Purley- TFL-PCN 46: Stopped where prohibited, O/S 9-11 Russell parade, Purley,

You were parked outside the Oregano Pizzeria, which (according to Royal Mail postcode checker) has an official address as follows:

The Oregano Pizzeria
10 Russell Parade
Russell Hill Road
Purley
CR8 2LE

Your PCN states the location as 9-11 Russell Parade Purley Road CR8.

In my view, the location on your PCN is incorrect as there is no Russell Parade on Purley Road.  Could an adjudicator rule that it's clear and unambiguous enough? Potentially yes.

It would probably help your case to show where Purley Road is (i.e. it's a distinct road which is a fair distance away).

Also, some examples of similar persuasive decisions where the appeal has been successful on the basis of a location which is close but not correct.

Here's one such which came to mind:

Case reference   2230349433
Appellant   Robert Nye
Authority   London Borough of Bromley
VRM   EX17 DAY
PCN Details
PCN   BY96091825
Contravention date   25 Apr 2023
Contravention time   13:08:00
Contravention location   High Street Bromley South
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date   -
Decision Date   22 Aug 2023
Adjudicator   Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons   
The Appellant attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today, 22nd July 2023, to explain his contention personally.

1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle entered and stopped on a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenges as comprehensively stated in his detailed written representations, which he reiterated at, and supported with photographic capture which he bought to, the Hearing.

3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.

4.The prohibition, as set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of) from becoming stationary or stopping within the cross-hatched area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
There is no requirement that the vehicle be causing an obstruction.
There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary part thereof is subject to contravention.

5. The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations and images.

6. The Appellant raised 6 issues in his Notice of Appeal, some of which were addressed by the Enforcement Authority in its Case Summary, and all of which were discussed at the Hearing. Since this is a matter of 'strict liability' although I have considered each of the Appellant's contentions, for the most-part they cannot impact on my determination.
However I register concern on reading the minutes of the Enforcement Authority's meeting of the Environment and Community Services Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee of Wednesday 9th September 2020, bought to my attention by the Appellant, which suggests revenue impacts on the siting of camera enforcement locations.

7. Whilst the evidence substantiates a contravention, I cannot be satisfied that the contravention as alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice is made out. The Appellant's pertinent point contends that the said vehicle was not at the location stated on the Penalty Charge Notice as such location does not exist; to identify the location the Appellant obtained the address of Bromley Police Station and provided Google Earth aerial images of the location which description corresponds with the Police Station address; namely a junction between an un-named access road and High Street, Bromley, Kent.

8. I therefore consulted the Master London Street Atlas and could find no entry for 'High St Bromley Sth.'

On balance, evidentially I cannot be satisfied that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.


And here's another case at the same location where a different adjudicator agreed the inclusion of the word "South" in the location meant it was sufficiently different from the true location to be unenforceable.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XdV0Z3MNrFFdUnrv04G_WngsMj-jSgKu/view

OP, can you think of any reason why your NOR took so long to arrive? Were you not at home, is there a difference in the addresses, are you actually the registered keeper and addressee?

Anyway, taking MrChips's approach, the shops variously describe themselves as Russell Hill Parade, Russell Road and Russell Hill Parade; Russell Hill etc.

The PCN says Russell Rd, Purley Rd.

Russell Road exists and is used as an address in various combinations.

On its own I'm not certain that it's a winner.

But the procedural improprieties are obvious.

The NOR fails to notify you of your mandated rights of appeal. It is the only document prescribed for this purpose, and it doesn't. It is also confusing.

If it were me, I would also add failure to consider your reps. Although you did not keep a copy of your these, TfL helpfully pulled out the point regarding addresses in their reply. The alpha and omega of their response was: we're right and you're wrong. No reasoning, no references to sources, just gainsaying your argument. 

Discount ends tomorrow.

OP, can you think of any reason why your NOR took so long to arrive? Were you not at home, is there a difference in the addresses, are you actually the registered keeper and addressee?

Anyway, taking MrChips's approach, the shops variously describe themselves as Russell Hill Parade, Russell Road and Russell Hill Parade; Russell Hill etc.

The PCN says Russell Rd, Purley Rd.

Russell Road exists and is used as an address in various combinations.

On its own I'm not certain that it's a winner.

But the procedural improprieties are obvious.

The NOR fails to notify you of your mandated rights of appeal. It is the only document prescribed for this purpose, and it doesn't. It is also confusing.

If it were me, I would also add failure to consider your reps. Although you did not keep a copy of your these, TfL helpfully pulled out the point regarding addresses in their reply. The alpha and omega of their response was: we're right and you're wrong. No reasoning, no references to sources, just gainsaying your argument. 
.


Discount ends tomorrow.

I can only think it was the bank holiday weekend that delayed it and nothing else. Previous letters did not face such delay. Address is correct and RK is my spouse.
I may need help highlighting the procedural impropriety as I'm a novice and it's not very obvious to me being my first PCN from TFL.
I'm planning to take some pictures from the street tomorrow to create an evidence pack

I did look at the addresses listed for the various shops from a google search and found a degree of inconsistency (in line with Tincombe's findings) - hence my reference to Royal Mail for a decisive view of what the true address should be.  Crucially, however, none detail themselves as being on Purley Road.

We can help your wife compile an appeal both in highlight terms when registered and in detail when it comes to a hearing(which would be online or by telephone). But only she can decide whether to appeal.

Thank you tincombe, do you suggest to get a signed document from her authorising to represent? She is not very familiar with the procedure and has asked me to help frame the appeal. I will be reviewing this with her before filing it.

Appeals are held online or by phone. In either case, as I understand it the registered keeper must be in attendance although another party may present the appeal. In which case, written authority isn't required: they can simply introduce you as their husband.


This is a two-step process: first register an appeal; then develop your arguments by submitting further representations.


IMO, as much of your appeal arises from post-formal reps issues, which of course won't be found in the reps themselves, then the authority won't be aware of their substance. IMO, when registering you should flag up the important aspects of the PIs to give the authority time to consider and rebut in their evidence.

When we go into detail you'll need to deal with a 'what if' scenario because the authority would probably rely upon this, so we'll shoot it down beforehand. I'm referring to their enclosure i.e. the Tribunal's information leaflet. IMO, this does not form part of the NOR. But..

If it does, then the NOR is not only defective, it's contradictory as well;
If it doesn't, then the NOR is 'only' defective!;

But at this stage her decision is whether to carry on or not. An appeal is against the full penalty.

Thank you all, having discussed the facts and the likely outcome, Mrs isn't ready to risk a £160 fine even though she thinks we have a good chance to win. Will have to take this as a lesson and be more careful in the future.
I learned a lot from the moderators and senior members here and personally I would have liked to carry on, however have to respect the decision of the RK.
Thank you all for your guidance and support this far.