Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Rumtruffle on September 13, 2024, 07:29:19 pm
-
Not the same case but good result on same circumstances.
But what happened with the live case - paid or appealed? Sorry to have dropped the ball on this.
---------
Case reference 2250377329
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM E025NNL
PCN Details
PCN FR65512140
Contravention date 16 May 2025
Contravention time 15:11:00
Contravention location Addison Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Nov 2025
Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mrs xxxxx appeals on the basis that she entered the restricted area before the time that it commenced, attended a doctor's appointment, and then drove out of the area, exiting it at the point she had come in, at the junction of Addison Road and Shernhall Street. She has provided confirmation of the doctor’s appointment at 2:40 p.m. The restriction commences at 3 p.m.
The video shows that Mrs xxxxx entered the restricted area by turning left out of Ravenswood Road. She had therefore been in the restricted area, and the fact that she did not receive a second penalty charge notice confirms that she entered the area before 3 p.m. She therefore exited the restricted area for perhaps 10 seconds before re-entering it. She states that she was unaware of having exited and re-entered, and so it is necessary for me to consider whether she was given adequate warning by the signage.
It is possible to see the back of the entry point signage in the video. It is angled to be visible to drivers as they approach the area straight on, from the other part of Addison Road. The signage would have been side-on as Mrs xxxx approached it. The council has only produced a map showing the extent of the restriction, and the location of signage which should be in place. I have seen no actual photographs of the signage. I have therefore not seen a photograph showing what Mrs xxxxx would have seen when proceeding down Ravenswood Road.
It is likely that the restricted area stops and starts in that short section of Ravenswood Road/Addison Road because of the need to allow access to premises at the bottom of Ravenswood Road. However, that arrangement might not be expected or apparent to drivers without adequately clear signage, and I have seen nothing more than the map which suggests that signage may be in place. I am also not satisfied, from the evidence before me, that the side-on view of the entry point signage was adequately clear from the direction which Mrs xxxxx approached.
On the evidence before me, therefore, I am not satisfied that contravention occurred. This appeal is allowed.
-
That is weird. I updated the file on Google drive and the link now shows blacked out address to me. Not sure what else to do
-
I'v deleted name and address but your original post still has it.
(https://i.ibb.co/L6L11yW/IMG-6234.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/NCtnfg7/IMG-6235.png)
-
hi @stamfordman - just realised I left my address on the rejection letter. Is there a way you can remove the image above? I've updated the version on my google drive now ... doh
-
Wait a bit for others to look before paying.
To reiterate - the rejection just says reps were considered but that's just template.
-
Thanks everyone. I think I should maybe just pay this one as I'm relying on mitigating circumstances which are excluded and none of the accepted grounds apply (I don't fancy trying to argue the one about the penalty charge exceeding the amount applicable in the circumstances).
I found the acts on the Tribunals website - interesting reading. I've downloaded them for future.
-
It was the Traffic Management Act 2004 that introduced the appeal grounds of "procedural impropriety".
Before that Act, appeals based on what is called a "collateral challenge" under the previous Act used "the penalty exceeded...in the circumstances of the case" because there is no definition of what those circumstances could be and failure by the enforcing authority to carry out the process as defined in law comes under that clause. The only circumstance that doesn't is mitigating circumstances, because the High Court held that adjudicators could not allow mitigation to affect their decisions.
Unfortunately, London councils still use older, London-specific Acts that don't have procedural impropriety as one of the statutory grounds, but they do include the "circumstances" grounds. Frankly, the old London Acts should be swept away, and the TMA 2004 used for all traffic and parking contraventions. But we have a supine government as we all know.
-
Yes you're right - probably by mistake procedural impropriety doesn't appear in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 but The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case is the one taken to include such failures. In any case an authority can't escape its duty to act fairly etc.
-
argh. Took another look at the Tribunals page itself and it is not listed as grounds for appeal there either. I must have looked at the wrong section before as it is grounds under Parking but not under Moving Traffic.
-
Sorry - further question. I'm just looking at the form itself (if I appeal) and the form does not contain the grounds for appeal listed above of "there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enformcement authority". It only allows me to choose:
- contravention did not occur
- vehicle was in the control of someone without my permission
- hire firm
- not the owner at the time
- penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the case
So I am unsure how I could even try to appeal?
-
Ah thank you! So should I try to appeal?
-
Indeed. Failure to consider falls under procedural impropriety.
Variously:
Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.
------
The process of considering challenges, representations and defence of appeals is a legal process that requires officers dealing with these aspects to be trained in the relevant legislation and how to apply it. They should be well versed in the collection, interpretation and consideration of the evidence, writing clear but concise case-specific responses to challenges, enquiries and representations, presenting the authority’s case to adjudicators.
--------
The authority should give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision on a representation, in addition to the minimum required information.
Failure to explain such a decision may be seen as maladministration.
----------
Guidance for authorities but outside London but just as applicable here says:
Failure to consider representations properly may amount to a procedural impropriety and an adjudicator may subsequently allow an appeal on that ground if it is evident that the actual representations were not considered and addressed.
