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 2240531841
Appellant Elvis Alberto Nunez Paniagua
Authority Transport for London
VRM EA18ZTH
PCN Details
PCN GX16580176
Contravention date 03 Jul 2024
Contravention time 04:57:03
Contravention location A23 LONDON ROAD SW16 N-BND TO STREATHAM H RD
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date -
Decision Date 13 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Nunez Paniagua who took part in the hearing by phone, was represented by Mr Morgan. The Authority did not attend and was not represented.
On 6 January 2025 Mr Morgan wrote ‘Having spoken with my client this evening, he has not received any evidence pack from TFL. Therefore, I ask that the appeal be allowed as provided at Schedule 1, para. 7(6): (6)Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days
before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.’
The pre appeal representations read ‘ I was in a job as Private Hire Driver however as per TFL guidelines PHVs can also cross bus lanes to gain access to the kerbside to pick up or drop off passengers, but must leave the bus lane straight away. passenger request an stop at the area mentioned’.
The authority provided the Tribunal with evidence in support of its decision.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enactedprovides that’ Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above makes a document admissible as evidence in proceedings under paragraph 6 above unless a copy of it has not less than 7 days before the hearing, been served on the appellant; and nothing in those paragraphs makes a document admissible as evidence of anything other than the matters shown on a record produced by a prescribed device if that person, not less than three days before the hearing or within such further time as the traffic adjudicator may in special circumstances allow, serves a notice on the council requiring attendance at the hearing or trial of the person who signed the document.’
The Authority Summary , received by the Tribunal is dated 7 January 2025.
Mr Nunez Paniagua credibly explained that he had received no evidence from the Authority in respect of the appeal.
I find that the Authority did not comply with its obligations under the Act in respect of service of evidence and cannot rely on its evidence in this appeal. The Authority has not established that the alleged contravention occurred.
The appeal is allowed.
