Wednesday, 15 August 2018

London Tribunals - September 17

In the month of September independent adjudicators at London Tribunals made 245 decisions and of those 158 were in favour of the motorist, which is a magnificent win rate of 64%

Notable decisions included:

Postman using his own car (2170387441)

The present case relates to an alleged contravention of parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. It is accepted that this was a restricted street, it is accepted that the Appellant parked during prescribed hours.

The Appellant though avers that he had parked to carry out his duties as a postal worker employed by the Royal Mail. The vehicle in question, was not owned by the Royal Mail, nor is it liveried as such. The Appellant states that he was working delivering mail, he returned to the vehicle and that he informed the CEO who was making out the ticket that this is what he had been doing.

The Respondent rejects this and states:

Please be advised that working for Royal Mail and using a private vehicle does not exempt you from the restrictions in place

I can also confirm that the Notes recorded by the CEO do not support your statement and must advise that the CEO is deemed a credible witness by the London Borough of Barnet.

Taking each in turn, firstly, what is the exemption? The submissions provided by the Respondent argue that no exemption applies to a postal worker using a private vehicle. I disagree. The exemption is what is contained within the traffic management order, this reads:

26(1) Nothing in this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit a vehicle to wait in any restricted street:

While postal packets adjacent to any such street in which the vehicle is waiting are being unloaded from the vehicle, or, having been unloaded therefrom, are being delivered

The Order does not specify by whom the vehicle must be owned. There is at least the potential of an exemption.

Secondly, does the exemption apply? Here, the burden reverses, the Appellant must show on the balance of probabilities that the exemption applies to him. Firstly, I must judge what the Appellant says, he has not appeared in person, so I am not able to test his evidence.

However, I note the following: (a) he is consistent in his account, (b) he has provided evidence of his employment, (c) the time of the contravention, (d) the Appellant lives in EN4, the contravention took place in N12.

The Respondent does not approach this case as they did on 25 July 2017, there they said the Appellant had not discharged the burden. Now, they argue that their own CEO contradicts the evidence provided by the Appellant.

The CEO has not provided a witness statement. However, there is his note:

After issuing the pcn driver returned and says that I was delivering and he was working for royal mail then I told pcn has been issued and the only way can appeal for that ic9 male 175cm height medium build

It is not clear to me how this undermines the Appellant’s case, if anything, it is consistent therewith. The Respondent’s submissions as to the credibility of their CEO are neither here nor there. The CEO is not disagreeing with the Appellant’s account. As too, should I note, that the CEO’s credibility (and there is no reason to doubt it), is a matter for the Tribunal to judge.

The suggestion by the Respondent that no exempt activity was observed, is, in reality something I cannot test. The CEO has not provided a statement, simply because he or she does not write something down, does not mean it was or was not happening.

In my view, it was be very dangerous indeed for the Appellant to be untruthful to this Tribunal, he potentially would face disciplinary action at work and could even face criminal prosecution. Likewise, he has been consistent in his account throughout.

I am satisfied therefore that the exemption did indeed apply in this case and I allow the appeal.

Time not proven (2170397048)

Having heard the driver of the vehicle in person I entirely accept her evidence that the clock in her vehicle showed 4.16. the Council’s camera shows the vehicle stationary just after 16.14. Whilst I would be slow to apply the principle of de minimis in the case of a set time limit, nevertheless it does seem to me that in a case where a contravention turns on a matter of seconds the onus is on the Council to prove the accuracy of its timing to this degree. The Council states the camera is calibrated to the universal time signal, which no doubt it is, but no further details are provided as to how this occurs or how the equipment is set or checked. On balance on the particular facts of this case I am unable to be satisfied a contravention is sufficiently proved and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

(In this case the school keep clear zig zag markings must finish at 16:15)

Time not proven, again (2170412822)

The Appellant appeared in person together with his wife, the driver.

The vehicle stopped on the markings at what the Appellant’s wife believed to be 16.15. I accept her evidence that she relied both on the clock in her vehicle and, more importantly perhaps, on the time on her mobile phone which is set to a satellite. The issue in this a case is therefore simply what the time actually was; and the onus is on the Council to prove that the vehicle was within the prohibited hours. Although I note the Council’s evidence as to the setting of the time by the atomic clock it seems to me that when it comes to proving he time within a margin of seconds evidence is required in the form of a log or otherwise showing that the required checks were in fact made on that day. On balance I am not satisfied that a contravention is sufficiently proved in this case and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

Adjustment for the Equality Act not obvious (2170412629)

The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. Mrs. Butler says that she did pay-to-park although she concedes she entered one incorrect digit. She says that she is dyslexic and says that she has previously been advised by a ‘Traffic Warden’ that it is permissible to move the vehicle from one location to another within paid-for time without having to pay again and she assumed the same applied on this occasion. Mrs. Butler has provided evidence of the payment.

The Civil Enforcement Officer’s record merely confirms that no payment had been made to park this vehicle at this location at this time.

I allow appeals in cases where payment has been wrongly ascribed due to a mistake by the Enforcement Authority’s system or operator. However, primary responsibility lies with the motorist to ensure that payment has been made for the correct time, vehicle and location.

I have no reason to doubt that Mrs. Butler made a genuine error but amounts only to mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

The claim is often made by a motorist that he parked on the advice or with the permission of an Enforcement Officer. It is an easy claim to make and a difficult claim to disprove. Whenever the claim is made I would look to see if there is any supporting evidence. In this case Mrs. Butler has not provided any supporting evidence and the advice she claims to have received is unlikely on its face. If it were accurate there would be no need for individual location codes at all. I am not satisfied that he was advised in the terms she has described.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.

Keep those Appeals coming. If you have a good case you have a better than evens chance of winning.

Your appealingly

Miss Feezance

Wednesday, 1 August 2018

London Tribunals - August 2017

Another good month for the motorists who were brave enough to take their case all the way to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

There were 187 decisions.
Of those, 122 led to a cancelled PCN when the Appeal was allowed.
That is a fantastic 65% win rate for the motorist.

