed before. One of my issues around this PCN being issued, while not the main issue, was the fact that there was no photographic evidence included in the PCN which detailed the specific event. I wasn't aware until now that the council is obliged to have signage regarding the event on the CPZ boundaries.

It wouldn't exactly be hard for a council to take photograhps of these signs when they send people out to update them to be included in the evidence bundle of any PCNs being issued in relation to that event, so the fact that I am contending that there was no such signage, and the council is unable to provide evidence to the contrary - does this not mean my appeal should be allowed based on the case referenced by Stamfordman?

Also, I would appreciate everyone's opinion on the councils contention that they are not obliged to change the signage in the borough to reflect the various different events that may be taking place as all the signage in the borough is compliant with the Department of Transport's traffic signs regulations and general directions.

I find this to be a bit of a bullshit argument because to me, they are suggesting that the TSRGD says it is ok to use the term 'Match Day' to cover events. If my interpretation is correct, the TSRGD does no such thing. The only time the word 'Match' is mentioned in the TSRGD is to say the following;

Quote
5. The expressions “Match”, “match”, “Event”, “event”, “Market”, “market”, “Day”, “day”,
“On”, “on”, any of those expressions in the plural or the expression “Next” or that expression
without a capital letter may be used with any of the expressions permitted by paragraph 1, 2, 3 or
4 as appropriate.

All this is doing is setting out to the local authority what terms are acceptable to use on their signage. It is not stating that any one of the terms are interchangable with all of the others. If we were to accept Islington's interpretation of the TSRGD, they could place the term 'Market Day' on their signs next to local stadiums and use them to enforce parking restrictions during football matches, or put 'Match Day' on signs on roads next to Market Places.

The signage would be compliant with a literal interpretation of what is acceptable as set out by the TSRGD - but this surely wouldn't make any sense? Surely the Local Authority is expected to pick out which of the acceptable terms is most appropriate for what the signs are enforcing?

I'd appreciate the thoughts of anyone who is willing to offer an opinion, as what has been contributed recently makes it seem like this may actually be worth following through.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2025, 04:29:06 pm by wolzal »
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #61 on: »
You've appealed to London Tribunals?

All you had to do was register the appeal - there was no need to send anything at this stage.

One vital thing though is to put for a telephone or Microsoft Teams hearing.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #62 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on November 06, 2025, 04:42:43 pm
You've appealed to London Tribunals?

All you had to do was register the appeal - there was no need to send anything at this stage.

Yeah. I didn't realise that was an option, I did the full thing.

It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #63 on: »
It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.

Appears or have been given?

We have a long wait to receive their evidence to the Tribunal i.e. 7 days prior to 'a date in May'.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #64 on: »
Quote from: H C Andersen on November 06, 2025, 06:22:42 pm
It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.

Appears or have been given?

We have a long wait to receive their evidence to the Tribunal i.e. 7 days prior to 'a date in May'.

Didn't get an email update about it, but that's what it says when I logged in to their portal to see if I could edit what I had submitted.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #65 on: »
Case reference 2250451308
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LM15MZL

PCN Details
PCN IZ35588904
Contravention date 06 Jun 2025
Contravention time 18:41:00
Contravention location Roman Way
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a resident/shared use bay without a valid permit (Code 12).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that the signage in place is inadequate. The Appellant noted the general restrictions operating Monday to Friday and parked accordingly. The Appellant discounted the additional restrictions on a ‘Match Day’ as it was 6 June, and so outside of the football season.
4. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. A plan of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) area with the addition of ‘next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun’ added at the bottom has also been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘While the appellant states that the contravention occurred outside of football season, all drivers should be aware that much day restrictions can be implemented when there is a large crowd of people expected to attend the stadium. The controls that are put in place, are for events and not just matches. In this case clear signage had been placed to indicate to drivers that much day controls were in place.’
7. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
10. Based on the photographic evidence footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am further satisfied that if a contravention has occurred, it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
11. The question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this respect I note the signage at the relevant location refers to ‘Match day only – additional controls’. On balance, I consider a reasonably conscientious motorist would understand this to mean a football match, given the proximity to Arsenal Emirates. While I consider it might be argued that ‘event day’, incorporates a match, I am not persuaded that the reverse is true. On balance, I reject the EA’s argument that ‘match day’ reasonably incorporates ‘events and matches.’
12. I move to the EA’s point that it is the CPZ signage that is the primary source of information for a motorist, and that this is updated to show the next event day. In relation to the photograph of the signage provided, I note that underneath the CPZ circular icon, there are four additional information plates, each containing different restriction times and days. On balance, I find the addition of a small sign setting out the next match date, underneath three already dense information plates, to be inadequate to warn a reasonably conscientious motorist.
13. Further, the EA has provided no information as to the location of the CPZ in relation to where the Appellant’s vehicle is parked, or any evidence that the Appellant might have seen a CPZ sign in any event.
14. For the reasons outlined, on balance, I do not find the relevant signage to be substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
15. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
16. The appeal is allowed.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2026, 02:17:01 pm by stamfordman »
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #66 on: »
This is beautiful Stamfordman.

