Hi All,
Costs Application won.
Adjudicator's Reasons:
1. This is an application by the appellant for the costs of his appeal, which I heard on 24 March 2026 and allowed.
2. The Appellant subsequently applied for costs.
3. On 31 March 2026 the Authority was directed to file any submissions on the Appellant's costs application within 14 days. According to the Tribunal’s records the Authority has not submitted any views in relation to the costs application.
4. An Adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses but may, subject to representations from a party, make such an order if he/she is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or that his/her conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable. Costs must be costs and expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings-proceedings mean from the issue of the Notice of Rejection.
5. The Appellant submits that the Authority intentionally presented a Google Streetview image from December 2020 to try to prove compliant signage, when more recent images show it to be noncompliant. The Appellant submits that this was a deliberate act as the person who selected the image had to select a sub menu and then select the date in question from many both before and after images. The Appellant submits that it is not credible that this image was captured in error from Google Streetview. The Appellant comments that “it is hard to conceptualise any other motive for presenting this image than an attempt to mislead proceedings”. The appellant comments that the Authority did not clarify the date of the image or its source. The Appellant submits that presentation of the December 2020 image amounts to the presentation of false evidence, which is ‘wholly unreasonable” behaviour.
6. The Appellant also submits that the Authority’s conclusions in its Notice of Rejection were irrational. As the Authortiy submitted a case summary for a different case in the appeal, the Appellant submits that the Notice of Rejection should stand for the case summary. The Appellant submits that the Authority’s conclusion that he entered from a different direction due to the position of his vehicle is perverse. The Appellant had explained that he had turned around and parked with the direction of the traffic as required.
7. The Authority has not provided any explanation for why it used the December 2020 image.
8. I allowed the appeal because I found that the signage in place was not adequately visible or clear to put the Appellant on notice of the restriction. During the hearing, I found that the Appellant had demonstrated that the Authority’s image of the CPZ signage on Canterbury Street, at evidence tab 11, was not a photograph, rather it was a cropped screenshot from Google Street View dated December 2020, although the date of the image did not appear on the Authority’s image.
9. The Authority failed to consider the Appellant’s route, set out in his submissions, or photographic evidence as to the conditions of the signage during the appeal process. The Appellant has shown that the Authority intentionally selected photographs from years before the alleged contravention, in December 2020, to provide a misleading view of the signage in place at the time of the alleged contraventions and to discredit the Appellant’s photographic evidence. The Authority used the images from December 2020, instead of other Google images available from October 2022, May 2023 or October 2024, which showed the sign to be rotated and not clearly visible to motorists.
10. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that the Authority acted wholly unreasonably in producing this image and presenting it as a reflection of the signage in place either at the time of the alleged contravention or at the time of the appeal hearing. The Authority has not responded to the Appellant’s suggestion that it was deliberate attempt to mislead.
11. I have considered the Appellant's request, and my finding is that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to award the £72 costs sought, as set out under the heading “Costs claimed” attached to his application.
