Parking Adjudicators Decisions
The following decisions have been summarised to make it easier to navigate. This section is very useful as you may well be able to find a similar case to your own. Of course every case is heard on its own merits and adjudicators decisions in one case are not binding on other cases.
We have grouped the following cases into different categories to make them easier to navigate.
These are just a very few of the thousands of cases which are heard each year. You are entitled to attend at the adjudicators offices and sometimes your local council in order to view appeal decisions.
The adjudicators websites also have “key cases” on them. These are worth looking at. There are two adjudicators. Click here for the London Boroughs or here for outside of London
Please note that these summarised decisions have been provided in good faith. We accept no liability whatsoever for their accuracy. Different adjudicators can arrive at different decisions therefore just because one adjudicator has ruled one way in a certain case it doesn’t mean another one will. There are many factors that an adjudicator will consider before reaching a decision and every case is different and judged on its own merits.
Page Index:
Simply click on the heading below to go straight to the section or scroll down through all the decisions.
1: Penalty charge notice not received by motorist or PCN not issued correctly or motorist driving off
2: Not perusing a penalty charge notice within 6 months and delays on the part of a council
3: Disabled and loading
4: Council should use discretion in some circumstances
5: Defects in a penalty charge notice
6: Defects in a notice of rejection
7: Condition of signage and road markings and confusing or illegal signage
8: Yellow line T-bars
9: Dimensions of parking bays and Parked within a bay
10: Motor cycles parking on foot ways
11: Parked in a taxi rank
12: Statutory declarations
13: Conflicts with TRO’s (traffic regulation order)
14: Pay and display bays
15: Parking at out-of-order metres
16: Hired Vehicles
17: Loading/ unloading
18: Parked in suspended bays
19: Parking limited to a specific period
20: Clamping & towing
21: Vehicle removals
22: Residents parking bays
23: Bank Holiday Parking
1: Penalty charge notice not received by motorist or PCN not issued correctly or motorist driving off.
“GHOST TICKETING”.
Westminster City Council vs Terrance Chase
This appeal concerned the case of Mr Chase who parked his car on a metre which allegedly showed a penalty time of 62 minutes. Mr Chase however said in his representations to the council that the car was not there at the relevant time and no PCN was issued. It was also stated “If a PCN is not properly issued and served then the council could not pursue any penalty [by virtue of section 66 (I) and paragraph 1 (1) (a) of schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Act 1991. The chief parking adjudicator at the time allowed the appeal on the basis of “Mr & Mrs Chase say that the car was in the vicinity of Melbourne Place but strongly deny that it was on a meter or given a PCN. The council relied on evidence as shown on the tax disc but details show that information was added to the PCN on 26th April. It seems probable that this information was transferred from details of a different (submitted) PCN. The council had provided no evidence that the attendant recorded these details contemporaneously on the street as evidence for the council’s case. The adjudicator initially awarded costs against the council of £100 to which the council appealed.
This practice is known as ghost ticketing. It is more difficult since the introduction of digital cameras.
Since April 2008 a penalty charge notice can be sent by post if the Civil enforcement officer has started the process of issuing the ticket!
In the case of Bell Vs London Borough of Southwark, a penalty charge notice had been issued by post for a parking contravention. The appellant stated that he had not received the PCN even though it had been posted by the council. Although the adjudicator said that where legislation provides for the service of a document by post service was deemed to have been effected 2 working days after the document was posted, he said this presumption was rebuttable. The local authority proceeded to issue a notice to owner because they had not received payment for the penalty, but the adjudicator found that they were not entitled to serve a notice to owner because the penalty charge notice had not been properly ‘issued’ under the 1991 act. He allowed the motorists appeal on the basis that the motorist had not received the penalty charge notice posted by the council.
In case number WC6 an appeal by a motorist before NPAS was allowed because the PCN showed the penalty charge in dollars rather then pounds!
On one occasion a local authority accepted that a penalty charge notice had not been served by either fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle. However the local authority argued that it wished to enforce the penalty on the basis that the parking attendant told the motorist that a PCN would be sent to him in the post. The adjudicator allowed the appeal and said that it was difficult to understand how a notice to owner could have been served in relation to a penalty charge notice that the local authority knew had never been properly issued!
The rules changed in 2008 so if a civil enforcement officer “has began the process of issuing a PCN” it can be served by post.
2: Not perusing a penalty charge notice within 6 months and delays on the part of a council
On the newsletter from the Parking appeals and Traffic service (PATAS) of December 2003, they drew attention to the fact that a local authority had served a notice to owner outside the statutory 6 month time limit. Having not served a notice to owner within that time, the local authority was not entitled to pursue enforcement yet it continued to do so.
