Author Topic: LBTH "misrepresents" facts in PaTAS appeal  (Read 2390 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662
LBTH "misrepresents" facts in PaTAS appeal
« on: 07 June, 2013, 01:39:50 PM »
If the Council had told the truth, the appeal would have been allowed.

"Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

...Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Parked or loading or unloading when prohibited 
Decision Date: 06 Jun 2013
Adjudicator: Belinda Pearce
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: Mr. D. Shannon, attended before me today on behalf of the Appellant Company to explain the contention personally. Mr. Shannon, also attended in the capacity of witness as to fact since he was the driver at the relevant time.

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of vehicle HG07ZZD, at the time, on the material date; namely at a location subject to a restriction denoted by a double yellow kerb delineation. accompanied by double kerb blips signifying an additional restriction against waiting, loading/unloading at all times.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as contained in his written representation, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing:   that the display of a Disabled Badge affords dispensation from penalty.

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

It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with the nature of such restrictions by reference to The Highway Code.

Whilst the presence of a Disabled Badge may provide an exemption in certain situations, it is essential that the recipient of such a Badge be familiar with, and comply with, all conditions as are attached to the issue of the same. The display of a Disabled Badge does not provide exemption from penalty in this instance.

My attention was drawn, by Mr. Shannon, to the contents of the Notice of Rejection which contains, according to Mr. Shannon, a total inaccuracy and one for which he was angered since he felt such statement may reflect badly on him with regard to the present Case.

The 2 nd  paragraph on the 2 nd  page of the Notice of Rejection suggests a situation which Mr. Shannon refutes; Mr. Shannon bought with him to the Hearing the original documenetation relating to the only other Penalty Charge Notice issued, which established that, contrary to the Enforcement Authority's indication, the penalty had been paid.

Further Mr. Shannon referred me to the 2 nd  page of the case summary which misconstrues the situation. Mr. Shannon expressed a feeling that he had been prejudiced by the same.

I consider that the Enforcement Authority must be vigilant with regard to accuracy in these legal proceedings, and I am concerned by such misrepresentation of facts, which I find to be a 'procedural impropriety' on the part of the Enforcement Authority.Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if I conclude that a Ground specified in Regulation 4(4) applies I shall Allow the Appeal.

This Appeal is allowed on that basis