Example Cases

One of the most important aspects of an Adjudicator's role is to scrutinise and weigh up the evidence submitted by both parties. Adjudicators do this with great care, examining evidence in detail before making findings of fact - and occasionally interpreting the law.

A falsified photograph (BClO9)
The appellant was issued with a PCN for parking in a suspended bay and appealed on the ground that there was no signage on the day in question to indicate the suspension. The council submitted in evidence a "dated" photograph of the vehicle parked in a bay with a suspension sign. In this case, which gained national publicity, it became apparent to the Adjudicator, on examining the evidence, that the date on the photograph had been altered; a finding, in effect, that the council's photographic evidence had been fabricated. Prosecutions followed. While it appears that this was, fortunately, an isolated incident, adverse publicity of this kind naturally serves only to bring civil parking enforcement into disrepute. An award of costs was made against the council.
The appeal was allowed.

A factual photograph (NG 247)
The appellant was issued with a PCN for failing to display a disabled person's badge when parked in a disabled person's parking space and appealed on the ground that they had indeed displayed such a badge. The council relied on contemporaneous photographs taken by the Parking Attendant, which showed quite clearly that no badge was on display. The appellant pointed out in response to this evidence that it was unlawful to fake or doctor photographs so that disabled badges are obscured by photo and lens reflections. The Adjudicator said: "It may well be that disgraceful incidents do occur from time to time and Adjudicators must be alert to that possibility. That is not to say that all photographic evidence submitted by councils is to be discredited. I have studied the council's photographs very carefully and see nothing to indicate that they have been 'doctored' or tampered with in any way. It is true that there is some reflection but I do not think that anything has been obscured, deliberately or otherwise. The dashboard is visible, as is the tax disc. I can also see inside the car to the steering wheel and the security device attached to it. I can see no disabled badge."
The appeal was dismissed.

Dishonesty doesn't pay (PL 1251)
Issued with a PCN for failing to display a valid pay-and-display ticket, the appellant appealed on the ground that she had displayed a valid ticket, producing a visitor's ticket in support of her contention. The Adjudicator found that this ticket could not have been so displayed, as it had not been issued at the time of the alleged contravention; the appellant had deliberately manufactured evidence in support of her appeal. He said: "I view very seriously this deliberate attempt to mislead me." An order for costs was made in the council's favour.
The appeal was dismissed.

No personal appearance by the respondent (HA63)
In the absence of the Parking Attendant or other witnesses appearing at the hearing to give evidence in person, the appellant questioned the admissibility of the council's written evidence. The Adjudicator set out in detail the basis on which written evidence is admissible. He said: "In virtually all appeals to an Adjudicator, councils rely on written submissions and written evidence. Parking Attendants do not, therefore, normally attend to give evidence nor do any other witnesses. There can be no criticism of councils for this, as it is an inherent part of the statutory scheme under The Road Traffic Act 1991 that appeals are dealt with in an informal way in so far as such is consistent with the interests of justice. Similarly, an appellant does not have to attend the hearing of his appeal and is given the choice of personal attendance or a decision made on the basis of his written submissions."
The appeal was dismissed.

Late disclosure of council evidence (BO 376)
The appellant wrote to the council as soon as he received an NTO for a parking contravention to say that he was not in the town on the day in question. The council did not disclose their evidence at that stage but, when the appellant appealed to the Tribunal, they submitted photographs of the vehicle in the town on the day in question. The council argued that it had not needed to disclose its evidence until such time as there was an appeal. While the case itself was decided on another point, the Adjudicator expressed the view that the council ought to have disclosed its evidence as soon as the appellant had written in.

Complex restrictions and lack of a vehicle-position plan (MC 3796)
The appellant, issued with a PCN for on-street parking in a restricted place, appealed on the ground that the signs were unclear. The Adjudicator determined from the TRO that different lengths of the street were subject to different restrictions and that a temporary restriction was also in place overnight. In the absence of a clear indication as to the position of the vehicle, it was unclear to the Adjudicator where the appellant's vehicle was in relation to the time plate. He held that the contravention was not therefore established.
The appeal was allowed.

Timing of a hastily issued penalty (MW 664)
The appellant had left their car to collect an elderly relative from premises nearby and was issued with a PCN for waiting over long in a restricted area. They appealed on the ground that they had not been allowed reasonable time for their pick-up. The Adjudicator found that it was apparent from the Parking Attendant's own evidence that he had not taken the necessary steps to ascertain whether a contravention had occurred. She pointed out that the TRO contained an exemption permitting vehicles to wait "for as long as necessary" to enable passengers to board or alight. Since the attendant had issued the PCN immediately he had seen the vehicle, without any observation, he had been in no position to determine how long was reasonable.
The appeal was allowed.

Incomplete Parking Attendant's notes (SK552)
Issued with a PCN for parking beyond the permitted limit of one hour, the appellant appealed on the ground that he had removed his vehicle from where it was parked and returned to the same space later - between the Parking Attendant's first observation and the issue of the PCN. The attendant's notes referred to total (discontinuous) observation time of 105 minutes. However, he had made no pocketbook entry of the precise time of his initial observation, nor had he at any time recorded the tyre valve positions. The Adjudicator held that this evidence was not sufficient to establish that the contravention had occurred.
The appeal was allowed.

Over-hasty action by a Parking Attendant (SS 477 and SS 468)
Two appeals concerning the same facts were heard together. Both appellants had parked in bays immediately adjacent to a suspended bay, leaving pay-and-display tickets on their windscreens. There were neither signs nor cones at the bays in question and the ticket machine was uncovered. Both appellants appealed on the ground that they had paid the required money to park in non-suspended bays. The Adjudicator held that it was evident that the Parking Attendant had failed to check the vehicles, had assumed that they were parked on an adjacent suspended bay and had proceeded immediately to issue PCNs. The council was directed to take action in respect of four other PCNs issued to vehicles that had parked in the bays in question.
The appeals were allowed.