London Borough of Lambeth vs. Mr A Wilde
This briefly is the case where Mr Wilde appealed against the issue of a PCN. His appeal was allowed. However, the adjudicator said that he would have allowed the appeal in any event “on the basis of the unconscionable delay has occurred between the receipt by the council of Mr Wilde’s representations against the notice to owner and the service of the notice of rejection. He also awarded costs of £91.00 against the council because of the delay.
Paul Richard Davies vs The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
In this case Mr Davies’ appeal was upheld because the council did not respond to his representations within a reasonable period of time. The adjudicator stated “however, without suggesting there is any rigid time-limit in a case without extraordinary features.
I. A notice to owner should be served within six months after the notice of a PCN upon which it is based After the expiry of that period it is still open to the authorities to show that the delay in service of the notice to owner was not unreasonable in all of the circumstances.
II. An authority should respond to representations to a notice to owner in 2/3 months of receipt. Again thereafter it is still open to an authority to show that the delay in considering representations was not unreasonable in all of the circumstances”. He went on to say “if an authority fails to take a step to enforce a parking penalty within a reasonable time it breaches to obligation to act fairly”.
Quite simply if you don’t hear for 6 months then they shouldn’t pursue you.
3: Disabled and loading
London Borough of Southwark vs Mrs D Wanambwa
This is the case where the wife stopped to drop her husband off to go to the bank on a part of the road where loading and unloading was not allowed. Mrs Wanambwa thought that taking the wheelchair out of a vehicle was unloading and claimed an unloading exemption although loading at that location was expressly prohibited. The chief adjudicator Mr Martin Wood said however that this was not a case about unloading at all. “The circumstances are squarely within the boarding/alighting exemption which does apply even where loading is prohibited”. He allowed her appeal.
Now why would a council possibly continue to enforce this in any event. In any event they were legally wrong to do so.
4: Council should use discretion in some circumstances.
In case number RF4 brought before NPAS, a pay and display ticket had been purchased from the machine but was displayed upside down so it could not be read. The motorist received a PCN and appealed. The adjudicator said that the council had not exercised discretion because their policy had no regard to particular circumstances of each case.
An adjudicator cannot cancel a PCN on compassionate grounds or for compelling reasons but he can refer the matter back to the council if he believes that they did not discharge their duty to do so.
5: Defects in a penalty charge notice
CASE NO 2080351250 Harrow vs Mr John Evans
This was an important case as the penalty charge notice was defective as it didn’t state that “compelling reasons” could be given. It was also a CCTV issued one and didn’t even state the right that a motorist has to view the evidence. Here is what the adjudicator said.
“It appears to the adjudicator that the PCN issued in this case is defective in that it did not state in full the nature of the representations that can be made under regulation 4 as required by Regulation 3(4)(b) civil enforcement of parking contraventions (England) Representations and appeals 2007. There appears to be no mention of the fact that representations may also be made on the basis of “compelling reasons” under s4(2)(b)(ii). Nor does there appear to be any indication of the effect of regulation 3 paragraphs (5) and (6) (right to view evidence). As required by regulation 3(4)(e).
CASE NO 206 0225650 – Transport for London
Patience Road, London SW1
This case was simple. The Penalty Charge Notice did not state the date of the Notice. It did state the date of the contravention but it is a legal requirement that the Notice states the date of the Notice which it did not. The adjudicator therefore said “It is invalid and unenforceable and I must accordingly allow this Appeal”.
In order to be valid, a Penalty Charge Notice must have both the date of the contravention and the date of the Notice, even if they are the same, clearly stated on the main body of the Penalty Charge Notice (not the tear off section).
CASE NO 207 0159596 – Transport for London
Richard Place, SW1
The adjudicator said “Transport for London had produced in evidence what purports to be an Office Copy of the Penalty Charge Notice. However, this copy of the Penalty Charge Notice does not contain details of the amount to pay, the time period within which to pay or reference that a discounted penalty in compliance with Section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, on the evidence produced I cannot be satisfied that the Penalty Charge Notice was valid and must therefore allow this Appeal”.
If the Penalty Charge Notice does not state this information then it is not enforceable.
CASE NO: 206 0203931 – Transport for London
Blackfriars Road
Penalty Charge Notice did not state the date of the Notice rather only the date of the contravention and it was therefore ruled invalid and unenforceable.
In order to be valid, a Penalty Charge Notice must have both the date of the contravention and the date of the Notice even if they are the same clearly stated on the main body of the Penalty Charge Notice (not the tear off section).
There have been many cases where penalty charge notices have been ruled illegal.
6: Defects in a notice of rejection
In a case in London a well informed motorist said that the notice of rejection did not strictly comply with paragraph 3 in schedule 1 of the 2003 London local authorities and transport for London act 2003 as amended.
The notice of rejection said
“If you do not either pay or appeal within 28 days of the date of this letter is served [sic] , we may issue a charge certificate, at which stage the penalty charge will increase by 50% to £180 and it will be too late for you to appeal.”