Three cases were noteworthy

Bailiff fees ordered to be refunded (2160528070)

Unless the address of the parents was on the warrant the bailiff had no business in even being there. It is not uncommon however for bailiffs to lean on family members to pay a debt which is not theirs when the motorist in question cannot pay. Expert help in this situation is available by phoning the Bailiff Advice Online phoneline on 01643 841886 between 9am and 6pm Monday to Friday.

Not 'not paying' but not 'not displaying' (2170170199)

PayByPhone text errors (2170343209)

Why would you even realise that a sign facing the opposite way from you has to be searched for? The sign telling you the hours and payment methods doesn't even refer you to it whereas arrows pointing towards meters are common.

Please remember that any decision by an adjudicator is not binding on another adjudicator or even themselves. each case is dealt with one its own facts although other decisions may turn out to be persuasive.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Tuesday, 31 July 2018

London Tribunals - July 2017

I'm back and will try to catch up.

There were 232 appeal decisions of which 142, that is 61%, went the way of the motorist. Given that the chances of winning are above 50% then it is, in the long run, better to fight to the end than to pay up at 50%.

As you can see from the above extract of the tribunal register Barnet Council continue to ticket Royal Mail vans, make them do representations and write Appeals to the tribunal only to throw the towel in every time which wastes £30 of council tax each time = £270 just burnt. It also wastes the time of the fleet department at Royal Mail.

Extracts from other interesting tribunal cases, all allowed unless otherwise indicated:

Not on the zig zags (case 2170226373)

Do remember that another adjudicator is not bound by the above decision, it is not a precedent.

Zig zags not allowed across a junction (2170274875)

The school in question is St Joseph's RC Schools in St Joseph's Grove

Yellow box exit was clear on entry (2170279722)

Incontinence not a medical emergency (2170214680)

However harsh & unkind that may seem the decision is legally correct as the exemption in the Traffic Order will be for medical emergency.

Zig zags only apply to one side of the road (2170282159)

The question of what is the restricted area when it comes to school keep clear markings is one one which the courts have yet been asked to rule (unless you know otherwise). The sign refers to being 'on' the markings so if you are not on the markings I would argue you have not committed a contravention. Clearly though it would not be wise to stop in the middle of the road to allow children to board or alight.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Thursday, 21 September 2017

London Tribunals - June 17

A mobile dunny
In the month of June 2017 the adjudicators decided 182 Appeals in favour of the motorist i.e. their PCNs were cancelled. They refused 96 and asked the council to think again about 3 with a view to cancelling them. That is a win rate of 64%. That is not the full story though. Of the 281 Appeals which were started Barnet Council did not contest 129 of them so they became motorist wins by default. That is an amazing 46% of all Appeals that month. Whilst that may have been a one off due to staff holidays or some other reason it is still the case that Barnet Council rejected formal representations 129 times and then those motorists who persisted were rewarded with a cancellation. If everyone who had their formal representations rejected were to go to Appeal Barnet Council would implode.

There were 12 cases of particular interest and the adjudication decisions and case reference numbers are reproduced below:

6 minutes to PayByPhone - ok - 2170193070

The Appellant, whom I have heard in person in some detail, parked his vehicle in a pay by phone bay and immediately began the process of making payment by means of the app shown, as I accept, on the Council’s signage. Unfortunately there was a delay in finding a signal to enable the app to work successfully and by the time payment was made something of the order of six minutes had elapsed. During this time the vehicle was observed without any record of payment having been made and, unsurprisingly a PCN was issued.

On parking a vehicle a motorist is of necessity permitted a reasonable time to do whatever is necessary to validate the parking. Certainly the time in question will normally be fairly brief and the motorist must act promptly. In the present case six minutes is a fairly substantial time. However although on these facts the case is perhaps close to the borderline, it does seem to me that the time involved was not so long as to be unreasonable. The Appellant was, as I am satisfied, attempting to make payment throughout that time, and in the case of payment by means of an app in this way it is inevitable that minor delays of this type occasionally occur, Naturally the point will eventually be reached when the motorist has to accept that payment cannot be made promptly, and must then remove the vehicle or pay by some other means. However on the facts of this case I am not satisfied that point had quite been reached. It follows that, as it transpires, the vehicle was not in contravention and the PCN was incorrectly issued.

Representations wrongly rejected - 2170205690 (a council must not fetter the exercise of its discretion)

The Appellant said that he pulled over because his 4 year old daughter was in distress, apparently choking on water. He turned round in his seat to help her regulate her breathing.
The Authority's response in the Notice of Rejection was that there is no exemption that permits the Appellant to stop as no evidence has been produced to suggest it was a medical emergency.

The exception as stated in Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4 (2)(b) in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 applies to a vehicle "which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property".

A medical emergency is likely to satisfy the above, but the exception goes beyond a medical emergency, and is applicable to the Appellant's case. The Authority is entitled to challenge the authenticity of the account, it is not entitled to reject the representations on the basis that the account cannot give rise to an exception.

There has been a procedural impropriety. I allow the appeal.

Delivering school meals to a school - 217017400A

I accept the Appellants’ evidence that the vehicle was there in order to deliver school meals. It is not entirely clear whether the delivery was to be made from that position or whether the driver was simply in the process of obtaining the key to gain access to an off-road delivery area. However whichever is the case there is no exemption in the Regulations (Schedule 7 Part 6 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) for loading/unloading, or for parking whilst gaining access to premises. The keep clear markings, in place for the safety of school children, are effectively a no-go area for motor vehicles, even vehicles having official business with the school in question. The vehicle was in contravention and the PCN was lawfully issued.

(No doubt if the Appellants were able to persuade the Council that there is no realistic alternative way to deliver this essential service some sort of formal dispensation would be granted, but in the absence of any such dispensation the vehicle cannot lawfully park there).

