Free Traffic Legal Advice

It looks as if you have gone for a decision on papers?
Any particular reason?
We usually advise strongly for a personal (=telephone or video call) hearing.

I wasn't aware I did or of it's significance/implication. What does that mean for me/my case?

It means you are more likely to lose ! A hearing allows the adjudicator to ask questions in case your reps aren't clear.

I've asked for a change to personal to be considered. Not holding out hope

I've asked - telphone, letter or e-mail? London Tribunals are usually obliging about requests to change type of hearing.

And as the authority are relying solely on the traffic sign, and as this has zero meaning off-street(and doesn't actually say 'park wholly within a bay or else..' anyway, then why aren't you more positive about the outcome.

You can always ring them to confirm (they don't bite!)  - you will also want to ensure the date and time fit with your diary.

Hi all,
I've got the tribunal teams call this Friday at 11:15.
First time I've done one of these so just wondering if there's any tips? I'll put together the points shared by you all and have uploaded extra evidence. If there's anything else you think I may be missing, please let me know.
Thanks in advance

Cheers @tincombe - i've added clearer pictures of the area, bays and parking signs. And the appeal info shown at the bottom... Let me know your thoughts/comments

Wide angle of parking spot:





Alternative to above showing the space empty, thoughts?:





Entrance to parking bays (no signs):



Only sign present:


Redundant historical signs:


Further information about the appeal: I am a permit holder for Wood Street North and on
the day in question was parked slightly outside the markings as can be seen in the
council's photos. The council have placed a 'traffic sign' adjacent to this area (see
Evidence A) which advises that only WSN resident permit holders may park. As the
area is not a road, and indeed the contravention regards the area as part of an off-road
car park, I submit that this sign is advisory only. The council's position is that it conveys
that in law and subject to being penalised with the rate prevailing for off-street car parks,
a motorist:
Must hold the specified permit (and presumably display etc.); and
Must park wholly within the markings; and
That failure to do either renders the motorist liable to the penalty in this case.
I submit that this sign on its own conveys none of the above, but that if the council
wishes to penalise motorists then it must bring these conditions of use of private land to
motorists' attention by erecting at every vehicle entrance a noticeboard which sets out
the Ts and Cs of use, that failure to comply might make an owner liable for a specified
penalty and in general how this would be recovered.
The council acknowledges that there are no such signs (as shown in the wide-angle site
photos + historical/redundant parking signs in Evidence B) and rely wholly upon a 'traffic
sign' prescribed for use under the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations for use on roads only
while acknowledging that the area is not a road.
I submit that not only is their position untenable, their continued resistance to my
representations meets the threshold for a costs award

Appeal Allowed - although on a technicality rather than acknowledging the lack of signage onsite.
Huge thanks for your support and getting me clued up on tribunal process

Introduction

This appeal was listed as a personal hearing, and the appellant attend the hearing via Teams, the Authority did not attend.

Appellants case

The appellant's case is they are a permit holder for Wood Street North and on the day in question they were parked slightly outside the bay marking in an off street parking facility. The appellant states the only sign at the location states "permit holders only" and does not convey motorists may be penalised if they park outside the bay markings nor are there any signs in the vicinity to instruct motorists of the conditions of use of the private land.

Authority's case

The Authority relies upon the evidence of the civil enforcement officer who states the appellants vehicle was parked incorrectly within the markings of a bay or space. The Authority states the location of the contravention is off street and they have authority to enforce the location.

The Authority state the off-street parking regulation is enforce under the Traffic Management Order.

Findings of Fact

The burden of proof rests with the authority to satisfy me that a contravention has occurred, this includes establishing a prima facia case, including the existence of terms and conditions of the restriction relied upon.

The Authority states the parking regulation is enforced under the Traffic Management order, that requires the Authority to provide the full TMO and signpost the relevant section for the Adjudicator. The Authority have provided 2 TMOs and failed to identify the relevant section in the TMO, this is insufficient. The Adjudicator is not required to undertake their own investigation to locate the statutory restriction. I have considered the TMO and it is not clear to me where the Authority have authorisation to enforce the contravention in the TMO. On balance, I cannot be satisfied the contravention occurred.

I therefore allow the appeal.