It was the word “within” that shortens the period by one day that the appellant pointed out. According to the adjudicator, under the act, the wording which must appear on a notice of rejection “is absolutely clear” It says
“before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection”
The 28 days must start from service of the letter and not the date of the letter.
The appeal was allowed. It is worth mentioning the a president for this was also in a well known case of Al’s Bar VS Wandsworth council.
7: Condition of signage and road markings and confusing and illegal signage
Westminster Council vs Keystone Distribution UK.
This was a major case as it concerned the enforceability of all the single yellow lines in Westminster. The rules regarding signage on Single yellow lines are very simple. There must be clear road side signage within 15 metres of where you parked indicating the controlled hours (hours of enforcement) on single yellow lines. The exception is that if the yellow lines are located within a valid controlled parking zone (CPZ) then there is no need to install roadside signage on single yellow lines. However the rules on signage for controlled parking zones must be adhered to in order for a zone to be enforceable. There must be one controlled zone sign on each side of the road (unless the road is less than 5 metres wide) at every entry point to the zone. Westminster council in London use the controlled zone system but they did not sign the zones correctly and in fact the department of transport wrote to them in 2003 to warn them. However they still didn’t install the signs. They just kept dishing out hundreds of thousands of parking tickets each year. However in November 2008 a parking adjudicator, having given Westminster every opportunity to show where the signs were, decided to have a look for himself. He didn’t find one single sign in the zone where this particular ticket was issued! He upheld the appeal and said “The signing is therefore unlawful here and the appeal is allowed” Westminster continued to issue thousands of penalty charge notices after the decision!
In a case in Oxford 828 the adjudicator found that although the lines were worn and no longer bright and fresh, they were none the less adequate to inform the motorist of the restriction and the motorists appeal was dismissed. However, in Plymouth 1477, also before NPAS, a motorist mistook a worn double yellow line for a single yellow line. The time plate was also obstructed by foliage. The adjudicator found that the road markings were not in adequate condition and allowed the appeal.
In Milton Keynes case number 329 before NPAS, a perfectly legible sign had been placed near a tree and became obscured by foliage during the summer months. Although the sign was in good condition and may well have been visible in the winter, it was found to be insufficiently visible during August when the trees were in full leaf and the appeal was allowed.
Mr M Grimwood vs. London Borough of Croydon
This case concerned Mr Grimwood who inadvertently parked his car in a solo motor cycle’s bay. After parking he and his wife carefully studied the various signs insitu and concluded that it was ok to park at that time. The council argued that the bay was properly marked although the parking adjudicator agreed with Mr Grimwood and upheld his appeal. Hugh Cooper the parking adjudicator stated “the council are under a duty to provide adequate and clear signage of any restrictions. This, however, is a case of “over-signing”. He goes on to say that Mr Grimwood was misled [by the signs].
Cooper vs London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Mr Cooper regularly parked his London taxi in a marked bay in a street in Richmond. On the particular bay which he parked there was no plate indicating that it was for residents only. He received many PCNs and appealed against them all. Whilst other bays within the street had a sign indicating resident’s permit holders only the particular bay that Mr Cooper parked in did not. The parking adjudicator, Mr James, allowed the appeals and the parking adjudicator Edward Holten upheld the decision of Mr James after being asked to review Mr James’ decision by the local authority.
Yellow lines T-bar’s
In the case of Minier Vs London Borough of Camden, the motorist agued that the yellow line did not comply with the signage regulations because it did not have a T- bar at the point where it met parking bays. The adjudicator agreed that the traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002 (regulations) state that T-bars must be installed at the end of single and double yellow lines and that no permitted variants were allowed however, he also said that ‘the law does not concern itself with trifles and refused the motorists appeal. We would argue that if the markings are not in accordance with the regulations, they are not enforceable and as regards to ‘trifles’ we would equate this to enforcement of silly technical breaches of the parking regulations.
13 July 1998
VJ/mb//Q/D/let656
9: Dimensions of parking bays and parked within a bay
Mr J Letts vs The London Borough of Lambeth
Mr Letts received a PCN for not being correctly parked within the markings of business bay in Grafton Square. Mr Letts parked his car within a parking bay however the front offside wheel was over the white line by about 3 cms or 4 cms. Mr Letts checked the Traffic Sign’s Regulations 1994 where it states that the designated width of a parking bay should be 180 cms and the maximum should be 270 cms. However the parking bay was less then the minimum 180 cms for more then half of its length and accordingly his appeal was upheld on the basis that the contravention did not occur by Verity Jones parking adjudicator. The full decision is below:
PARKING APPEALS SERVICE
MR J LETTS
-v-
LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
Parking Appeal 1980151656
Penalty Charge Notice lh20988622
ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION
In this appeal I have been assisted by Mr Rowntree of Counsel who represented the
Appellant, Mr Letts. I have heard evidence from Mr Letts and from a Mr Ellis and have
considered all the written and photographic evidence before me.