-
'Failure to consider' is a procedural impropriety.
-
Thanks. I just checked the info on the Tribunal page and it doesn’t look like I have grounds to appeal as it says the Tribunal can’t consider mitigating circumstances…
Here is the info:
Notice of Appeal
This is the form which the enforcement authority should send you their Notice of Rejection. The grounds on which the adjudicator may allow your appeal are the same as for making representations:
The contravention did not occur;
You were not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time;
The vehicle was parked by someone in control of it without the owner’s consent;
The vehicle is owned by a hire firm who have supplied the name and address of the hirer;
The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case;
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority;
The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid;
The civil enforcement officer was not prevented by some person from fixing the penalty charge notice to the vehicle or handing it to the person in charge of the vehicle.
The penalty charge has already been paid.
The adjudicator can only allow an appeal if one of these grounds applies. Adjudicators cannot allow appeals for other reasons, e.g. mitigating circumstances, although they can refer the matter back to the enforcement authority for reconsideration if there are compelling reasons for doing so.
-
They have totally ignored your representation. If it were me I'd take to the tribunal as they have failed in their duty to consider or at least they have failed to say anything to you.
See what others say. All they've sent is boilerplate.
-
Yes they have reoffered the discount. I've attached the representation and the rejection. I fear I'll just have to pay it.
Rejection p1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Y9_WcQdSIzdWALqTKDSbHs5_D1yIeFW/view?usp=sharing)
Rejection p2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-WXk4xfrnID-E7ceTkO90wLMkf9RS6mJ/view?usp=drive_link)
Rejection p3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ObZdXKxyseR-SQxxW7INg_ctHceSbQ4/view?usp=drive_link)
Rejection p4 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-GC88Lucq9w_kcFVsqHPoVZ2JDomHA_-/view?usp=drive_link)
Rejection p5 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-EYt2op2qwquvmFGildIHspMeZ1r82b3/view?usp=drive_link)
Representation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ZI3A90eDBT2fhBnqJXXH6k8nEsuPCSz/view?usp=drive_link)
-
Before paying (did they re-offer the discount?), please post up for the experts to review copies of your final representation and of the council's rejection.
-
Well they rejected my representation. Don’t think they even read it as it doesn’t mention anything I said, just a standard response. Guess I’ll have to pay it as I can’t deny crossing the boundary of the school street, I just had extenuating circumstances :'(
-
Ah great! Thanks so much :)
-
That looks fine - it's not begging as authorities have a duty to consider fairly all representations.
But you need to start it off saying what you want:
I hope you will kindly use discretion to cancel the PCN as I was legally in the zone and only briefly left by a few metres and re-entered to turn around. The circumstances were as follows.
-
Ok, here goes. It is basically begging:
I entered the school street before the restriction came into force, via the Shernall St end of Addison Road. The restriction starts at 3pm and I entered at 2:30pm for a doctor’s appointment at the Addison Road Medical Centre at 2:45pm. I have attached evidence of the appointment. There should also be video evidence of me entering the zone at 2:30pm.
I have to drive to the medical centre as I am a blue badge holder with very limited mobility. I parked on Addison Road, within the zone, just before the junction with Ravenswood Road. As I have only recently registered with this practice, I checked the restrictions before making my journey and this confirmed that I would be able to leave the zone without penalty during the restricted times.
I left the doctor’s surgery just before 3:40pm, pulled out the parking space and turned round at the first available gap (3-point turn), leaving the same way I had come. Unfortunately it appears that in turning round, I crossed out of the zone and back into it. This would only have been by a few metres. The video is cropped to only show my car crossing back into the zone but if video exists for a minute before this, you will see me pull out of my parking space and turn around. If I had been able to turn exactly where I was parked, I would not have incurred a penalty as it is permitted to leave the zone if you entered it before the restricted time.
Please can you cancel the ticket on this occasion. I have now been sent a map by the school streets team showing me how I can get to the doctor’s surgery avoiding the restricted roads, so this will not happen again.
-
Post your draft reps here for comment but do not miss deadlines.
-
I’m aware of the pinned post saying not to reply to the council before senior members reply. Am I ok to reply based on the advice given above or should I wait for further replies? Thanks
-
It isn't quite as simple as the signs are magnetic and they put them up, take them down, depending on whether the restriction is active at that time. You can see that at the other end of the road on Google maps (shernall road/addison road junction) as the signs are not up in the photo. However, I would assume that they were up on this particular day as the school term started on this exact day. Is it a definite that they don't have to show you passing the sign with the sign in the picture? If so I will just beg as per my original defence as I only turned around outside the area.
Term started the day before I think. The signs have shutters that blank the restriction out of term time, which is good practice as we see other councils skimping on this and just saying 'term time'. It is possible they forgot to open the shutters and I doubt they have evidence they did but an adjudicator is likely to accept their word.
I would certainly make a polite ask based on being in the zone and turning just outside. The medical appointment is evidence. But they may play hardball and not use discretion.
Thank you. I think I will end up doing this.
