That NOR is a load of bolleaux. @ cp: are we going to draw straws as to who is going to represent? ;)@Hippocrates I don't mind if you want to take this one, I'm struggling with capacity at the moment. I'm supposedly on holiday but I seem to have 17 hearings to prepare for next week, including 8 hearings the first day the tribunal reopens on the 2nd.
That NOR is a load of bolleaux. @ cp: are we going to draw straws as to who is going to represent? ;)
Hello. Thank you for reviewing my appeal.
The location stated on the penalty charge notice is stated as 'High St Bromley Sth/Police Station'. This location does not exist and therefore the vehicle cannot have been at that location.
I enclose evidence that Bromley Police Station's address is High Street, Bromley, Kent. Which seems to indicate that the box junction in question is actually on the junction of an unnamed access road that leads to Waitrose's Car Park, and High Street.
I cannot find any road in the borough that is called High St Bromley Sth, High Street Bromley South or other variation.
Please see screenshots as evidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/KL8fZqk/Screenshot-2023-11-15-at-20-32-37.png) (https://ibb.co/mXP2sqw)
(https://i.ibb.co/F6Mdf9h/Screenshot-2023-11-15-at-20-29-53.png) (https://ibb.co/qBf24zD)
(https://i.ibb.co/2jsmrSL/Evidence-Map.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fCnBW9K)
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.