Unsigned PCN - not necessary - 2170225166

Mr. Halibard appeals on two bases, the first of which has two limbs. The first ground of appeal is that there was a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority (EA) in that it a) implicitly misled him as to the effect of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) not having been signed by the Enforcement Officer (EO) and b) failed to have regard, in considering his representations following the issuance of the notice to owner (NTO), to evidence submitted by him after the service of the PCN but before the issuance of the NTO. The second, substantive ground of appeal is that the contravention did not occur because Mr. Halibard was at the relevant time engaged in loading of the vehicle in question, such as to bring him within the exemption (contained in Article 22(1)(h)) to the prohibitions imposed by the Council of the London Borough of Barnet Traffic Management Order 2015 (“the TMO”).

The EA’s case does not expressly address the first of the two procedural impropriety points raised by Mr. Halibard; the EA’s case, which is correct in law, as is accepted by Mr. Halibard, is that the PCN did not need to be signed. That is not quite the point that Mr. Halibard makes; he says the EA should not have asked him to provide the PCN in response to his representation on that point when, as they well knew, it would not have made a jot of difference. The EA also rather misses Mr. Halibard’s second point too. The EA’s case is that it does not accept the evidence, namely a letter from a grocery store from which Mr. Halibard says he was loading substantial quantities of fruit and vegetables. The EA is wrong to say that the letter was only provided at the appeal stage; Mr. Halibard’s e-mail of 13 February 2017 attaches it in his ‘representations’ prior to the issuance of the NTO. It was also provided again after his representations against the NTO were rejected. The EA’s case on the ‘loading’ issue is that they do not accept that sufficient evidence has been adduced to support Mr. Halibard’s case and that, in any event, the items were not sufficiently bulky or heavy that they could not reasonably be carried by hand.

Dealing with the first aspect of Mr. Halibard’s appeal, the EA should not have asked Mr. Halibard to provide the PCN when that was a document a copy of which was in its hands in any event and, further, when it knew that whether it was signed or not was immaterial. It should also, in my opinion, have had regard in evaluating Mr. Halibard’s representations to evidence which he had already submitted after he received the PCN but before the NTO was issued. The attached letter was probably received; the EA’s response of 20 February 2017 does not state ‘we did not receive your attachment’. The matter was perhaps complicated because on 22 February 2017 when he responded, Mr. Halibard did not re-attach the letter but a witness statement in an unrelated matter. In any event, Mr. Halibard did not re-send the letter in his formal representations against the NTO on 22 March 2017. I have to decide, however, whether there has been a procedural impropriety within the meaning of Regulation 4(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as explained in London Borough of Camden v. Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin). In my judgment, notwithstanding the above errors by the EA, there was no failure on its part to observe the requirements imposed upon it by the prevailing Regulations and the Traffic Management Act 2004. There was, therefore, no procedural impropriety within the meaning of regulation 4(5).

I do, however, uphold Mr. Halibard’s appeal on his second, substantive ground. I found his evidence to be credible and compelling. Mr. Halibard explained how he needed assistance from the shopkeeper to load the 4-5 heavy bags of fruit and vegetables he purchased for his family into the vehicle he then needed to drive them at least half a mile to his house. It would, I accept, be wholly impracticable to carry them home. He parked immediately adjacent to the shop for that purpose. The vehicle was only observed in that location for 2 minutes. The letter from Yarok grocery shop corroborates that evidence; although unfortunately undated it is signed. The EA’s point that there is no VAT number on the letter is misconceived; by virtue of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994 there is no VAT payable on fruit and vegetables. Mr. Halibard falls within the exception in Article 22(1)(h) and the contravention did not occur. The appeal is therefore allowed. I would further observe that although the prohibition on parking outside the limits of bays may be on the EA’s website, it is not displayed at all on the sign at the relevant location.

Text sent = payment made - 2170232117

It is common ground that the Appellant attempted to pay by text. It is equally clear that, as it transpired, payment was not in fact made. The Council’s position is that unless and until payment is “confirmed” the motorist cannot assume that the payment has been made and accepted.

It seems to me that the onus is on the Council providing a pay by text system to explain to the motorist how the system works and what is required. I note the Council’s evidence of the instructions on the reverse of the timeplate “when paying by text etc...” However this seems to me to fall short of the clear warning necessary to the effect that until a confirmation text has been received payment has not been made – something that I do not regard as self-evident. It seems to me that the Appellant was entitled to assume that his payment had been made in the absence of any indication from the system to tell him otherwise. The Appeal is therefore allowed.

Saracens zone repeater signs - 2170233710

The Appellant said that she entered Engel park via Bittacy Rise. She accepts that there is signage indicating event day restrictions on Bittacy Rise but she had not thought that it would apply to another road.

The sign does say permit holders parking only past this point so the Appellant's understanding was incorrect. However, where there is a turn into another road after the sign, I would say that repeater signs are required.

I am not satisfied that the signage was adequate. I allow the appeal.

Suspension sign white not yellow - 2170233233

The Appellant was due to attend for a person or appeal before me this morning, but has not done so. No explanation has been received by the tribunal for the appellants absence. In the circumstances I consider it just and proportionate to determine her appeal on the information before me in the absence of the Appellant.

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay in Cornwall Avenue on 15 December 2016. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1914.

The Appellant states that there was no signage on the side of the road where she parked. She adds that it was dark and that there was no sign of any works being carried out and that the period of suspension was unreasonable.

The Council rely upon the evidence of their civil enforcement officer. This includes a series of photographs of the vehicle and two of a close-up of a suspension sign. In answer to what appears to be a pre-populated question on his handheld device as to "distance to the nearest signing metres?", The answer is given as 4 m. I assume that this refers to the distance between the sign and the vehicle. The Council has also produced some location photographs, annotated with the position of the sign and the Appellant's vehicle.

I have considered the suspension sign and note that although there are no prescribed regulations as to the form or colour, it is white, as opposed to the more usual yellow suspension signs, that there is no "no parking" roundel on it, and that it is the same colour as the time plate on the post.