The allegation is that Mr Letts was not parked correctly within the markings of a business
bay in Grafton Square. The Parking Attendant has made contemporaneous notes which
include a sketch in his pocket book. I am bound to say that I find his sketch to be unhelpful
and wildly inaccurate. This evidence had not been seen by the Appellants before the
hearing.
I compare the Parking Attendant’s sketch with a photograph taken by Mr Ellis shortly after
the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice. The Council have not accepted this photograph but
having heard from Mr Letts and Mr Ellis and having read the statement of another witness I
accept that this photograph was taken on the day of the alleged contravention and before
the car was moved. I find this photograph to be an accurate depiction of the position of the
car in the bay.
Mr Rowntree has tried to persuade me that the photograph shows that the car is wholly
within the bay. I cannot agree. However, it does show that the car is almost entirely within
the bay but that part of the front offside wheel is over the white line by perhaps 3 or 4
centimetres. Certainly, any member of the public would be astonished to learn why this
Penalty Charge Notice was issued, as is borne out by the statements from other witnesses
that I have read.
Mr Letts tells me, and I have no reason to doubt him, that a female supervisor came to the
site at his request from Lambeth on the day of the contravention. Her evidence has not been
provided. I understand that a Traffic Engineer from the local authority, a Mr Pettit, also
inspected the bay, but again this evidence has not been submitted by the Council.
Mr Rowntree has made submissions about the width of the bay. Mr Letts drives a Saab
9000 and from the photographs I can see that it is virtually impossible for him to park the
car wholly within this bay.
I have been assisted by a very helpful sketch from a surveyor, Mr B R Hughes. Also, by
further photographs taken by Mr Hughes. Mr Hughes has measured the width of the
parking place every 100cm. The measurements are from the kerb to the white line. The
dashed white line is not straight. At the widest the bay is 183cm, at its narrowest it is 174
cm. Where the relevant end of the parking place is marked by double white lines the bay is
176cm wide.
Mr Rowntree has referred me to the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. Schedule 6 provides
that the minimum width of a designated parking place shall be 180cm and the maximum
shall be 270cm. That is the measurement from the edge of the carriageway to the inside of
the white line.
On the evidence before me I find that the width of this bay is less than the minimum of
180cm .for more than half of its length. Accordingly, I find that the bay is not properly
marked and therefore that this contravention did not occur.
For the reasons I have set out I allow this appeal.
Verity Jones
Parking Adjudicator
In order to legally be able to enforce a restriction the enforcing authority must install correct lineage and signage. From our experience there is very often incorrect, inadequate or quite often completely missing signs and lines. Westminster council in London even told us that they have no resources to check their signs and lines and yet they issue more tickets than any other authority in the country.
10: Motorcycles parking on footways (not necessarily owned by the local authority)
There are two cases.
Saverio Ceppolino vs City of Westminster
John Loughridge vs City of Westminster
Both cases concerned motor cycles parked on glass bricks adjacent to department stores. PCNs were issued although the motor cyclists appealed on the basis that they were not parked on a public footway because the glass brick area was not owned by the council. On one occasion Mr Loughridge even obtained a letter from Libertys department store confirming that the store is responsible for some of the pavement lighting in Kingley Street. On both occasions the parking adjudicators agreed with the councils that PCNs had been correctly issued because “the public have a right of way on every part of the highway which extends all the way up to the wall of [the department store] also “it is clear that the place where the vehicle was parked is that part of the highway over which the public have a right of way by foot. There is no evidence in the form signs or Title Deeds that suggest otherwise”. The adjudicator goes on to say “I therefore conclude that the place where the vehicle was parked was part of the foot way and that the contravention alleged did occur”. In the case of John Loughridge he went on to say “whether Liberty owns the glass bricks in the footway or is responsible for their upkeep is not relevant.”
11. Parked in a taxi rank
In the case of Ehsani Vs Hammersmith and Fulham, the motorist was parked in a taxi rank for around 30 minutes. The council said that as he was not actively plying for business, the vehicle was parked and therefore this was a contravention of parking in a taxi rank. However the adjudicator stated that the local authority had no powers to enforce such an offence which was created under the London Hackney carriages act 1850, as it was not a decriminalised offence which the council were entitled to pursue so the appeal was allowed.
12: Statutory declarations
In one case a motorist made a statutory declaration on the grounds that he had appealed to the parking adjudicator but received no response, the court made the usual order cancelling the charge certificate. The local authority should have referred this statutory declaration to the parking adjudicator, in fact it issued a notice of rejection to the motorist instead. The adjudicator said that in doing so it acted unlawfully and that the breach of duty by the local authority was a serious irregularity because in issuing the supposed notice of rejection, it unlawfully purported to impose on the motorist a liability for a penalty and a time limit for challenging that liability.