From memory, my hearing is in May - so I'll examine this in more detail closer to the date. But this fills me full of optimism!

EDIT: Am I able to contact the council directly now and say "you lost this appeal under the exact same circumstances - I would ask you reconsider whether you wish to pursue this?"

If not, how do I incorporate this into my appeal?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2026, 03:29:34 pm by wolzal »
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #67 on: »
You can write to them at any stage but I wouldn't bother.

Nearer the date you can bolster your appeal with cases.

-----------

Case reference 2250480306
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM BU65UVD
PCN Details
PCN IZ35689901
Contravention date 07 Jun 2025
Contravention time 16:11:00
Contravention location Berriman Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
The appellant attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform. The council did not attend the hearing, it not being expected to do so.

This vehicle on the council's case was parked in a resident's/shared use bay, to which an extended match day restriction applied, without valid cover.

It was undisputed that a concert, not a match, was taking place that day.

It seemed to me, on the basis of the written submissions made by the appellant on the point on appeal, that zone entry signage warning motorists that an extended match day restriction was in force, when the relevant day was not in fact a match day, failed to give a clear indication of that extended restriction.

The council's signage may well have been compliant, (disputed by the appellant), but it was not I found, for the reason given, sufficient to communicate this extended restriction to the appellant, and I was not accordingly satisfied that this contravention had been proved.

---------


Case reference 2250482414
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EX11WAU
PCN Details
PCN IZ35676251
Contravention date 07 Jun 2025
Contravention time 13:43:00
Contravention location Roman Way
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jan 2026
Adjudicator George Dodd
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
The Appellant was due to attend the hearing of the appeal via Teams, but she did not do so. The Authority were not due to attend or to be represented. The Tribunal notified the Appellant of the hearing in a letter dated 3 September 2025. Accordingly, I am satisfied that she was on notice of the hearing. I decided, in the interests of justice and to avoid further delay, to decide the appeal on a postal basis.


It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle parked in a resident permit holder only bay during prescribed hours without a valid permit on Roman Way on 17 June 2025 at 13:43. They rely in evidence on the CEO’s notes and their photographs of the vehicle and time plate. They have also produced a map showing the relevant Controlled Parking Zone and a photograph dated 3 June 2025 of an entrance sign to Roman Way.


The entrance sign states, “Match days only Additional controls Mon – Frid 6.30 -8.30 p.m. Saturday 1.30-4.30 p.m.”. At the bottom of the sign it states: “Next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun”. The time plate where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked provided the same information save that it omitted: “Next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun”.


The Authority have conceded that there was no match on the relevant date at the Emirates Stadium, but instead, a Robbie Williams concert. They say in their Case Summary: “The EA can advise that the match day restrictions apply to any large event held at the Emirates Stadium. This includes (but is not limited to) men’s and women’s matches, concerts, friendly matches and pre-season fixtures.”.


They maintain that, although the CPZ signs refer to “Match”, that is sufficient to describe non-match events and to put motorists on notice of such events. They say that the signs are updated a few days before each football match or event, but they do not confirm the date on which the signs were updated in this instance.