In all the circumstances I am not persuaded that the Council has established that the sign was adequate to convey the suspension to the motorist and therefore the appeal is allowed.

Kara Way - confusing signs - 2170212856

The Appellant, whom I have heard in person parked his vehicle on s single yellow line on a Sunday within what was a correctly signed Controlled Parking Zone. The Appellant saw the CPZ signs on entering the road and noted the operational hours; however he believed that those hours would not apply on a Sunday.

Had the case amounted to no more than this, the Appeal would inevitably have been refused. As the Council points out, if a sign is silent at to the days of operation the restriction applies on all days. However the Appellant examined the signs relating to adjacent designated parking places which gave the operational days as Monday to Sunday (i.e. every day of the week). On the basis of this he assumed that if the CPZ hours similarly operated Monday to Sundays (i.e. every day of the week) day the CPZ sign would have been similarly worded.

Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that his assumption was a not unreasonable one. Motorists can reasonably expect there to be some consistency in signage within a small area. In my view this falls to be treated as one of those rare cases where the clarity of what is otherwise clear and correct signage is undermined by the presence of other ( equally correct ) signage. On the very particular facts of this case I am not satisfied that the signage was adequate to indicate to the Appellant sufficiently clearly that the yellow line operated on a Sunday; and it follows that , as it transpires, the PCN was incorrectly issued.

Cloned - council to prove their case - 2170150147

The issue in the case is whether the Appellant's was in contravention of restrictions.
The EA case is that the Appellant's vehicle was seen making a prohibited right turn, in contravention of restrictions, and so a PCN was issued to the vehicle.

The EA rely on contemporaneous footage.

The Appellant's case is that his vehicle registration plate having been cloned; he first became aware of this problem, when the Police telephoned him in respect of diesel not paid for at a petrol station, and the Appellant was provided with a Police reference number. He remarks that his vehicle is in fact petrol. He then received this PCN and another from EA's in areas that he has no need to travel.

The Appellant has submitted photographs of his vehicle, and has undertaken a "spot" the difference; which is as to the European mark on his plate, but not the photographs seen in the picture, and also a child's sticker in his vehicle which is not seen in the other vehicle.

I consider that the Appellant has provided a straightforward account of how he became aware of this, a Police reference number, photographs in support. The burden remains on the EA to show that the vehicle in contravention is the Appellant's vehicle; in the circumstances, in light of the points made, I am not satisfied that the EA have discharged this liability.

I therefore allow the appeal.

Alongside school entrance markings - 2170246585

The contravention alleged on the PCN is that this vehicle 'stopped in a restricted area outside a school . . . . .when prohibited'.

Signage at the location indicates that stopping is prohibited on entrance markings.

On the evidence before me the appellant's vehicle did not stop on such markings but to the side of them.

Upon that point being raised by the appellant although this prohibition on stopping applies to the whole of the length and breadth of the carriageway at this location that is not made clear on signage the prohibition as stated thereon applying to stopping on entrance markings only and I am not satisfied for that reason that this signage gives adequate indication of the ambit of the prohibition the council seeks to enforce.

The contravention has not accordingly I find been proved.

Greater than 50cm from kerb but passenger alighting - 2170250527

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a special enforcement area more than 50cms from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place. The alleged contravention occurred in Hillview Gardens at 12.11am on 8 January 2017.

The alleged contravention arises by virtue of Section 85 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Section 85(1) provides that, in a special enforcement area, a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway in such a way that no part of the vehicle is within 50 cms of the edge of the carriageway.

Section 85(7) provides that "parking" for the purpose of this contravention does not include stopping to drop off or pick up a passenger where the vehicle is stopped for no longer than is necessary for that purpose.

I accept the evidence of Rabbi David that the car was stopped while he dropped off his 6 year old grandchild to 51 Hillview Gardens. There was only a one minute observation period before the issue of the PCN and it is, therefore, unsurprising that the CEO did not see the driver of the vehicle. The setting down exemption allows for a driver to leave the vehicle and to provide assistance to a passenger in reaching their destination where the passenger requires such assistance. I therefore find that the vehicle was not parked for the purposes of Section 85 and that the alleged contravention did not occur.

Disabled person needing the toilet - 2170252737

The appellant seeks to dispute liability for the charge on the ground that he is severely disabled he giving evidence as to his medical condition a consequence of which being that he frequently needs to use the toilet he on this occasion being 'caught short' he parking as he did because it was close to toilet facilities.

I acknowledge what is said but, on the assumption that I am being provided by the appellant with a truthful account of this incident, other than in the case of a medical emergency, which I am not persuaded on the appellant's case unsupported as it is by any medical evidence this was, there is no exemption that allows a motorist to park where restrictions are in force for the toilet to be used.

I note on the officer's photographs that a disabled badge and time clock were on display in the vehicle but the benefit of the disabled badge holder exemption may not be claimed where, as here, loading restrictions are in force.

I am satisfied against this background that the contravention occurred and am not satisfied that any exemption applies.

The appeal is refused.

Keep those Appeals coming. It is worth the effort.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Monday, 21 August 2017

London Tribunals - May 17

During the month of May 2017 there were 130 Appeals decided upon by experienced legally qualified adjudicators at London Tribunals. On 80 occasions they cancelled the PCN which is a run rate of 62% and above the usual average of 50%. Well done motorists.

A few decisions are worth replicating. The numbers are the tribunal references.

2170161201 - Richmond Road

There seems to me no doubt the Council received the Appellant’s informal representations sent by e-mail within the statutory time limit. It acknowledged receipt in the email of the 10th February produced in evidence by the Appellant. It should therefore have offered the Appellant a further opportunity to pay at the discounted rate when rejecting those representations; and had it been necessary I would certainly have directed the Council to do so.