In one case a statutory declaration had been sworn but when the local authority received it from the court, they wrote to the motorist telling him that he had exhausted all the appeal processes and that penalty was overdue! They also said that unless he paid £40 by a date specified, he would then have to pay £125 and bailiffs would be instructed to recover it. The adjudicator said that the letter amounted to a wholly unlawful demand for payment.
A statutory declaration is now called a witness statement. This procedure reverses the situation. An enforcing authority cannot continue the enforcement process once a witness statement has been served. They can however start over but quite often do not.
13: Conflicts with TRO’s (traffic regulation order)
In case number MW600 before NPAS, a husband and wife shared a car. The husband parked in the morning in a bay and the wife in the afternoon. The wife had received a PCN because she had made additional payment to stay beyond the time first purchased. However, when it got to appeal the adjudicator noticed that the council’s TRO (traffic regulation order) contained no such prevision, so the appeal was allowed. A TRO must be lodged with an adjudicator by the council, as an adjudicator is unable to determine an appeal without seeing sight of a TRO.
It is always worth checking the traffic regulation order.
14: Pay and display bays
Pay and display machine not working -in a case in Plymouth brought before NPAS, case number 1499, a motorist tried repeatedly to obtain a ticket from a pay and display machine. The machine would simply not take his money. After receiving a PCN he wrote to the council explaining what happened and enclosed the £3 fee. The council kept the payment but continued to attempt to enforce the PCN! The adjudicator said that this was ‘manifestly unreasonable’ and allowed the motorists appeal.
An interesting case brought before NPAS in Bournemouth 165. A motorist purchased 2 pay and display tickets. One of the pay and display tickets was not visible to the parking attendant and he therefore rightly issued a PCN because the ticket on show was not valid at the time however, the adjudicator found that the contravention had not occurred because there was no doubt that the motorist had not in fact purchased 2 tickets and the PCN was issued for staying beyond the time shown on the first ticket. Had it been issued for not displaying a ticket, then the motorist would have had to pay the penalty.
Callaghan v LB Waltham Forest
Case No. 2050413235 PCN Number: WF73431001
Parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher
The Appellant parked in a voucher parking place to visit a shop, Pamphillon, across
the road. He saw a sign that said vouchers could be purchased from any shop
participating in the scheme. He went to Pamphillon and saw a "P" in the window,
indicating that it did participate in the scheme. The shop assistants were attending to
customers. After a short time the Appellant interjected and said he needed a
voucher. One of the shop assistants got a voucher and completed it for the Appellant
by scratching the relevant details. I observe that the time scratched is 2.55. The
Appellant then returned to his vehicle to find the parking attendant next to it,
apparently taking notes. The Appellant showed him the voucher. The parking
attendant said it was too late. The Appellant said he had done everything you are
supposed to do and the parking attendant said you are allowed 5 minutes. The
Appellant said he had been in the shop about 3 minutes. The parking attendant said he
had not. The Appellant returned to the shop to ask them for a witness statement. The
shop assistant agreed and they had a discussion about how long the Appellant had
been in the shop. He then returned to the vehicle to find the Penalty Charge Notice on
the windscreen and the parking attendant gone.
Where there is a voucher scheme, the motorist plainly is allowed a reasonable time to
obtain a voucher. There is no precise provision as to the maximum time allowed. Of
course, in obtaining the voucher the motorist must do only that and not engage in any
other activity. It is inherent in such a scheme that a motorist may be delayed
somewhat by the fact that the shop assistants are engaged with other customers, as
was the case here. In this respect the variations in time taken to get a voucher are
likely to be more variable than where tickets are purchased from a pay and display
machine.
In its Case Summary the local authority says that although signs indicate that
vouchers may be purchased from shops displaying the “P” it is expected that a supply
of vouchers be kept in the vehicle. This latter expectation has no justification in law
and if the local authority is dealing with representations on this basis it must cease
doing so at once. The scheme is that vouchers are sold by shops and that is the source
of them for motorists.
I entirely accept the Appellant's evidence. I note that the parking attendant records
that the driver returned. I am satisfied that the Appellant acted within the requirements
of the scheme; he went to the shop to obtain a voucher and returned to his vehicle
with it as soon as he had obtained it. In the context the time taken to do so was
entirely legitimate. I consider it more likely the time was about the 3 minutes stated
by the Appellant, bearing in mind that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued and fixed
to the vehicle after the Appellant had returned with the voucher. So the 5 minutes
given in the parking attendant's notes between the first observation and the issue of
the Penalty Charge Notice includes time after the Appellant had returned with the
voucher. This is corroborated by the time scratched out - 2.55. The Appellant plainly
would have only then taken a short time to return to the vehicle and must have been
there before 2.57, the time at which the Penalty Charge Notice was issued. In any
event, whatever the precise time, I am satisfied the Appellant complied with the
requirements of the scheme.