It is the Appellant’s case that, being aware, there were additional restrictions on match days, prior to parking, she checked online to ascertain whether there was an Arsenal home match on the relevant date and as there was not, she parked her vehicle. She maintains that the signage is misleading in that it refers to matches and does not refer to any other type of event.


A dictionary definition of a match is “a contest in which people or teams compete against each other in a particular sport”. A dictionary definition of a concert is “a musical performance given in public, typically by several performers or of several compositions”. They are two completely different types of events and therefore, to say that a match includes concerts is both incorrect and misleading. The signage should have referred to “Match/Event” or simply “Event”, which would have covered everything. I take the view that the signage in this case was unclear, ambiguous and misleading and therefore insufficient to put a motorist on notice of the restriction. Furthermore, as the Appellant had satisfied herself that there was no match on the relevant date, she would not have been prompted by the repeater sign to check a CPZ entrance sign. In all the above circumstances, I am not satisfied a contravention can be established and I allow the appeal.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2026, 03:01:15 pm by stamfordman »
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #68 on: »
Islington contacted me yestreday afternoon with their evidence pack submitted to the Tribunal. It's 129 pages long, so I've only skimmed through it to be honest. I can provide it to you if you would like to see it.

With that said, there are two key things in it.

They have provided photographs dated 03/06/2026 of entry signs showing the next match days being on Friday 6th and Saturday 7th June. Key points, they entry signs are only on Laycock street, one at the junction of Upper Street, and another at Liverpool Road. Again, I can't remember where I entered from, but this means if I approached Highbury Station Road from the North, they haven't provided evidence of Entry signs from that direction?

The other key thing is a recent adjudication they attached at the very end. It's quite worrying as the circumstances are near identical to mine.

What do you make of it?

XXXXXXXX

-v-
London Borough of Islington

(the Enforcement Authority)

XXXXXXXX appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number OU18MKA
Penalty Charge Notice IZ35663089
Full PCN Amount £ 160.00
Contravention Date 7th June 2025
Contravention Time 14:10
Contravention Location Sheringham Road
Contravention Parked in a resident/shared use place

without a valid permit
Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the appeal
against liability for the charge should be refused.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to:
London Borough of Islington
Islington Parking Services
PO Box 2019
PERSHORE
WR10 9BN
If you do not pay the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge certificate increasing the full penalty charge by
a further 50%.

An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils

Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes

Adjudicator's Reasons
The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked at 2.10pm on Saturday 07.06.25 in a residents or
shared-use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display
ticket issued for that place, or without payment of the parking charge. The Appellant does not in fact dispute
this but he argues the signage implies extra restrictions only when football matches take place whereas on this
occasion the event at the Emirates Stadium was a pop concert. He contrasts this with the expression 'event
days' as used by other Enforcement Authorities and has provided photographs of such signage. He says that he
knew it was outside the football season and had no reason to believe the extra restrictions applied. He has also
stated that he had a valid resident's permit. in his most recent correspondence he refers to a conversation
regarding the renewal of his permit with a representative of the Enforcement Authority but he mentions the
morning on which he received a PCN and it may be this correspondence relates to a different PCN.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle was parked in a shared-use bay in a controlled parking
zone in which the standard restrictions apply Monday-Saturday with the Saturday restrictions being 8.30am to
1.30pm but where there are extra restrictions on match days at Emirates Stadium. When a match day falls on a
Saturday the extra restrictions are 1.30pm-4pm. The next match day is not signed in individual bays but on
controlled parking zone entry point signage. The Enforcement Authority have provided evidence that
controlled parking zone signage was in place to indicate that 07.06.25 was a match day. I am satisfied the
signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
The Traffic Management Order includes the following definition:
"match day" where referred to in the map schedule legend in relation to the permitted hours, prescribed
hours, restricted hours or no stopping hours, as the case may be, of a parking place or loading place, or of a
length of waiting, loading or stopping restrictions, means a day on which an event is taking place or which is
planned to take place at the Arsenal FC Emirates Stadium, Hornsey Road, London N7 which: (a) under normal
circumstances, would have an expected attendance of 10,000 persons or more, not including any staff or
contractors engaged in either the operation or management of the aforementioned stadium or event; or (b) is
any other event at that stadium that the Council deem should be treated as though it were an event specified
in sub-paragraph (i) above for the purposes of the application of the provisions of this Order;
I am satisfied that 07.06.25 was a 'match day'. I am not satisfied the Appellant has established a reasonable
belief that the extra restrictions apply only to football match days.
The Appellant has not provided evidence of a permit which would have entitled him to park this vehicle at this
location at this time. He 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.