In the event that is not necessary, since I am not satisfied the contravention itself is made out. The Appellant has provided very detailed evidence that he stopped only to allow a vehicle ahead to manoeuvre and to allow a pedestrian to cross. The very brief CCTV footage provided no evidence inconsistent with that account; indeed the position of the vehicle a little way out on the markings suggests a vehicle stopping briefly in the ordinary course of driving rather than for any other purpose. There is a statutory exception to the stopping provision for vehicles which have to be stropped to avoid damage persons or property (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Schedule 7 Part 6 para 4(2)); and this covers a case where a vehicle has to stop on the basis that if it continued to proceed it might run into another vehicle or a pedestrian. On balance I am satisfied the vehicle was not in contravention and that as it transpires the PCN was incorrectly issued.

2170172911 - Clovelly Avenue

The appellant attended on 15 May accompanied by her mother but it was she alone who presented the appeal and gave evidence to me.

The Council did not send a representative to the hearing.

We watched the CCTV clip together. The appellant described quite complicated arrangements regarding family school runs for the two children attending the school shown on the clip at the end of the cul-de-sac.

The appellant described why her father was driving her to the school on the occasion concerned.

The appellant remarked about the way in which the yellow plate for the zigzags was positioned. I could not see a well founded appeal point on that issue. Although a cul-de-sac it was correct for the plate to be aligned with the kerb line. Furthermore given the position of the appellant as a parent there can be little excuse for not knowing and not remembering the operational hours of the school zigzags. That position accorded with ministerially approved practice for this type of sign.

I could see the appellant car in the CCTV clip after it had reversed. I could see a few seconds of it being stopped before it moved on. The CCTV footage itself did not show any boarding or alighting from the appellant vehicle. I decided after viewing the CCTV footage and on hearing from the appellant that the evidence shown on the clip was inconclusive, that is to say it was ambiguous whether what was shown was an unlawful halt for the purpose of boarding or alighting, or simply to permit the progress of the black car also shown in the clip. On that basis I have decided there is insufficient evidence to uphold the penalty charge on this occasion and I have recorded the appeal as allowed.

2170104398 - Hampstead Way

This is an appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice issued to the vehicle whilst it was parked in Hampstead Way in a bay that was for the sole use of loading and unloading. The bay was clearly marked on the road surface plus sign on the pole indicating it was reserved for goods vehicles.

Mr Bernadout, the driver appeared on behalf of the registered keeper Mr Clifford. The vehicle is an electric car is used for the carrying of exams papers for Specialised Training Ltd.

Mr Bernadout attended the hearing today and explained the adaptions made by the company to this vehicle in order to allow it to collect and deliver papers from exams.

The definition of “goods carrying vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the use for the carriage of goods or burden of any description, and is not drawing a trailer”.

Mr Bernadout has explained the vehicle has been adapted by removing the fixtures in the well area of the rear of the vehicle and the placement of a tray that prevents boxes of papers from moving around. The space can accommodate five boxers of A4 papers.

On 24 December 2016 I find the vehicle was being used for a commercial activity, which was the collection of papers. These boxes of papers come within the definition of “goods”.

Secondly there were five boxes of papers placed in adapted storage of the vehicle.

Whilst this vehicle is clearly not a constructed as a commercial vehicle it has been adapted for the use of carriage of goods. Having raised the issue of adapting the vehicle to carry goods it was for the Company to prove the adaption was for the sole use of the carriage of goods and this activity forms part of a commercial activity. Mr Bernadout has also indicated the vehicle is a company vehicle under a commercial lease and is not “returned” to its original state at any time.

When the car is registered as a private car by the DVLA, it is for the registered keeper to show on a balance of probabilities that any adaption to the vehicle was for the sole use of carriage of "goods or burden". Each case has to be considered separately on the evidence submitted of the adaptions made. Mr Bernadout has so satisfied me in this case. I am satisfied this vehicle was adapted for the carriage of goods and it was undertaking a commercial activity at the time. The appeal is allowed.

2170181402 - Bow Lane N12

This vehicle on the council's case 'stopped in a restricted area . . .. outside a school.

The sign at the location as shown in the council's cctv images states 'No stopping . . .. . on entrance markings'.

I have not been able to access the council's online footage of the incident but upon the point being raised by the appellant on the images taken therefrom the vehicle does not stop on entrance markings.

Although the restriction the council seeks to enforce extends across the length and breadth of the carriageway at this spot that is not made clear on the sign the restriction being stated thereon to apply only to entrance markings and I am not for that reason satisfied that signage is adequate to convey the restriction that is applicable.

The contravention has not I find for that reason been proved.

The appeal is allowed.

2170182267 - Montagu Road

The Appellant said that he stopped because a vehicle ahead had stopped. His daughter who was seated at the back assumed that the Appellant stopped to let her off so she exited the vehicle.

I am not sure why the Appellant's daughter (who is not a young child) would have assumed that she would be dropped off at the entrance when this would, I presume, not be a regular occurrence.

However, if another vehicle causes the Appellant to stop and his daughter takes the opportunity to exit without the Appellant's encouragement, there is not a lot the Appellant can do about that.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.

2170181468 - Thorverton Road

The allegation in these proceedings is that this vehicle stopped in a restricted area outside a school.

The restriction as stated on the sign applies where a vehicle stops on 'entrance markings'

On the undisputed evidence before me this vehicle did not stop on entrance markings but in the middle of the road.

Upon the point being raised by the appellant although this restriction on stopping applies to the length and breadth of the carriageway at this location that is not I find made clear on the sign the ambit of the restriction as given thereon extending only to entrance markings and I am not for that reason satisfied that this signage, although compliant, clearly indicates the restriction that is in force.

The contravention has not I find for this reason been proved.

2170187227 - Richmond Road

The Appellant says she was stopped while waiting for oncoming traffic to pass and therefore was in effect in the course of traffic and not stopped for the purpose of this contravention.