I accordingly allow this appeal.
Martin Wood
Adjudicator
9 December 2005
15: Parking at out-of-order metres
Susan Pamela Carless vs. The Corporation of London
Mrs Carless parked her car in Carmolite Street in the City of London. When she parked, the meter was in order and she inserted 3, £1.00 coins although as she inserted the 3rd coin the out-of-order sign appeared. She left a clear note stating that she had “put £3.00 in meter and meter read out-of-order”. She was issued with a PCN. The adjudicator accepted Mrs Carless’s version of events and was “therefore not in contravention of the provisions requiring payment to park at the meter. However this does not mean that she was not in contravention of the entirely separate provisions relating to parking at out-of-order meter. In my view she was clearly in contravention of those provisions and the fact that he had paid is a matter of mitigation only which I cannot take into account. Mitigation is entirely for the Corporation”.
“For the above reasons I dismiss the appeal”.
Note: You should not park at any time at an out-of-order meter. You can claim back parking costs from the council but you should move your car and park elsewhere.
16: Hired Vehicles
In the case of ERAC Vs Ealing, a hired car received a penalty charge notice. The general rule is that a hire firm may transfer liability to the hirer provided certain conditions are satisfied as set out in the hiring agreement. The council tried to transfer liability for the payment of the PCN to the hiring firm because the address supplied for the hirer was outside the UK. The parking adjudicator found that it was irrelevant whether the address of the hirer was in this country or abroad, the legislation only provided that the permanent home address is given, unless the hirer was likely to stay in the country for more than 2 months from the date of the hiring. The appeal was allowed.
If you hire a vehicle then you (and not the hire company) will be liable for any penalty charge notices received.
17: Loading/unloading
The loading/unloading exemption allows all commercial deliveries (large or small) or private deliveries of bulky or heavy goods. In order for loading restrictions to be enforceable there must be clear signage (black text “No Loading” on a white background) and yellow blips on he kerb.
There have been many cases regarding loading. It has generally been established that loading and unloading would include taking goods into a premises. In some circumstances putting them away, for example frozen food and also the completion of paper work reasonably necessary for the loading activity.
In several cases between Jane Packer Flowers Ltd and the City of Westminster, Jane Packer Flowers Ltd lost. Whilst the adjudicator found that the delivery of flowers was a commercial delivery in the course of a trade or business, there were no specific details about the delivery in question. In each case there was a delay of around 5 minutes and the adjudicator was not satisfied that the vehicle was parked only for as long as maybe necessary.
In the case of Shahzad Vs Waltham Forest, the council had issued a penalty charge notice against the motorist who was delivering 2 doors for a kitchen installation to a customer. The council rejected the representations made by the driver and stated ‘loading is when a vehicle stops briefly to unload bulky or heavy goods, the goods must be of a type that cannot be carried by one person in one trip’. ‘Picking up items that can be carried does not constitute a loading operation therefore the item being carried by you does not fall into the loading category’ the parking adjudicator disagreed, firstly it was a commercial delivery and therefore there is no requirement that the goods should be bulky or heavy, secondly there was no requirement that goods must be of a type that could not be carried in one trip and thirdly picking up items that could be carried plainly could be within the exemption provided all the requirements of the exemption was satisfied.
In the case of Richard Few Vs City of Westminster, a parking attendant observed the vehicle at 8:31am (1 minute after enforcement started at 8:30!). At 8:36 the attendant issued a penalty charge notice. The appellant had in fact been delivering cleaning materials and toilet rolls to a nearby property. The vehicle was not a commercial vehicle but it was obvious that a commercial delivery was being made. Although the car was parked for over 5 minutes, the adjudicator was persuaded that the motorist was parked for no longer than was necessary to make the delivery and therefore allowed the appeal.
In the case of Mr Peter Sommerfeld Vs City of Westminster, the vehicle was parked on a yellow line on St Martins lane, after 3 minutes a penalty charge notice was issued. The motorist returned to the vehicle and informed the attendant that he had been collecting a carton containing 22 video tapes from a nearby property in an alley- way where there was no vehicular access. The adjudicator allowed the appeal as he was satisfied from the evidence that this was a collection in the course of a business. The adjudicator noted that the invoice showed more than one copy of each title, which would indicate a commercial as opposed to a domestic collection.
In the case of Malcolm Granger Vs London Borough of Brent, Mr Granger had received a ticket whilst parked on a single yellow line for 4 minutes. Mr Granger was in fact collecting a large sum of money from the post office, and argued that this was a commercial collection, however the adjudicator refused the appeal!
In the case of Mr Nicolas Roach Vs Camden, the adjudicator allowed the appeal. Mr Roach had parked his car for 8 minutes on a single yellow line and received a penalty charge notice, he was in fact making a delivery to a nearby property which took him longer then it would usually as he could not find the correct entrance to the building!
