Stingy Lambeth Council Options

[Mad Mick V]

What a wonderful Council !!!!

Newly weds return to 8 PCNs as the Council puts in a new bay round their car.


2190018109
Contravention date 17 Oct 2018
Contravention time 10:11:00
Contravention location Rastell Avenue
Decision Date 16 Mar 2019
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Mrs Mahon and Mr Graham attended.
I accepted their evidence that they had left this vehicle at a time when there were no parking restrictions there; they had parked lawfully.
They went away on honeymoon.
On 1st October 2018, however, the local authority made a Traffic Management Order making this place a dual parking place for permit parking and payment parking.
This vehicle received a total of nine penalty notices, none of which was on the vehicle when the appellants returned from honeymoon and retrieved their vehicle.
There is clear mitigation here. I may have worked out cheaper for the appellant's if the vehicle had been towed away after the first penalty notice was issued.
I have adjourned the matter for the local authority to reconsider their discretion. Whilst I accept that three penalty notices have been cancelled, I should request the local authority to consider the totality and proportionality of these penalties and to consider this matter as one continuous contravention.
The local authority has responded.
They have considered the facts and have chosen to continue to contest the appeal but accept £55 on each of the penalty notices if the appeal is refused.
The administrative practicalities of the parking scheme require a vehicle’s owner, at all times it waits in a bay or space, to pay for that time and display proof of that by way of a ticket or voucher or meter reading or pay by ‘phone or to display a permit or to have paid for a virtual permit.
The Scheme imposes owner liability.
That implies that the owner may be liable even if he did not know about the contravention, which in turn implies liability without fault. An Adjudicator must balance any decision between fairness and administrative practicality.
Sometimes the latter overrides the former.
A Scheme requires that parked vehicles pay for their waiting time and that the payment is made by ‘phone or visibly displayed. Should either requirement be absent then a contravention occurs.
I find that this principle also applies equally to permits and badges. The document whatever it is must be visibly displayed and must be correct-it must cover the time and date and place in question and must clearly express all the required details.
Legally the civil enforcement officer was entitled to issue the penalty notice on each of these occasions.
The evidence leads me to conclude that a contravention occurred.
The circumstances described by the appellant are mitigating circumstances or extenuating factors. They do not amount to a ground of appeal.
The local authority has clearly considered the relevant circumstances but has chosen not to exercise their discretion in the appellant’s favour. Mitigation is the province of the local authority. In the Court of Appeal case of R (Walmsley) v. Lane, the judges stated that an Adjudicator may only cancel a penalty charge notice if a ground of appeal has been established and that an Adjudicator may not exercise their discretion and cancel or reduce a fixed penalty when mitigating circumstances and not a ground of appeal has been established. Mitigation is for the local authority. An Adjudicator is not permitted to mitigate a fixed penalty, a penalty fixed by law.
In those circumstances, as I find that no ground of appeal has been established, I have to refuse the appeal.
-----------------------------------------------------
IMO the adjudicator could have found on excessive and disproportionate penalties without associating that ruling with mitigation.

He could have ruled that it was a continuous contravention with only one penalty a la Humphreys

Cases like this do little to suggest appellants are being properly protected from money grubbing councils.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 09:09

[Advertisement]

[DancingDad]

Could even have found on no contravention as when they parked there was no restriction.

These sort of cases are clear examples of councils forgetting that enforcement should have an aim of traffic management not simply because they can enforce.
Nothing in the law says they must.
There is no benefit towards traffic management here.

I do wonder on the other side of the story though.
I find it difficult to believe that a permit bay has been put in with no warnings ?

[The Rookie]

I find it difficult to believe that a permit bay has been put in with no warnings ?

From the wording it appears they went on honeymoon BEFORE the TMO was made.

I agree there seem a number of avenues here for the adjudicator to cancel all the PCNs.

[stamfordman]

Local or national newspaper would pick this one up I'm sure plus I'd be making a compliant to the council. That is if they are not partly to blame.

[DancingDad]

I find it difficult to believe that a permit bay has been put in with no warnings ?

From the wording it appears they went on honeymoon BEFORE the TMO was made...…...

TMOs don't happen overnight.
Can take months for one to be raised.
Though it could be a case that the TMO had been made but only became operational after they went?


I'm wondering on the bay markings as well?
In London there is unlikely to be a clear spot of unregulated parking that an authority could rely on to go and paint lines.
So if that was the case, I would have expected the area to be suspended and the car to be removed against that suspension before any lines were painted.
Or if bays were already there and it was simply a post sign change, what were the restrictions before ?

[typefish]

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4413115,-0....6384!8i8192

I can't see any bays here?

(This was in March 2018)

[Korting]

The O/P should contact their local ward councillors and the CEO of the Council