In the cctv footage no one is seen getting in or out of the vehicle and therefore there was no apparent reason for the vehicle to stop on the zig zag lines. There are no other vehicles seen coming towards the vehicle, but the camera concentrates on close up of the vehicle and ends after some seconds before the vehicle moves off. The footage is not inconsistent with the Appellant’s claim and given that there appears to be no other reason why the vehicle is stopped I accept that it was in the course of traffic.

217018008A - Whitings Road

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of vehicle, at the relevant time, on the material date; namely at a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by zig zag carriageway markings, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area.

The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle entered the defined area and stopped.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as stated in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing, supported by photographic capture.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ, and the applicable signage and carriageway markings notifying motorists of the restriction.

It is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with carriageway/kerb indications, and to be acquainted with the nature of such restrictions/prohibitions by reference to The Highway Code.

Examination of the contemporaneous footage shows the said vehicle pull into position briefly and the move forward, again briefly before the camera capture concludes abruptly.

No boarding or alighting is discernible.

The Appellant described a scenario consistent with that stated at the outset, and supported his contention with images of the road in question [and indeed moving footage of both the whole road and bus journey] which demonstrate its dimension and the effect of parked vehicles on either side.

The Appellant's photographic capture establish that the road affords the passage of only one moving vehicle at a time to traverse between the parked vehicles; vehicles travelling in an opposite direction being caused to pull into spaces to accord precedence to the other, such situations alternating dependent upon the courtesy of respective drivers.

The Appellant maintains that at the relevant time he had pulled the said vehicle over to one side to allow an oncoming bus to pass.

I had the benefit of assessing and questioning the Appellant at the Hearing; I found the Appellant's oral evidence to be cogent and credible and I accepted it in its entirety making a finding that the said vehicle was paused in the course of a manoeuvre. I distinguish the present instance from the mischief which the restriction is designed to combat by finding that the said vehicle was paused during the course of a manoeuvre.

A balance must be made between traffic enforcement and the practicalities of motoring.

Evidentially I am not satisfied that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

That is an awful lot of school zig zag PCNs which should not have been issued. What will Barnet Council learn from these decisions?

Do keep the Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Sunday, 25 June 2017

London Tribunals - April 2017

In April 2017 there were 100 Appeals which were won by the motorist, 80 which were lost and 3 where the adjudicator recommended that the council cancel the PCN although the motorist had contravened.
This means that the motorist won 55% of the time which is better than the usual London wide result of 50%. Appeals to the tribunal seem to be dropping across London and if this month is typical that is 1.3% of PCN which go to Appeal. Nowhere near enough. Motorists need to be more combative.
I have 5 tribunal reports which I have copied for you, and given you the tribunal reference, you can find the original reports here; in the first 4 cases the motorist won and in the final one he lost but the reason was original.
2170124690 Universal service provider - Royal Mail
Royal Mail Group Plc says that the driver was delivering mail. It seeks to rely on a universal service provider exemption. There is no such exemption in the Traffic Management Order but there is an exemption for essentially the collection and delivery of postal packets.
The Appellant says that it does not keep records of such activities. I think that I will need to be persuaded that the postman is delivering mail at 4:36 pm. To say that there are no such records is not good enough.
On the other hand, the Authority seemed to be confused about the Appellant's case. It refused the representation without any suggestion that it had considered the exemption claimed. This confusion carried on at the appeal stage when the Authority asserted that exemption did not apply where there is a loading restriction. The loading/unloading exemption is different to the mail delivery exemption. The former does not apply at the location but the latter does.
I am not satisfied that the Authority considered the representations in any meaningful way if at all. This is a procedural impropriety. I allow the appeal.
2170100648 Motorcycle bays not defined in car park rules
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued on the basis that the appellant’s car was parked in a bay in a car park that was for motorcycles only.
Mrs A states that she parked her car and paid to park for about 2 hours. She states that she did not see any signs to indicate that the bay was for motorcycles only.
Article 22 of the Traffic Management Order states that a Penalty Charge Notice can be issued for failing to comply with the requirements of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of for failing to display a pay and display ticket or displaying an expired pay and display ticket.
Article 4 states that no vehicles other than those displaying a disabled badge can park in a bay that is marked that it is for disabled persons’ vehicles.
Article 5 states that vehicles cannot wait in a parking place other than in a parking bay and not in a suspended bay.
Article 6 states that vehicles must park so that every part of the vehicle is within the parking bay.
The Traffic Management Order does not appear to create a contravention of parking in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.
I allow this appeal.
2170117119 Just 18 seconds to end of restrictions
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being stopped in a restricted area outside a school in Richmond Road at 4.14pm on 31 January 2017.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and also the site images submitted by the Council. These show that the vehicle pulled up just short of the sign next to the school entrance markings with the driver appearing to inspect the signage before reversing and pulling up on the markings at 4:14:42.
The sign next to the entrance markings warned motorists that there was no stopping on the markings between 8am and 9.30amd and between 2.45pm and 4.15pm Mondays to Fridays. A motorist looking at a standard time piece at 4:14:42 would be likely to read the time as 4.15pm and reasonably conclude that the restriction on stopping had expired. A standard watch will not show that there is 18 seconds until expiry of the controlled period. One person's time piece may also differ from another's by a small margin and there needs to be a common sense approach. I find from the evidence that the alleged contravention did not occur.
2170119249 New Years Day
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 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 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.

The evidence leads me to conclude that the vehicle was in a business permit space without displaying a valid business permit.

The issue however is whether the local authority's web site is misleading. I find that it is. I find that the appellant was misled by it.

I have read the local authority's comments but I find that further clarification on the authority's web site was needed when, in this case, New Year's day falls on a Sunday.

The web site according to the evidence clearly states that New year's Day is a Bank Holiday. Without further clarification I find this is misleading.

I will therefore allow the appeal.
2170148305 Divorce
The Appellant attended in person.
The Appellant said that he did not see the signage indicating that he could not turn left. He said that he had just been informed by his wife that she wanted a divorce.
While there is a mitigating background to this matter, a motorist has a responsibility to concentrate on his or her driving. The signs are there to be seen.
I am satisfied that the contravention occurred. I refuse the appeal. 

