This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators allowing appeals due to the authority failing to respond to the appeal
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2140233369
Nevena Upjohn
LB of Barking and Dagenham
20 Mar 2014 09:45:00
Bastable Avenue
23 Jun 2014
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
One of the matters that Mrs Upjohn raises the Notice of Appeal is that the local authority did not properly consider the representations she made in response to the Penalty Charge Notice.
Mrs Upjohn made detailed representations about the signage at the location in an email dated 27th April 2014. The local authority issued a Notice of Rejection on 6th May 2014. The local authority states that the representations have been carefully considered. However there is no reference in the Notice of Rejection to the alleged contravention or to the signage. The Notice of Rejection refers only to prohibited turns and states that there are three variations of the sign.
Section 1(7 )of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on enforcement authorities to consider the representations made to it and any supporting evidence. In this case I am not satisfied on the evidence that I have seen that the local authority has considered the matters specifically and clearly raised by Mrs Upjohn in her representations.
One purpose of a Notice of Rejection is to enable the recipient to make an informed decision whether to settle the Penalty Charge Notice or to appeal. Therefore it is most important the Notice of Rejection contains clear and accurate reasons to explain why the Penalty Charge Notice is to be enforced. In this case I find that the Notice of Rejection is inadequate
I find that the local authority has failed to comply with a duty imposed on it by the legislation pursuant to which the Penalty Charge Notice was issued. In those circumstances I find that the local authority cannot now enforce this Penalty Charge Notice.
I allow this appeal.
I add that I am aware that Mrs Upjohn made representations against a Penalty Charge Notice issued for an alleged contravention at the same location on 25th March 2014. The Notice of Rejection for that case was issued on 14th May 2014. It refers to the restriction at Bastable Avenue and the signage. Therefore the Notice of Rejection for the 25th March 2014 does, in my view, respond to the representations and explain why the local authority wishes to enforce the Penalty Charge Notice. .
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2140422929
Marie Jennifer S Sen Siong
London Borough of Enfield
20 Jul 2014 17:37:00
Green Lanes / Sidney Avenue
18 Dec 2014
Kevin Moore
Appeal allowed
I have taken particular time in reaching a decision in this matter. It is a concern that it does not appear to have taken a similar scrutiny of the evidence and submissions in reaching a decision. Numerous points have been made by the appellant, and it would seem that the Authority has considered that nearly all of these submissions did not justify a response, and that reliance on what would appear to be a template response would suffice.
For my part I find that many of the Appellant's submissions lack any merit, and these include submissions that she is a "stranger" to the area, that there was no obstruction, and that she had only "technically" stopped in the box junction. However, a full consideration of the appellant's submissions does show a defence to the contravention. In these circumstances I shall limit this determination to some grounds which would justify allowing this appeal, and to which the Authority has failed to respond.
There is no reliable evidence demonstrating the appellant's vehicle entering the box junction, since the CCTV footage only shows the vehicle in the confines of the box junction; thus there is no reliable evidence showing that the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction at 5.37pm., which is the only time stated on both the PCN and notice of rejection.
[see the decision of Adjudicator Brennan in case 2140201293].
Regarding the notice of rejection, it would appear that this notice infringes statutory legislation [see case no. 2130516980] in that the word "will" is used rather than "may" with reference to service of the charge certificate.
Whilst on its own it would not necessarily provide a defence to the contravention, I take note that the appellant made a number of requests for information relating to compliance with the 2002 Directions, but never received a response from the Authority.
In all the circumstances and for the above reasons I allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2180478543
Toyota GB PLC
London Borough of Redbridge
13 Oct 2018 17:34:00
High Rd
08 Jan 2019
Michel Aslangul
Appeal allowed
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has sufficiently complied with its duty to consider the representations and any supporting evidence from Mr Nelson, in particular whether Mr Nelson was at fault for the action that he took.
Mr Nelson has stated in the representations that: "Upon the green light filter, I could see a space into which I could move. It was only on proceeding into said space I realised the space may not have been entirely sufficient for my vehicle, but I was comfortable I was not affecting the passage of any other vehicle... ."
In its response the authority stated: ".... The purpose of box junctions is to keep busy junctions clear and free-flowing. If you are going straight across a box junction, you need to make sure you can cross it without stopping. If you are turning right and your exit road is clear, you may stop on a box junction while you wait for oncoming traffic to pass. We have looked again at the camera evidence, as well as considering your points in your letter, ... ."
I find as fact that: it was after Mr Nelson had already entered the box junction that he was able to acquire the knowledge that there was insufficient space on the left hand side for him to enter; Mr Nelson was not at fault for the action that he took.
The contravention is not one of strict or no fault liability
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to consider Mr Nelson's representations because it has not taken into sufficient consideration the requirement that Mr Nelson needed to have prior knowledge of the unlawfulness of the fact that he stopped in the box junction.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220745707
Andrew Cockburn
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
04 Sep 2022 13:21:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
08 Nov 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
The appellant, who appeared before me today, made submissions as to this box junction contravention in accordance with those set out in writing.
As to the incident itself no exemption was I found applicable, but I was not satisfied upon the appellant arguing the point that the council had taken into account what he had said to it when rejecting his representations, it in its rejection notice letter making no reference to his claim that he had to stop in the box due to a vehicle ahead stopping short. That rejection notice letter although it repeated the appellant's representations appeared to me to be no more than a standard template-based response to them. I was not satisfied against that background that the council had considered the appellant's representations as it is required to do under the Regulations, and I accordingly found that enforcement may not be pursued.