Cases have been won on incorrect location. As stated, whole PCN please as there may well be a flaw.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2140200836
Appellant Kevin Rudd
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM LD07YNO
PCN Details
PCN KT5656096A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2014
Contravention time 08:37:00
Contravention location Wheatfield Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 19 Jun 2014
Adjudicator Anthony Chan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant attended the hearing in person accompanied by his representative Mr Herbert. The Authority was not represented.
Mr Herbert submitted that the PCN specified the location of the contravention as a box junction at the junction of Wheatfield Way and Clarence Street but there is no such junction. This point was not raised at the Notice of Appeal stage. They were made in correspondence received by the Tribunal on 16 June. Mr Herbert said that the identical bundle had been sent to the Authority at the same time.
If the Authority had received these submissions on or about 16 June, and I find on a balance of probabilities that it had, it should be in a position to deal with it by the hearing today, or seek an adjournment if necessary. The point is not a new one. It was argued in Newman v Kingston upon Thames (PATAS case no. 2140111099) where the Adjudicator upheld the appeal. The Appellant in that case had provided a detailed set of evidence including photographs to show that there was no box junction at the specific location and the Authority had not responded in that appeal either.
I am not bound by another Adjudicator's decision but I find it persuasive, especially when the Authority had been given the opportunity to deal with it in that appeal as well as the instant appeal but chose not to respond on either occasion.
I do not find that the contravention as stated in the PCN occurred. The appeal is allowed.
************************
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2140111099
Appellant Pamela Mary Newman
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM R26UKX
PCN Details
PCN KT56445575
Contravention date 11 Dec 2013
Contravention time 09:43:00
Contravention location Wheatfield Way j/w Clarence Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Apr 2014
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mrs Newman has appeared in person.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited at the stated location of Wheatfield Way: Junction with Clarence Street.
Mrs Newman has produced a very detailed evidence pack which she tells me was served by hand to the Council on 26 March 2014 and which was provided to PATAS on the same date. This evidence is not responded to by the Council.
Mrs Newman's evidence pack includes street maps and google images which satisfy me that the box junction in which Mrs Newman's car was observed was the box junction in Clarence Street which lies beyond the end of Wheatfield Way. There is a separate box junction in Wheatfield Way but that is clearly not the box in which the car was observed. I am satisfied from the evidence produced that the PCN was issued for the wrong location and that there is in fact no box at the stated location.
I also find that the CCTV footage incorrectly cites the location of the alleged contravention as 21 Clarence Street. Mrs Newman has conducted a site inspection and she tells me that the Ladbrokes shop and the Skindeep store which can be seen next to the box are respectively 143 and 145 Clarence Street.
The Council says that the box in which Mrs Newman's car was observed, which I shall call the Clarence Street box, complies with Diagram 1044.1 of The Traffic Signs (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations and General Directions 2011 for the placing of a box on an area of carriageway at a gyratory system or roundabout. The Clarence Street box is clearly not on a roundabout and I have seen no evidence that it is on an area of carriageway at a gyratory system. As far as I can see, the box is therefore not compliant with the requirements for a box junction as shown in the Diagrams in Schedule 6 to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
I find for these three reasons that the alleged contravention did not occur.