If you get an Appeal form along with a Notice of Rejection is it is a simple 5 minute job to create an Appeal on line. Do it as you have nothing to lose.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Tuesday, 11 April 2017

London Tribunals - March 17

Oxford Avenue, N14
In March 2017 there were 120 Appeals which were won out of 231 which were heard which means that the motorist won 52% of the time, a slightly better than average result.
The following eight decisions, including two which were lost, are worthy of note.
Adjudicator refuses through gritted teeth.
The CEO’s photographs show sufficiently clearly that, as the driver (whom I have heard in person) does not dispute , the vehicle was observed in the early hours of the morning parked other than with all its wheels on the carriageway.
Parking a vehicle other than on the carriageway is unlawful throughout London (save at those locations where the Local Authority has exercised its powers to permit it and signed the exemption accordingly The prohibition is imposed by statute ( s15 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 as amended), and no signs are therefore required. As in many other areas of activity motorists are presumed to know the law, and are bound by it whether they are aware of it or not. It is referred to in the Highway Code with which all motorists should be familiar. It is irrelevant in law that no actual obstruction was caused to pedestrians, who are in any event legally entitled to access to the entire footway, not merely that part of it which a motorist may consider sufficient for their needs. It is never a defence to footway parking to say that had the vehicle been parked entirely on the carriageway danger or obstruction might have been caused. If this is the case at a particular location the vehicle must simply be parked safely elsewhere.
Whist it might certainly seem a little peculiar that the Council is expending its resources enforcing what is, at this type of location and at this time of night, a minor example of the contravention in question, I am unable to find that the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully and the Appeal must therefore be refused. (2170052895)
Dot matrix = self evidently inadequate signage (heads you win...)
Mr S.  appeared before me at a Personal Hearing on 10th March 2017, to represent his Wife, the Appellant [as registered keeper], to explain the contention personally. Mr S. also attended on behalf of his Daughter who was the driver at the relevant time.
The Enforcement Authority assert the whereabouts of the vehicle, at the relevant time, on the material date, to be at a location subject to an 'event' restriction, during which vehicles are obliged to display of an applicable and valid permit, and assert the absence of such permit display in respect of the said vehicle.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in the written representations (supported by photographic capture) which Mr S. reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, signage Authorization and notes made by the Civil Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: still frames revealing the said vehicle in situ, and an image of the adjacent signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce annotated maps/plans and undated images; these are of limited evidential value since the knowledge of the annotator is not known and it is not possible to correlate some images to the position of the said vehicle.
No evidence is adduced of the event or any event day signs advertising the material date as an event day.
Of crucial importance in an 'event' operative restricted area is the inclusion of clear and unambiguous information for the motorist regarding the 'event' triggering the operation of the same.

