This adjudication by Andrew Harman for a suspended bay case is perverse IMO for a relatively short period.
-------------
Case reference 2240432817
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle was parked on a suspended bay.
The relevant date is 23/05/24.
The appellant is a permit holder.
On the appellant's case when he parked in the bay more than a week before no suspension notice was in place. He says that the suspension was posted after he parked.
On the council's case the suspension was posted on 17/05/24 and I accept on its photographs of signage date stamped for that date produced at 'J' that that is so.
There is no duty on the council to make its evidence available to the motorist (including photographic evidence) save for the purpose of an appeal to this tribunal.
On the assumption that the appellant parked before the suspension was posted.
I do not doubt that the appellant was away and that he only infrequently uses his vehicle but permit holders are under a duty to ensure that their vehicle remains lawfully parked. That means that they should arrange for the vehicle to be checked if they are away. If for any reason that cannot be done the vehicle should be left in a car park.
I am satisfied that being so that there is no ground upon which the appellant may successfully challenge liability for this penalty charge and I find this contravention proved.
The adjudicator found as fact that the suspension was posted before the appellant parked.
There was a case some time ago where (IIRC) a motorcycle or scooter was parked before a suspension notice was posted. (IIRC again) The adjudicator held that the notice being posted after the vehicle had been parked did not invalidate the contravention, but then went on to uphold the appeal on some ground that I struggled to follow.
This is a clear case of an appeal that was not argued properly. I'm pretty sure any of the three musketeers could have mopped the floor with this.