Michael Burke
Adjudicator
14th February 2026
2250538031
IZ35663089
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #69 on: »
Please to post up their 1-3 page summary of why they think the tribunal should reject yr appeal.

re their last minute quote of a previous case. One Adjudicator's decision does not bind another. IIRC Stamfordman has provided you with cases which support yr appeal.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #70 on: »
Adjudicator Burke is well known to pull the stops out for authorities although he has his soft side on occasion.

If you get him all is not lost as there are other cases, and I would put it to him how is a motorist at the road side suppossed to consult the traffic management order to check whether a match is not a match and what he would understand by the word match on the traffic sign. No doubt he'll default to the zone entry signs, which he is very fond of despite them not controlling parking bays.

Plus the start of Islington's Emirates parking page still starts:

Find out about additional parking restrictions on Arsenal home match days
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #71 on: »
The scummary of Islington's Case as requested:

XXXXXX v London Borough of Islington

Case Summary

XXXXXXXXXX (the appellant) has challenged the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that
a contravention has not occurred.

The enforcement authority’s case is that evidence submitted by civil enforcement officer (CEO)
IS2096 demonstrates that the appellant’s vehicle, WL62BZH, was parked in a pay phone bay
without payment for parking on 07 June 2025. The contravention occurred in Junction Road, N19
and the CEO issued the PCN at 12:16pm.

The CEO’s photographs (evidence C) show that the PCN was attached to the vehicle’s windscreen
and confirm that the vehicle was parked in a pay by phone bay. I can confirm that a valid Traffic
Management Order (TMO) is held for this location (evidence B).

The basis of the appellant’s appeal is that there was a concert taking place, not an Arsenal football
match on the material date and that they were unaware that additional restrictions were in force.
The enforcement authority can advise that the match day restrictions apply to any large event held
at the Emirates Stadium. This includes (but is not limited to) men’s and women’s matches, concerts,
friendly matches and pre-season fixtures. The Robbie Williams concert on 7 June 2025 was classed
as a large event and as such, additional controls were in force, as stated on the time plate for the
bay in which the vehicle was parked (evidence C).

Details of the actual dates that additional controls are in force are not included on every single time
plate due to the number of time plates involved but are included on the Controlled Parking Zone
(CPZ) signs (evidence J). The CPZ signage in the area is intended to be the primary source of
information for drivers regarding when the additional controls are next in force. These signs are
updated a few days before each football match or event to provide residents and drivers with
advance warning of the event taking place.

It is the responsibility of the driver to consult the CPZ signs for details on whether these additional
controls are in force at the time they wish to park. The appellant has not indicated their direction of
travel, however the enforcement authority has provided photos of the signage in place On Laycock
Street which is the closest entry point to where the appellant had parked. The CPZ sign clearly
shows that additional controls would be in force on 7 June 2025 (evidence J).

The appellant refers to the terminology used on the signage. The enforcement authority can confirm
that the signs used are designed in accordance with the Department of Transport's TSRGD (The
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) regulations and the enforcement authority
is satisfied that the signs used meet these standards. There is no requirement for the signage to
state what event is taking place on the date shown.

The enforcement authority would like to refer to a similar case which relates to a PCN issued on 07
June 2025 during the additional controls in place for the concert (2250535031 – evidence J). The
adjudicator refused the appeal and decided that the signage in place was clear and compliant. The
adjudicator referred to the TMO definition of match day in this refusal (evidence J).

Having reviewed the available evidence, the enforcement authority is satisfied the contravention
occurred and the PCN was issued correctly. There is no evidence to demonstrate that any
exemption applies in this instance. The appellant’s appeal relies on mitigation, however the force
and authority is not satisfied this presents sufficient reason on which to cancel the PCN.

