That's great thank you, I originally asked on Reddit and mostly got 'just pay it you wally' so was expecting more of the same here.
I've copy pasted the tribunal emails here and added a photo of the debt demand.
The council had changed the permit system and I originally assumed that this must be the reason that the permit didn't exist. It was only later that I became aware of the 'basket timeout' issue.
The first two PCNs where the appeal was allowed:
London Tribunals, PO Box 10598,
NOTTINGHAM, NG6 6DR
Tel: 020 7520 7200
www.londontribunals.gov.uk25th April 2024
Case Reference: 2240070545
Please quote this in any correspondence you
send us
London Borough of Havering
(the Enforcement Authority)
MY WIFE appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number Y11 BOT
Penalty Charge Notice HG60830782
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 8th November 2023
Contravention Time 15:23
Contravention Location Beltinge Road / Squirrels Heath Road
Contravention Failing to comply with a sign indicating a
restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The adjudicator directs London Borough of Havering to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund
without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement
Authority.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded
Adjudicator's Reasons
The Council has only provided an amending experimental Traffic Management Order. In the absence
of the Order which it amends it is impossible to be satisfied that the restriction relied on by the Council
was in force.
However even if it was this is a case where I see no reason to doubt that the Appellant believed she
was registered at all times. as a virtual permit holder. It transpires that the account shows "cancelled
basket timeout"; but what this means and the circumstances leading to it, in particular whether it arose
through some fault on the Appellant's part, is wholly unexplained. Nor is it at all clear whether, and if so how, the Appellant would have been informed that she no longer had a permit.
In the circumstances it seems to me that the Appellant was entitled to believe that she had a valid
permit.
The Appeals are allowed on both grounds.
Edward Houghton
Adjudicator
24th April 2024
2240070545
HG60830782
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded
MY WIFE appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number Y11 BOT
Penalty Charge Notice HG60844641
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 15th November 2023
Contravention Time 14:37
Contravention Location Beltinge Road / Squirrels Heath Road
Contravention Failing to comply with a sign indicating a
restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The adjudicator directs London Borough of Havering to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund
without delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement
Authority.
The third PCN where the appeal was denied:
London Tribunals, PO Box 10598,
NOTTINGHAM, NG6 6DR
Tel: 020 7520 7200
www.londontribunals.gov.uk4th May 2024
Case Reference: 2240079608
Please quote this in any correspondence you
send us
MY WIFE
-v-
London Borough of Havering
(the Enforcement Authority)
MY WIFE appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Penalty Charge Notice HG60873526
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 27th November 2023
Contravention Time 15:07
Contravention Location Coombe Road / Beltinge Road
Contravention Failing to comply with a sign indicating a restriction on vehicles entering apedestrian zone
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the
appeal against liability for the charge should be refused.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The adjudicator directs as follows:
I refuse the appeal.
The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to:
London Borough of Havering
Town Hall
Main Road
ROMFORD
RM1 3BB
If you do not pay the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge certificate increasing the full penalty
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
charge by a further 50%.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
The review of the differing decisions:
London Tribunals, PO Box 10598,
NOTTINGHAM, NG6 6DR
Tel: 020 7520 7200
www.londontribunals.gov.uk13th June 2024
Case Reference: 2240079608
Please quote this in any correspondence you
send us
MY WIFE
-v-
London Borough of Havering
(the Enforcement Authority)
MY WIFE appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Penalty Charge Notice HG60873526
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 27th November 2023
Contravention Time 15:07
Contravention Location Coombe Road / Beltinge Road
Contravention Failing to comply with a sign indicating a
restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone
Adjudicator's Decision
This case comes before the adjudicator under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators
(London) Regulations 1993 (as amended) by way of an application review of the original decision on
the appeal.
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the appeal against liability for the charge should be refused.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to:
London Borough of Havering
Town Hall
Main Road
ROMFORD
RM1 3BB
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
If you do not pay the Enforcement Authority can issue a Charge certificate increasing the full penalty charge by a further 50%.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Adjudicator's Reasons
This is an application by the Appellant for a review of the decision of my learned colleague Mr Moore refusing his appeal. The grounds for the application are essentially that in what is an identical case I allowed the Appeal.
I set out the two decisions below:-
Mr Moore
The appellant submitted that they had a permit to park in the safe streets zone, but when the Authority changed the system in relation to obtaining such permits they were not aware, and only became aware once they started to receive PCN's.
In reaching a decision in this matter I have considered all the evidence before me, including photographic and documentary evidence and CCTV footage. There is ample credible and reliable evidence [which appears not to be disputed either] that the driver failed to comply with the restriction on vehicles entering the pedestrian zone. Regarding the permit issue, it would appear that the appellant did not have a "valid" permit at any time prior to the contravention; there is no reliable evidence of this. The previous application for a permit did not result in a permit being issued; rather, there was an invalid permit resulting from cancellation due to "basket timeout". The most recent and only permit was issued on 3rd December 2023, which was after the date of the contravention. There are no valid grounds to allow this appeal.
Myself, Mr Houghton
The Council has only provided an amending experimental Traffic Management Order. In the absence of the Order which it amends it is impossible to be satisfied that the restriction relied on by the Council was in force. However even if it was this is a case where I see no reason to doubt that the Appellant believed she was registered at all times. as a virtual permit holder. It transpires that the account shows "cancelled basket timeout"; but what this means and the circumstances leading to it, in particular whether it arose through some fault on the Appellant's part, is wholly unexplained. Nor is it at all clear whether, and if so how, the Appellant would have been informed that she no longer had a permit.
In the circumstances it seems to me that the Appellant was entitled to believe that she had a valid permit.
The Appeals are allowed on both grounds. I am not at all surprised that this application has been made. Regrettably this is one of those cases where Adjudicators came to a different conclusion on the facts. I consider that my own decision was correct, otherwise I would not have made it, However I am unable to say that Mr Moore's reasoned decision taking a different view was clearly wrong and not one he could not have reasonably have arrived at. This is really an application inviting me to sit as a Court of Appeal on a colleague , which is not the purpose of the review procedure . It is of course the case that identical considerations would apply if the Council had sought to review my decision on the basis that I should have refused the Appeal on the basis that Mr Moore was correct. The Appellant will no doubt consider it unsatisfactory that this situation can arise; however it is inevitable that in dealing with cases involving factual issues judges of fact will, on occasion, take different views A common example is questions of the clarity otherwise of traffic signage.. Whilst he might feel disappointed in in my learned colleagues decision he might also reflect that it is possible that it is I who have erred on the side of generosity rather than Mr Moore taking an unnecessarily strict view.
There are no grounds in law on which I can change Mr Moore's decision which therefore stands .
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals may be recorded
Edward Houghton
Adjudicator
12th June 2024
2240079608
HG60873526
Show Posts