In the case of F&M Services and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the motorist was delivering a washing machine and thereafter paper work had to be completed. His vehicle was observed by a parking attendant for nine minutes and so a PCN was issued. However, it was cancelled on appeal because the adjudicator was satisfied that it was ‘part and parcel!’ of the delivery process, Interestingly the adjudicator also mentioned that even if he had found that it was not a commercial delivery, it would be covered in view of the weight and bulk of the goods.
In the case of Mr Carol Gabrielle Vs London Borough of Sutton, Mr Gabrielle was moving various items from his vehicle into his own house and had gone inside to get his girlfriend to move a large item. The adjudicator regarded this as part of the process of delivery or of the unloading of the vehicle and allowed the appeal.
In a more recent case a motorist had stopped to drop off her husband to go to the bank in an area where loading was prohibited. As he was a wheelchair user she took his wheelchair out of the vehicle and took him into the bank, she then returned in a short time to move the vehicle, she received a PCN for parking/loading when prohibited. Although the adjudicator confirmed that loading/ unloading was not allowed at this location he allowed the appeal because it is covered under the boarding/ alighting exemption, which does apply even where loading is prohibited and allowed the appeal.xxxx
Case 2070058759 – This case concerned a commercial delivery where the driver parked on a loading bay because he could not park directly outside the premises due to loading restrictions there. Transport for London (TFL) had said that only loading or unloading of heavy goods was allowed in the loading bay but the adjudicator said that they were wrong in Law to assert this and that he was satisfied that loading or unloading within the meaning of the exemption was taking place. The appeal was allowed.
Case no 206056698A - This case concerned a vehicle stopped in a loading bay on a red route. Transport for London Issued a PCN after they had not noticed a loading activity taking place for just under 4 minutes. The driver produced a delivery note albeit dated the day before. The adjudicator was satisfied that the driver was unloading and that this was sufficiently continuous to be within the loading exemption and the appeal was allowed.
Case: 207 0155493 Tower Bridge Road, SE1- This case was simple in that the adjudicator was satisfied that the motorist parked only to engage in an unloading activity in the course of her employment, therefore no contravention occurred.
Case 2070073639 - In this case the traffic management order showed Old Marylebone Road and not Marylebone Road where the alleged contravention took place. Also TFL stated that loading was allowed only between 10 – 4 but the sign showed no such limitation. The Adjudicator said “the evidence appears in a state of disarray and I cannot be satisfied that a contravention took place” The appeal was allowed.
18: Parked in suspended bays
In case numbers SS477 and SS468 before NPAS, the council issued tickets to motorists parked in a suspended bay however, there were no signs at the bays in question and the ticket machine was uncovered. Not only were the motorists appeals upheld, but the council was also directed to take action in respect of four other PCNs issued to vehicles which had also parked in the bays in question.
19: Parking limited to a specific period
In case number SK552 by NAPAS the motorist received a PCN because he was observed by a parking attendant over a period of 105 minutes in a parking bay which was limited to 1 hour. However the parking attendant had made no pocket book entry of the precise time of the initial observation, nor had he at any time recorded the tyre valve positions. The evidence was therefore not sufficient to prove that a contravention had occurred.
Parking attendants must make meticulous notes in such circumstances and should record the positions of the tyre valves so that they can establish whether the car has been moved and re-parked.
Some adjudicators decisions that relate to the clamping of and the removal of vehicles.
Vehicles towed away
The national adjudication service (NPAS) in their report of 2004 again reiterated that there is the need for proportionality in a decision to tow away vehicles. In their report they say that ‘the council should prove that the removal [of a vehicle] was proportionate and necessary. They need to be able to justify in every case why the issue of a PCN alone would not have achieved the desired objective of a reasonable of compliance with legitimate parking restrictions’. In case number BS881, a motorist went to the theatre the motorist then purchased a pay and display ticket for over-night parking for £1.50, but it must have slipped since the parking attendant did not see it and issued a PCN! The vehicle was towed away an hour later. The council was criticized and the adjudicator found against them on the issue of ‘disproportionality’ in cases BS344 and BS498.
In the case of Rickman Vs Waltham Forest, the motorist received a penalty charge notice but 19 minutes later the car was removed. She asked the local authority for the guidance under which their parking attendants operate. Having examined the local authorities own guidelines, she noticed that the vehicle should not have been removed- rather clamped and removed only after a further 24 hours. The adjudicator found that the local authority was not entitled to remove the motorist’s vehicle at the time that it was removed because it did not follow its own guidance, he allowed the motorists appeal.