-
It isn't quite as simple as the signs are magnetic and they put them up, take them down, depending on whether the restriction is active at that time. You can see that at the other end of the road on Google maps (shernall road/addison road junction) as the signs are not up in the photo. However, I would assume that they were up on this particular day as the school term started on this exact day. Is it a definite that they don't have to show you passing the sign with the sign in the picture? If so I will just beg as per my original defence as I only turned around outside the area.
Term started the day before I think. The signs have shutters that blank the restriction out of term time, which is good practice as we see other councils skimping on this and just saying 'term time'. It is possible they forgot to open the shutters and I doubt they have evidence they did but an adjudicator is likely to accept their word.
I would certainly make a polite ask based on being in the zone and turning just outside. The medical appointment is evidence. But they may play hardball and not use discretion.
-
OP, the location is clearly local to you so you can revisit and check whether the alleged signs are there.
IMO, just check and put this issue to bed. The council only have to prove that the restriction was signed, they don't need to show in the video.
Not there - you win;
There- you can make a £65 gamble that they won't be able to prove this.
It isn't quite as simple as the signs are magnetic and they put them up, take them down, depending on whether the restriction is active at that time. You can see that at the other end of the road on Google maps (shernall road/addison road junction) as the signs are not up in the photo. However, I would assume that they were up on this particular day as the school term started on this exact day. Is it a definite that they don't have to show you passing the sign with the sign in the picture? If so I will just beg as per my original defence as I only turned around outside the area.
-
OP, the location is clearly local to you so you can revisit and check whether the alleged signs are there.
IMO, just check and put this issue to bed. The council only have to prove that the restriction was signed, they don't need to show in the video.
Not there - you win;
There- you can make a £65 gamble that they won't be able to prove this.
-
For a PCN to be valid it must contain certain information
What is required in this one is set out in the LLAA2003 section 4
8 (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
Both of the above seem to be missing, this is an almost certain winner at tribunal
Sorry my fault - there is a second sheet of paper. Is this what you are talking about? If so, then it has been provided.
Back page 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lMA0uK-DJxygWYRr1daYWMjlCy_4duH/view?usp=drive_link)
Back page 4 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18mJlpJoQZ-O81ZccAU1Woc3ybKzHBzwM/view?usp=drive_link)
-
Why admit to anything? The video shows no signage passed so let them prove their case.
It shows the reverse of the signage (i.e. the end of the zone with me re-entering the zone) but yes, it doesn't show the signage that says no cars / pedestrians and cycle zone between 3-4pm. Would it need to show that, i.e. video from the other side?
-
For a PCN to be valid it must contain certain information
What is required in this one is set out in the LLAA2003 section 4
8 (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
Both of the above seem to be missing, this is an almost certain winner at tribunal
-
Why admit to anything? The video shows no signage passed so let them prove their case.
-
They won't have extra video (probably) but they must consider the circumstances. The video doesn't show any sign of a turn but the appointment record is there.
Unless someone sees or knows of a fault with WF's PCNs, the only thing you can do is politely put the case to them that you were in the zone and inadvertently turned just out and in.
(https://i.imgur.com/klQculs.gif)
-
Hi,
Apologies I am not very technical so hope I'm doing this right. I received a PCN for entering a school street during restricted hours. This is what happened:
At 2:30 I entered Addison Road E17 from Shernall St OUTSIDE of restricted hours (restriction starts at 3pm), to attend a doctor's appointment in Ravenswood Road. I had previously checked that I would be permitted to leave the school street during the restricted hours and this is allowed. I parked just before the junction of Addison Road and Ravenswood Road (see google maps - link below). My appointment was 2:45-3:30, I was now parked during restricted hours but thought I was ok as leaving is permitted. On returning to the car, I pulled out of my parking space and did a 3-point turn a few metres ahead at the nearest place, just past the turn for Ravenswood Road. I then drove back down the school street to go home.
Where I appear to have messed up is the school street restricted area ends at the turning for Ravenswood Road. My three point turn took me out of the restricted area and back into it. This procedure probably took 5-10 seconds and I didn't realise I had done it.
The video only starts as I come back past the sign so doesn't show the few seconds before where I was parked then did the turn. If I had turned round a few metres before (where I was parked) I would have been ok as you are allowed to leave the school street during the restricted time if you are already in it.
Is there any point appealing this? Will they have video from a few seconds before and after that will evidence what I am saying?
PCN front (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1akJKMONW5kXWDOVP_r-b33KYxjeEsggJ/view?usp=drive_link)
PCN back (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1arqbX5NwnuX1lOXRSeyPUj7_oDI2zRui/view?usp=drive_link)
PCN back page 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lMA0uK-DJxygWYRr1daYWMjlCy_4duH/view?usp=drive_link)
PCN back page 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18mJlpJoQZ-O81ZccAU1Woc3ybKzHBzwM/view?usp=drive_link)
Appointment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xXZsHoMr28sEQy6WevW5Z4QSIBSgLfLT/view?usp=drive_link)
Junction - google maps (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dXNbNBbhbUwZUGTx6)