Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Example Cases

Inconsistent enforcement

View all pages

Inconsistent enforcement does not constitute a free for all (BM05617H)
The appellant, issued with a PCN for parking in a free space outside her own house for longer that the one hour permitted, appealed on the ground that PCNs were not consistently issued for such contraventions, although she received one on average once a month. The original Adjudicator dismissed the appeal, ruling that, while it was very frustrating for [appellants] not to be certain whether or not they would receive a PCN if they left their car in contravention of restrictions, the only certainty was not to contravene them. The appellant requested a review of the decision, arguing that it was unfair that PCNs were sometimes issued and sometimes not, because local residents using the parking places could never be sure if they would receive a penalty charge notice or not.

The appellant argued that this inconsistency was unjust and that none of the PCNs issued in these circumstances should be enforceable. The reviewing Adjudicator disagreed. She said that parking by the appellant in contravention of the regulations in this case was plainly a deliberate act, one that the council would be entitled to enforce strictly on a daily basis (except perhaps on Sundays, as he understood it), except that its consistent daily enforcement was limited no doubt by lack of resources and other priorities.
The appeal was dismissed.

Inconsistency of enforcement (WL05078F)
Issued with a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a restricted time, the appellant appealed on the ground that he had parked only for some 4 minutes and was clearly unlucky to receive a penalty. He argued that as a law-abiding person it was unfair that he should receive a penalty when others whom he had seen in the past abusing the disabled badge/space concession by parking when no disabled person was in the car, went unpenalised. In the light of the circumstances described, the Adjudicator adjourned the matter to allow the council to reconsider exercising its discretion, which it declined to do.
The appeal was dismissed. (A requested review was also refused.)