In the case of Thornton Vs London Borough of Wandsworth, the vehicle was parked on a pay and display bay where vehicles were only allowed to park until 16:00 (4pm). At 16:01 a penalty charge notice was issued! Before 16:15 the vehicle had been removed. Regulation 5 of the removal and disposals of vehicles regulations 1986 (as amended) says a vehicle may not be removed from a designated parking space if not more than 15 minutes have elapsed since the end of the period for which parking was paid for. Therefore the removal was unlawful and the council was ordered to repay the tow away charges.
20: Clamping & Tow Away Time Limits
Time Limits on appeals for Clamping & Tow Away
Mr G Montezemolo vs The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Mr Montezemolo did not dispute that he had been illegally parked. However he made representations to the council regarding the clamping of his vehicle and the council did not respond within the statutory period of 56 days. Section 71 (6) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 provides “it shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this section before the end of period of 56 days beginning with the date on which they receive the representations.
a. To consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides and
b. To serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that ground in question has been established.
Mr James the parking adjudicator had upheld the appeal of Mr Montezemolo and was asked to review his original decision by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. In July 1998 he refused the application to review his original decision.
21: Vehicle Removals
The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham vs Mrs Miranda Marie Taveres
Mrs Taveres had parked illegally and she heard the tow away truck arrive and she shouted out of the window that she was going to move the car but the parking attendants proceeded. She maintained that at the time she got to her car all four wheels were still on the ground however the men proceeded with their operations to tow away the car to the Pound. She appealed on the basis that at the time she returned to the car all four wheels were on the ground. The parking adjudicator, Mr GR Hickinbottom stated as regards the 1993 regulations that “it does not provide that a vehicle could not be towed away if none of the wheels of the vehicle have been lifted prior to the return of the vehicle owner. It simply states that a parking attendant acting on behalf of a local authority may authorise the towing away of a vehicle if it is in contravention of the regulations. It goes on to say “the council were still entitled to continue with the tow away operation [even after the owner had returned]”.
However he did go on to say that “the council is a member of the Parking Committee for London of which all 33 London Boroughs are members. The Parking Committee has a code of practice on parking enforcement which provides “occasionally the situation will arise when the vehicle owner returns while the vehicle is in the process of being lifted. The ruling adopted by the Metropolitan Police is that the vehicle must be returned to the owner if the wheels of the vehicle are still on the ground. Local authorities should adopt the same rule. The PCN will still be enforced in the normal manner. Guidelines issued by The Department of Transport also state “where the driver of a vehicle returns whilst a removal is carried out the Metropolitan Police has adopted the policy that the vehicle should be returned to its driver unless all the vehicle’s wheels have left the original parking position. Local authorities should consider adopting the same guideline. Although the original parking adjudicator allowed the appeal Mr Hickinbottom revoked the decision and refused the appeal.
However, we would suggest that if you return to your vehicle before the wheels have been lifted off the ground that you should point out to the council that their own Code of Conduct says that they should not have lifted the car and therefore they should cancel the tow away fee.
22: Residents Parking Bays
In case number 2080781930 in Westminster in May 2009 an appeal was upheld against Westminster Council as they had included the words “at any time” on the residents permits only sign. The adjudicators referred to the traffic signs and general directions 2002 (TSRGD) “The resident sign is not compliant with diagram 660.3 or 660” “the sign is not a permitted variant. “ He referred to schedule 16 item 38 which says that only signs marked with an asterisk may have the additional words “at any time” added and the resident permit signs shown in diagrams 660 and 660.3 do not have an asterisk. Therefore “The penalty charge notice cannot be enforced” “The appeal is allowed”
So if you were parked in a residents permit bay with the words “At any time” and the signs used were in diagrams 660 and 660.3 (which they almost certainly are) then you should appeal and quote the case. In order to legally enforce a restriction the signs must comply with TSRGD. Whether it is a small or technical breech is irrelevant. TSRGD is there for a reason.
23: Bank Holiday & Public Holiday Parking Warning
Do not assume that parking restrictions do not apply on public and bank holidays. You should telephone the council if you are unclear usually parking fees are not payable at pay & display meters but resident’s parking bays and yellow lines are enforced although this depends on the area in which you park. For example Westminster council in London does not enforce single yellow lines on public holidays in most of it’s borough.
Gwendolyn Zammitt vs. The London Borough of Greenwich
On 5th April 1996 Mrs Zammitt parked her motor car in Chalton Church Lane, Greenwich. It was a public holiday being Good Friday. She did not think she had parked illegally because Good Friday was a public holiday. Mrs Zammitt appealed to the parking adjudicator who rejected her appeal.
Mr G Krisovic vs the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
This is the case of Mr Kirsovic who parked his car on a bank holiday in Hammersmith and Fulham and received a PCN. He had assumed (like thousands of other motorists) that waiting restrictions do not apply on bank holidays although unless there is a specific confirmation shown on the signs or information shown on a pay and display machine then parking restrictions apply as on any other day. His appeal was dismissed.
