My last case won:
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 2250001028
Appellant Imran Ali
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM LR66KNG
PCN Details
PCN LJ31339656
Contravention date 23 Oct 2024
Contravention time 21:10:00
Contravention location Kennington Oval
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. Phillip Morgan attended in person as the Appellant’s Authorised Representative. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to. Mr Morgan confirmed receipt of the Authority's evidence pack.
2. In his written representations, the Appellant raised a collateral challenge that the information on the Authority's website set out the wrong date for when the penalty charge would increase from the reduced charge to the full penalty charge. The Authority did not address this submission in its Notice of Rejection (NoR) and only referred to the signage.
3. In Mr Morgan's written submissions to the Tribunal, he submits that the NoR fails to consider the representations made and that the Authority's "online threats" are wrong in date details and unacceptable as found by several Adjudicators. Mr Morgan has provided three Adjudicator decisions with his representations, including one of my own. An Adjudicator is not bound by a decision of any other Adjudicator, including their own decisions, although they can be persuasive.
4. Mr Morgan has provided four screenshots from the Authority's portal:
(a) On 29 November 2024, it stated in a yellow box: "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increased to £130.00 on Mon 2 Dec 2024. Please pay £65.00 now". The issue date is 23 October, which is incorrect, as that is the date of the alleged contravention - the date of issue was when the PCN was sent, on 5 November 2024.
(b) On 7 and 16 February, it stated in a red box: "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increased to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now."
Mr Morgan told me that the Appellant was caused confusion by this, and submits that the Authority should not issue threats of this kind, or seek money that is not yet due, particularly when there is an appeal at the Tribunal.
5. The NoR was issued on 24 December 2024, and deemed served on 30 December (due to the bank holidays). The 28 day deadline by which the Appellant could pay the penalty charge, or appeal to the Tribunal was 26 January 2025. After this date, the Authority would be entitled to issue a Charge Certificate, increasing the penalty charge by 50% to £195, only if the Appellant had not appealed to the Tribunal or paid the penalty charge.
6. In this case, the Tribunal's records show that the Appellant filed his appeal in-time on 2 January 2025. The Authority was notified the following day on 3 January 2025. It is
therefore unclear why, and inaccurate for, the website to contain a statement informing the
Appellant on 7 and 16 February that the penalty charge "will" increase to £195 "very soon". The Authority was not entitled to issue a Charge Certificate after 3 January, as it was on
notice that an appeal had been lodged.
7. I accept the evidence provided by Mr Morgan as accurately showing the messages
displayed in relation to the Appellant's appeal on the Authority's portal
8. Mr Morgan's submissions were filed on 7 February. The Authority was notified that further evidence had been added. On 10 February, the Authority filed further evidence, however, it has not addressed Mr Morgan's submissions.
9. An Adjudicator is not bound by a decision of another Adjudicator, although it may be
persuasive. In this case, I agree with the reasoning of Adjudicator Houghton in 2240362722
and I adopt it in my decision. Adjudicator Houghton said:
"The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is
required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the
Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge. In addition, I agree with the
decision of my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited by the Appellant,
2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which he said that "it is not
open to the Enforcement Authority to seek any sum beyond the prescribed amount or any
amount at all whilst an appellant is appealing to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator."
10. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is therefore allowed.