Mr S. indicated that there was a distinct lack of event signage in the vicinity, and challenged the notion that any such signage was adequate by submitting photographic capture showing the use of supplemental portable notification devices (dot matrix signs). (2170061692)
Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that a contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
Don't park on double yellows to buy a newspaper (a schoolboy error)
The appellant attended the personal hearing on the 11th March 2017.
He disputed the PCN on the basis that the CEO had indicated that he was open to a bribe and had himself parked in contravention.
The appellant stated that he only stopped to buy his elderly mother a newspaper and was away from the vehicle less than a few minutes when he saw the CEO who held out his hand to the appellant and said he had already issued the PCN but could help the appellant appeal which the appellant clearly interpreted to be an invitation for a bribe. In addition the appellant noticed the CEO parked in front of him on the same double yellow lines in an unmarked vehicle and remaining there for a period of time after the appellant moved away.
The allegations made by the appellant relate to the alleged behaviour of the CEO which is a matter for the local authority to consider and investigate.
The issue for me to decide is whether or not the alleged contravention did occur and whether there is any valid exemption available to the appellant.
The photographs taken by the CEO clearly show the appellant's vehicle parked on double yellow lines which is an instant contravention. Purchasing a newspaper does not amount to a loading/unloading activity which requires the use of a car in order to fall within the loading and unloading exemption.
Considering the evidence carefully I am satisfied that the contravention did occur and can find no valid grounds for this appeal. I am also satisfied that the enforcement officer was entitled to stop on the double yellow lines in order to issue the appellant with a PCN as part of his powers of enforcement and there was nowhere else nearby where he could have legally stopped in order to carry out his duties. I therefore do not find there to have been any procedural impropriety which affects the validity of this PCN.
Appeal refused. (2170020935)
Don't fall over & then expect the council to show any compassion
Mr G, the Appellant, appeared before me accompanied by his son, Mr N G.
The Appellant accepted that at the time the penalty charge notice was issued his disabled badge was not displayed. However, he explained that there was a very good reason for this. He has difficulty walking and uses an elbow crutch. He had exited from the vehicle to make sure that it was parked fully within the disabled bay, before displaying his badge. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this he fell over. He was assisted by a passerby – a Mr Joseph – who has provided a signed witness statement confirming these facts. The passerby took Mr G to a wall nearby where he could sit down and Mr N G was telephoned to come to his father's assistance. While this occurred, the officer issued the penalty charge notice (quite properly) to the vehicle but out of eyeshot of the Appellant.
I accept this evidence as true. It does not amount to a defence to the contravention, but I do consider it to be compelling mitigation. I strongly recommend that the Council on this occasion exercise their discretion not to enforce the penalty in the light of my findings of fact. (2170053559) (Why the heck did the council not cancel this PCN before the tribunal stage?)
Paid but not paid, by phone.
Mr Q appeals against the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice to his vehicle for parking on 10 October 2016 in the High Street.
Mr Q attended the hearing. He explained he is a frequent user of the pay by phone system and also uses the other systems operated by other Authorities throughout London.
When he parked his vehicle Mr Q used the App on his telephone to pay for parking. He is registered with the pay by phone company and all details are held by them for the two vehicles he uses. His payment card is also registered with the company. On making the “payment” by entering the details and the CVV number of his card he left the vehicle. Half way through the time he purchased he checked on his phone and using the screenshot sent by the company and saw he had a number of minutes left.
On returning to the vehicle he noted the Penalty Charge Notice. He informed the Enforcement Authority of his payment and initially he was advised there was no trace of his using the system on the day. However later the company accepted he had been on the system but claimed the CVV was not entered so payment was not made. However neither the Enforcement Authority or the Company have offered any explanation as to how Mr Q received the countdown screen shot if the CVV number had not been entered and a payment made.
As Mr Q had not previously had any difficulty with the system he did not take a photograph of the screenshot he relied on 10 October 2016. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Mr Q is a reliable witness and is very conversant with the pay by phone system. I have no reason to doubt his account of what happened. I find he did all that was required of him to make the payment and for some technical reason the company failed to take the payment. He was entitled to rely on the screen shot he was sent by the company to show he had paid to park. I see no reason why Mr Q should pay the Penalty Charge for a technical fault with the system he used. Neither the operating company or the Enforcement Authority have any valid explanation for the screen shot being sent if the steps taken by Mr Q were incomplete. It is logical that the screenshot can only be created and sent following completion of the information required to take a payment or indeed a payment taken.
I am satisfied the error lies with the pay by phone company and not Mr Q. The appeal is allowed. (2170069504)
Council want to enforce on private land, or is it?
The Appellant is represented by Mr R.
The Appellant's case is that the vehicle was outside no 26 Oxford Avenue. It is private and the Authority has no jurisdiction to issue a Penalty Charge Notice.
Both parties have made extensive submissions as to whether the road was adopted. There is no conclusive evidence from either side. The evidence is not particular persuasive either way.
The Authority says that the map it supplied proves that Oxford Avenue is adopted. I do not see why or how. As Mr R points out, he has never said that the whole of Oxford Avenue is not adopted. He is saying that the adoption stopped short of the Appellant's address. He drew my attention n to the yellow line stopping short of the Appellant's address. There is also a strip of paving across the carriageway. There is no apparent purpose for this save to separate one part of Oxford Avenue from another. Mr R asks a not unreasonable question - why can the Authority not produce primary documentation of the adoption?
On the other hand, Mr R has been engaged with what appeared to be lengthy discussions with the management company of the estate some time before 2010 to the point that the latter has informed him that there would been discussion. If the relevant section of Oxford Avenue has not been adopted since 2015, I would have thought that the Appellant would have received bills for maintenance and certainly bills for street lighting. Mr R says that there are none.
I think that one has to start from basics. The contravention occurs when any person causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath.
A road means, according to section 142 (1) of the he Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes. It is irrelevant whether the road is privately owned or maintained by the public, see R on the application of Dawood v the Parking Adjudicator PATAS and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1411.
Oxford Avenue is clearly a road in that it is a definable way of passage between two points. The issue is therefore whether the general public, and not merely a special class of the general public, has access to the road and that the public has access at least by tolerance of the owner of the road.
In Deacon v AT (A Minor) [1976] RTR 244, the Court held that the prosecutor seeking to prove that there is public access to the road must prove the general public used the road. It is not sufficient to prove that a restricted class of the public e.g. the residents and visitors of an estate has access to the road.
In this case, there is no evidence of any level of use of the section of Oxford Avenue save by residents or visitors. It is therefore not a road to which the public has access. There is there no restriction on footway parking at the location. I allow the appeal. (2170061863)
Payment for the other side of the road is OK
The Appellant attended in person.
The facts are not in dispute. The Appellant parked his car in Brent Street and sought to pay for his parking by app. It turned out that the location number selected was for the other side of the street. The Appellant does not dispute that the sign for the bay in which he parked showed a different location number but he had not seen this when he was using his app in his car.
The Authority submits that it is permissible to have two location numbers on the same street because different tariffs may apply. It is therefore the driver's responsibility to ascertain and use the correct location code.
I do not disagree with the above as a general principle. However, not only is there no difference in tariff between the two sides of the road, and this is well known to local residents, the Authority does not challenge the Appellant's assertion that one can purchase a ticket from one side of the road and use it on the other.
The Traffic Management Order requires the payment by inserting money into a ticket meter for "that parking place". It follows that if machines on both sides of the road can be used, both sides of the road is the same "parking place". The Authority has not drawn my attention to anything in the TMO that says that payment by phone or app should be treated differently.
Even if the Authority is somehow saying that the two sides of the road are in fact different "parking places", I would say that it is incumbent upon the Authority to make this clear.
The Appellant also makes the point that the app refers to Brent Street. It does not offer a choice as to where in Brent Street.
I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow appeal. (2170081805)
Safety is motorist's first priority, revenue raising is the council's?
The appellant, who appeared before me today, said that his hearing aid batteries had failed as he was driving he being unable to continue with his journey in safety without being able to hear sound he stopping in this bay close to an opticians to replace his batteries.
The appellant had I noted provided this explanation to the issuing officer and he supplied supporting evidence from the optician concerned.
I was satisfied as to the evidence given and adduced by the appellant as to this incident and found as a fact that he had been prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control the exemption in that regard being applicable. (2170093473)
Just to remind you that decisions by an adjudicator are not legally binding, not even on themselves. They are persuasive so claim their support but don't poke the adjudicator in the eye with them, adjudicators like to make their own decisions so just mention the decision exists and leave it at that.
I have given you the tribunal references so you can look at the original decisions if you wish, and print them, form here.
If you want to look at all contraventions which have taken place in, say, Oxford Avenue, then you can search the register by completing at least 2 fields. Type BARN in the Enforcing Authority box and you can then select Barnet Council, type OXFORD% in the location box and you will get all road names which start with Oxford and perhaps put 1/1/16 in the from box so you don't get too many results. Have fun.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance