School entrance with DYL Options

[Zwypl]

My car was parked on a school entrance at the permitted times, see sign i.e. Saturday.

See google map link:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Margare...33;4d-0.0713809

There also is a double yellow line which appears to be a contradiction to the sign. I had good reason to believe their sign that: parking is permitted at that time.

I was given this PCN and pic from EA's website:-





What can you help me please?

This post has been edited by Zwypl: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:34

[Advertisement]

[Zwypl]

-

This post has been edited by Zwypl: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 13:08

[Zwypl]

I lost big time on all three points, here below is the Adjudicators decision. I think it is very unfair.

The penalty charge which the appellant seeks to overturn is sought by the Council in consequence of its enforcement officer ticketing his car on Saturday 10 February 2018 when it was unattended and parked in breach of no waiting restrictions indicated by double yellow lines laid in the street, one which has a predominantly residential character
These double yellow lines have derived from revision to the local traffic management order which I believe came into effect in early January 2018.

Legitimacy of signage.

A principal aspect of the dispute is the legitimacy of the surface markings where the appellant car was recorded. The traffic management order is map-based and the crucial tile is W23. I have been provided with an electronic version of this and it needs to be read in conjunction with the Key to Restrictions for symbols incorporated in the mapping. I am satisfied that where parked the map serves to show school zigzags which operate as notification of keeping clear and no stopping from 8 AM to 9:30 AM and 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM Mondays to Fridays. With these is also shown the no waiting restriction applying at any time. There and elsewhere in the borough concerned the no waiting restriction of that nature is represented in the street by double yellow lines running parallel to the kerb.
School zigzags when laid with with double yellow lines in my experience are less common in London than school zigzags laid in conjunction with single yellow lines but the zigzag feature with double here concerned is by no means a new and unique combination.
I am aware that down the years motorists have by appealing to the Adjudicator sought cancellation of penalty charges or refunds of removal fees when the enforcement was outside of the operation of the zigzag hours but parking was contrary to the waiting restriction indicated by the single yellow line. It has been repeatedly ruled in this Tribunal that school zigzags for no stopping are not inherently incompatible with a no waiting restrictions with a longer duration of operation. I have always seen the combination as legitimate. The combination of a limited strict no stopping rule with a longer rule prohibiting parking on single yellow lines is in my judgement inherently unobjectionable. In some cases those appeals have arisen against a background where there is a nearby separate yellow plate indicating the hours of local no waiting restrictions where a motorist has not been circumspect enough about the local time plates or pleaded seeing both and bewilderment or confusion. Other appeals have typically arisen where the single yellow line has not been governed by a nearby yellow "no waiting time plate" because a Council has viewed such signage as unnecessary given that the single yellow line lies within a controlled parking zone and public notice of the applicable hours is given at zone entry. I am aware that some, though by no means all Adjudicators in the past have been lenient towards mistakes made by motorists who have parked contrary to zone hours applying and been receptive to arguments that zone entry signage can be seen as inadequate and the lack of an additional time plate can be seen as a lure to motorists wrongly thinking the parking outside the zigzag hours is permissible at will. Disputes over ticketings in such cases are in my view best resolved against the particular facts of each case and whether or not there is weighty mitigation over a mistaken decision.
It is important to remember in this present case that double yellow lines do not require any timeplate. The legal requirement for one was removed many years ago as it had become so obvious to the public that double meant no waiting at any time.
It is my ruling in this case today that the double yellow lines in this present appeal were legitimately laid in conjunction with the school zigzags. I consider that when laid with double yellow lines there is little proper scope for a plea of genuine confusion or uncertainty on the motorist part. It is reasonable to expect a driver to be circumspect and cautious when deciding whether or not to stop however briefly on school zigzags. Authorities have introduced these for the protection of parents and children and that should alert the motorist to be thoughtful and circumspect even out of zigzag hours. In that sort of context double yellow lines are not in my view excusably missed or ignored.
I am not receptive to appellant argument about lack of clarity in this case. I do not accept that with double yellow lines a plea of confusion or uncertainty is tenable.
I find no criticism therefore of the Council decision to pursue a penalty charge in relation to the present case. Such mitigation as there is evident in the present case does not persuade me to exercise my powers to make any recommendation for penalty charge cancellation. I am satisfied the car was parked unlawfully when reported and I have rejected the appellant arguments in relation to the highway signage.

Defect in copy of PCN uploaded for the Adjudicator.

The appellant when receiving his bundle as sent to him by the Council as part of the adjudication process appears to have been struck by a difference between the reverse of the copy of the penalty charge notice included in that bundle and the original which although I have not seen it myself, I and the Council both accept differs.
The appellant makes no complaint of any discrepancy or difference in the obverse of these documents, copy and original. The original would have been a preprinted document on its reverse. In the passage, how to pay on the original there were three bullet points descriptive of payment method, online. by telephone, by post.
The copy included in the Council bundle mirrored the original with the exception of there being a further fourth bullet point with a council cashier address for payments in person.
On seeing this discrepancy raised by the appellant I chose to delay giving my decision in the appeal until I had queried it with the Council. I chose to do this as there is a duty under Tribunal rules upon councils to submit to the Adjudicator a copy of the penalty charge notice with which its claim for payment originated.
The Council has since replied to that enquiry by way of acknowledging the discrepancy and apologising for the uploading error.
I have historically on occasion inclined peremptorily to order cancellation of a penalty charge in earlier cases where crucial wording on the penalty charge notice has not been properly replicated on the copy sent for adjudication. Indeed I am an Adjudicator who has in the past berated councils for such mistakes in documents wrongly sent in this context and sought to emphasise the importance the Adjudicator will in general place on the submission of accurate copies. That is important as in many instances the original document may have been lost or mislaid by a motorist or simply not seen as an exhibit by the Adjudicator.
After careful consideration I have not seen the inclusion of the fourth bullet point on the copy as adequate ground for overturning the penalty charge imposed in this case. It has not given rise to any prejudice to the appellant that I have been able to identify. Cancellation on that ground alone would be in my judgment wholly without merit in this case.

Amount of penalty charge.

The correct amount of penalty charge is currently remaining as £130 and any error over information about it increasing to £195 on 15 May that may be evident in relation to the screenshot submitted by the appellant is properly disregarded in my ruling. I am not regarding such error as a valid ground of appeal. In summary the appellant is liable for payment of £130 and this will only be subject to increase if payment is not made within the 28 days now stipulated.

This post has been edited by Zwypl: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 13:09

[cp8759]

You just think it's unfair because you lost. However taking a dispassionate view, I don't think it's unfair at all, the adjudicator has carefully considered your submissions and made a decision which, on the evidence before him, was plainly within his judicial discretion.

[PASTMYBEST]

The only thing that bothers me is that the adjudicator cites tribunal rules re the provision of "a copy of the relevant charge notice" It not tribunal rules its the law

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/12...gulation/4/made

If the council furnish something different it is not a copy, regardless of prejudice

[Mad Mick V]

Interesting that the adjudicator never mentions "procedural impropriety" and we know that an adjudicator "shall allow the case" when a PI is established. The adjudicator has no discretion in such instances and regardless of his or her opinion as to the case or the appellants submissions the adjudicators hands are tied.

In this case we have two distinct PIs:-

The will/may issue in the evidence/payment portal; and
An inexact copy of the PCN being submitted as evidence.

I am with PMB, prejudice is NOT a consideration and it is NOT relevant to a PI as above.

The adjudicator acted incorrectly IMO in giving the Council scope to correct a PI.

Mick

[cp8759]

A review might be allowed on the second ground, but I'm not hopeful.

[Zwypl]

Sad news:

I wrote to the Tribunal as follows:-

I request a Review to the Adjudicators decision, under paragraph 12 in the Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.

The reason for asking a review is the interests of justice.

1) The Adjudicator writes under the heading - Defect in copy of PCN uploaded for the Adjudicator, as follows:

There is a duty under Tribunal rules upon councils to submit to the Adjudicator a copy of the penalty charge notice

I believe the adjudicator erred in law. It is not Tribunal rules, it is the law! i.e. The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, 4.

Therefore if the council furnish something different is not a copy as required by law, regardless of prejudice.

In this case the council have clearly admitted that it is not a true copy!

2) The Adjudicator also disregards the threat of increasing the Amount of penalty charge, as it caused no prejudice.

I believe the adjudicator erred in law. A Procedural Impropriety should not be dependent on prejudice.



RESPONSE

Your correspondence has been considered as an application for review by the Adjudicator, Mr.
Timothy Thorne. He has set out the reasons below:
Reasons
1. The general principles of review are that findings of fact and law are generally final. One
Adjudicator will not overturn the findings of fact or law of another unless there are compelling reasons
for doing so, such as where the findings are not compatible with the evidence before the original
Adjudicator or the law.
2. I conclude that the original Adjudicator was entitled to reach the decision on the basis of the
evidence submitted. The original Adjudicator found as a fact that the applicant's vehicle was in
contravention as alleged. The decision was based on cogent evidence including the observations of
the applicant's vehicle. Therefore the original Adjudicator was entitled to make this finding.
3. The original Adjudicator also made findings that the signage relating to the restriction met the
applicable legal test by being substantially compliant with the relevant regulations as well as being
clear and adequate. The original Adjudicator was entitled to come to this conclusion on the evidence
for the reasons given.
4. In addition, the original Adjudicator also held that there was no procedural impropriety in relation to
the contents of the copy of the PCN and the mistake concerning the amount requested. The material
contents of the PCN were accurately copied and the mistake about the sum was a technical error ony.
The original Adjudicator was entitled to come to th conclusion that no procedural impropriety had been
established on the evidence for the reasons given.
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
5. The applicant's latest representations are essentially no more than a disagreement with the original
Adjudicator's findings and a repetition of the submissions made before. There is no reason to
conclude that the original Adjudicator did not consider all the evidence submitted and all matters
raised in the applicant's original representations."
Your application for review is therefore rejected.
The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so.
Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the
Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%.
Case Management Team

I think the Adjudicator is wrong, as it is not a copy!

[stamfordman]

Have to say we had two schools of thought (pun intended) on this one and I was in the Department of Discount (visiting professor, HC Anderson).

[Zwypl]

Thanks everyone for your help, you all tried and deserve to be thanked.