I observed this case yesterday: 2250079954
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2250079954
Appellant Mohammed Miah
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM WD23HZM
PCN Details
PCN CU67891769
Contravention date 27 Aug 2024
Contravention time 14:56:00
Contravention location Priory Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This is one of a number of cases arising from identical facts and raising identical issues, and I give this identical decision in respect of all of them.
I heard this appeal by video/audio link speaking to the Appellant and Mr Hannan an officer of the Council.
The Appellant’s case is in bare summary as follows. He had originally hired the vehicle, an electric motorcycle from a firm “Mute” under a vehicle hiring agreement which expired in January 2024. However he retimed possession of the vehicle as he was being charged the monthly hire fee. The vehicle subsequently broke down on the 13th August as it was being ridden and he then parked it at the location where on various occasions between August and October it subsequently incurred the series of PCNs which are the subject of these proceedings. Instead of making arrangements to move the vehicle himself he contacted Mute which is what he was required to do under the terms of the original agreement. The company was clearly dilatory in collecting the vehicle despite numerous reminders by the Appellant.
Having heard the Appellant in person on two occasions and having considered his documentary evidence I find him to be a truthful witness. The cases raise two issues i.e. whether the vehicle was in contravention on the basis of an exemption in the relevant Traffic Management Order; and if it was, whether the Appellant is legally liable for the penalties.
As to the first point I do not consider that at the time the PCNs were issued exemption applied. Although I accept that the vehicle had initially broken down the Appellant has to prove that “the vehicle was waiting due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the driver”. I do not accept that it was beyond the reasonable control of the driver to arrange to have the vehicle removed promptly, at least within a day or two. Whilst the Appellant acted reasonably enough in informing Mute this did not absolve him from the responsibility which rested on him as the vehicle’s driver if he wished to rely on the exemption, particularly when, on the Appellant’s own evidence, there was at that time no formal agreement with Mute actually in force. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was in contravention on each occasion that the PCNs were lawfully issued.
The remaining question is who is liable for the penalty. In law under Under Regulation 6 The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 that person is the owner of the contravening vehicle unless the vehicle is on hire under a vehicle hiring agreement.
Mute has provided two agreements., one running from the 4th July to the 7th December and one running from the 20th July to the 20th November. The Appellant strenuously denies having entered into or signed these agreements. They bear two different signatures neither of which appear to match the Appellant’s genuine signature as shown on the original agreement and on his passport.
The Council, following my request over the adjournment, wrote to Mute for an explanation and to enquire whether the Appellant had ever attended their premises to sign an agreement. No reply was received. In the light of this, and on the basis of the inconsistent signatures, the fact that the agreements overlap and the Appellant’s own evidence I am not satisfied that they are agreements which the Appellant entered into. I speculate that they may have been produced in an attempt to cover the Appellant’s continued possession of the vehicle.
The position is therefore that although the vehicle had remained in the possession of the Appellant with Mute’s consent, whether express or implied, he is not the owner of the vehicle nor in possession of it under a vehicle hiring agreement. The Appeal is therefore allowed and the Notices to Owner must be cancelled.
PCN CU6799504A
Contravention date -
Contravention time -
Contravention location -
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention -
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Apr 2025
Adjudicator By Order of the Chief Adjudicator
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction EA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice
Reasons The Enforcement Authority has informed me that they will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.
PCN CU67997690
Contravention date -
Contravention time -
Contravention location -
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention -
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Apr 2025
Adjudicator By Order of the Chief Adjudicator
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction EA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice
Reasons The Enforcement Authority has informed me that they will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.
PCN CU67997759
Contravention date -
Contravention time -
Contravention location -
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention -
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Apr 2025
Adjudicator By Order of the Chief Adjudicator
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction EA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice
Reasons The Enforcement Authority has informed me that they will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.
PCN CU6799806A
Contravention date 22 Aug 2024
Contravention time 11:12:00
Contravention location Priory Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This is one of a number of cases arising from identical facts and raising identical issues, and I give this identical decision in respect of all of them.
I heard this appeal by video/audio link speaking to the Appellant and Mr Hannan an officer of the Council.
The Appellant’s case is in bare summary as follows. He had originally hired the vehicle, an electric motorcycle from a firm “Mute” under a vehicle hiring agreement which expired in January 2024. However he retimed possession of the vehicle as he was being charged the monthly hire fee. The vehicle subsequently broke down on the 13th August as it was being ridden and he then parked it at the location where on various occasions between August and October it subsequently incurred the series of PCNs which are the subject of these proceedings. Instead of making arrangements to move the vehicle himself he contacted Mute which is what he was required to do under the terms of the original agreement. The company was clearly dilatory in collecting the vehicle despite numerous reminders by the Appellant.
Having heard the Appellant in person on two occasions and having considered his documentary evidence I find him to be a truthful witness. The cases raise two issues i.e. whether the vehicle was in contravention on the basis of an exemption in the relevant Traffic Management Order; and if it was, whether the Appellant is legally liable for the penalties.
As to the first point I do not consider that at the time the PCNs were issued exemption applied. Although I accept that the vehicle had initially broken down the Appellant has to prove that “the vehicle was waiting due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the driver”. I do not accept that it was beyond the reasonable control of the driver to arrange to have the vehicle removed promptly, at least within a day or two. Whilst the Appellant acted reasonably enough in informing Mute this did not absolve him from the responsibility which rested on him as the vehicle’s driver if he wished to rely on the exemption, particularly when, on the Appellant’s own evidence, there was at that time no formal agreement with Mute actually in force. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was in contravention on each occasion that the PCNs were lawfully issued.
The remaining question is who is liable for the penalty. In law under Under Regulation 6 The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 that person is the owner of the contravening vehicle unless the vehicle is on hire under a vehicle hiring agreement.
Mute has provided two agreements., one running from the 4th July to the 7th December and one running from the 20th July to the 20th November. The Appellant strenuously denies having entered into or signed these agreements. They bear two different signatures neither of which appear to match the Appellant’s genuine signature as shown on the original agreement and on his passport.
The Council, following my request over the adjournment, wrote to Mute for an explanation and to enquire whether the Appellant had ever attended their premises to sign an agreement.
No reply was received. In the light of this, and on the basis of the inconsistent signatures, the fact that the agreements overlap and the Appellant’s own evidence I am not satisfied that they are agreements which the Appellant entered into. I speculate that they may have been produced in an attempt to cover the Appellant’s continued possession of the vehicle.
The position is therefore that although the vehicle had remained in the possession of the Appellant with Mute’s consent, whether express or implied, he is not the owner of the vehicle nor in possession of it under a vehicle hiring agreement. The Appeal is therefore allowed and the Notices to Owner must be cancelled.
*****
No reply was received. Great humour from EH.
