This should have been won on the camera issues at the time; but, we threw everything at it.
In the OP's case they have failed to consider 50%.
*****************
Case Details
Case reference 2230075597
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date 02 Oct 2022
Contravention time 11:21:00
Contravention location Kennington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date
Decision Date 23 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons
The hearing appointed for 23 February was in a sense "hybrid" as the Council's representative Mr Charles presented the Council case by telephone on speaker whereas Mr the appellant accompanied by his representative Mr Morgan were face to face with the Adjudicator.
The appellant representations against the enforcement notice were handwritten and in substance read "You have failed to engage the substance of my initial challenge. The camera has been ruled upon by Mr Carl Teper to have no Home Office Type Approval and costs have been awarded. Evidence is inadmissible please do not waste mine and your time or that of a Tribunal. The PM has been clear a fine should not be issued for instances of bus lane on first time. Your signage was unclear and the rules only recently changed for motorbikes. This was unclear. Mr Stanton Dunne's decision in Davy Duthiew v. London Borough of Ealing No 2220486482 corroborates all previous decisions made by several senior adjudicators concerning the issue of Home Office Type Approval."
Mr addressed me during the hearing regarding the adequacy of the Council's response to those representations that is to say its notice of rejection dated 29 December 2022. In my view that notice of rejection fairly summarised information relevant to signage. Importantly in my view in respect of admissibility and approval of equipment it however effectively said nothing.
Mr Charles correctly pointed out the letter began by stating "We have carefully considered what you say but have decided not cancel your Penalty Charge Notice". There is also a passage in the notice of rejection about the motorist's comments being noted but not warranting cancellation. "Umbrella" phrases, stock phrase examples, do not necessarily invalidate a notice of rejection but there is a need for something else as well to show particular representations have actually been considered, not just repetition of stock phrases.
Adjudicators in this tribunal frequently and correctly comment that notices of rejection need not cover each and every point made in representations. What is required is something showing that at least major representations amongst what a motorist has written have been duly considered. Length in dealing with major aspects of representations may not be required. Sufficiency in this context is generally viewed by Adjudicators as a matter of fact and degree.
The notice of rejection in this case is in my decision so incomplete a response to readily identified major issues raised that it does not illustrate or correspond in a demonstrable way with the Council's legal duty to consider representations received.
I have decided to allow the appeal on that sole point.
I am making no findings in relation to primary facts in this case or for that matter ruling on equipment used by the Council in connection with it.
Authority Response