I request that the adjudicator refuses the appeal. If the appeal is refused, Islington Council would
accept the discounted amount of £55.00 in settlement of this charge. This decision has been made
taking into account, that the appellant mentions that they were prepared to pay this PCN following
the Notice of Rejection, but were unable to do so.


Does the fact that in their case summary they got the time the PCN was issued wrong matter? (it was not issued at 12:16pm, I wasn't even parked there at that time).

They have also acknowledged themselves that I have not indicated my direction of travel into the road. I believe they have done this deliberately as they have only evidenced that there are entry signs visible if you approach the road from the south, but NOT if you have approached the road from the North.

Also, do I win any points on my previous point raised earlier in this thread that they state signs used are designed in accordance with the Department of Transport's TSRGD (The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) regulations and the enforcement authority is satisfied that the signs used meet these standards. Having read the TSRGD where the word match is concerned, all it says is what terms are acceptable. It makes no comment as to whether 'Match Day' is an acceptable term to use for events. Otherwise using their interpretation, 'Market days' on their signage would also be sufficient to use for events.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #72 on: »
Laycock Street is a dead end so referencing that as indicative of entry signage may not wash.

Also they look to have bunged in another case - as you say, wrong time and also wrong road - Junction Road. This is beyond careless although adjudicators can be forgiving of copy/paste errors.

This looks like it will depend on the adjudicator but if you draw their attention to allowed cases I think you should win. 

Another one, from yesterday!

--------------


Case reference   2250512537
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Islington
VRM   OY12HLK
PCN Details
PCN   IZ35653799
Contravention date   06 Jun 2025
Contravention time   18:41:00
Contravention location   Arthur Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date   -
Decision Date   13 Mar 2026
Adjudicator   Darminder Lehal
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

Reasons   
The appeal was decided as a personal appeal, the appellant attended via video conference. The Authority did not attend.

The appellant states he parked in Arthur Road on the 6th of June 2025, he checked the sign plate which showed the resident restriction ended at 1830 hrs, he therefore parked at 1840 hrs. The appellant states the signage also referred to match days with extended restrictions until 20:30 hours. The appellant checked online to confirm if it was a match day. The appellant checked the arsenal website which confirmed no women’s or men’s games were being played on the date.

The appellant states the signage does not refer to concerts or other non-football related events. The appellant states a reasonable person would interpret match days as relating to football matches not to any other such events and therefore he parked in good faith, he didn’t see any signage at the point of entry. The appellant states he parked lawfully in relation to the information that was available to him at the location. The appellant raises the CPZ images at Evidence J were taken on the 03.06.2025, he didn’t see the signs and the evidence is not sufficient to say the signs were still in place on the 06.06.25.

The Authority’s case is that the vehicle was observed parked in Arthur Road on the 6th of June of 2025 without a valid permit or voucher issued for the use as it was on a “match day”. The Authority rely on the traffic management order which is held for this restriction. The civil enforcement officer took photos of the contravention and nearby time plate. The Authority confirm an event was taking place at the stadium on the day in question and additional match day restrictions were in operation.

The authority state they’re not obliged to provide additional details of actual dates on every single time plate in the area due to the number of time plates. The authority say it is the Driver’s responsibility to check whether restrictions are in place at the time they intend to park before leaving their vehicle unattended. The Authority state that the appellants representations have been considered but they are not satisfied the reasons provided are compelling enough to cancel the penalty charge notice.

I’m satisfied that the appellant did carry out adequate checks to determine whether it was a match day before he left his vehicle unattended. The signage states match day and I find a reasonable person would consider the reference "match day", near the Emirates stadium which is a football stadium to refer to a football fixture. The appellant checked the Arsenal website which confirmed there were no men’s or women’s fixtures on that day. The authority have not provided evidence of the route the appellant took.

On balance, I am satisfied, with the information available to the appellant, he parked at the location in good faith, had conducted enquiries and established there were no matches on the day. Therefore, he was able to park at the location without the need for a permit or voucher.

It is on that basis, I allow the appeal.
Logged
Re: Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road
« Reply #73 on: »
Evidence J pl.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
« previous next »
  3. Islington, Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge, Highbury Station Road