Free Traffic Legal Advice

I cannot reconcile these elements of the decision with the OP's reps:(crossed with the preceding post)

'..the council was willing to accept Mr ****'s factual account of what happened'.

That account if I remember correctly was that the app informed the driver that payment was not required. I understand that this applied both before and after 8am.

'.. Mr **** did not make a reasonable effort to use the alternative means of payment, as advised on the payment machine.'

If the council accepted that the driver was informed that 'no payment was required' where does the requirement to pay come from, let alone how indicated on a payment machine?

How could any adjudicator reasonably make these findings in the context of the appellant's undisputed evidence, or wasn't this evidence as clear as I think?

If the council accepted that the driver was informed that 'no payment was required' where does the requirement to pay come from

The adjudicator appears to have taken the view that the requirement comes from the signage (and it was accepted that the signage required payment), and that having found that the app didn't work, the appellant should have attempted to pay by other means i.e. by calling the number provided.