Yes!

Update: PATAS - did get it wrong! PATAS have confirmed the first Adjudicator (Andrew Harman) made a mistake, although they refer to it as a 'misdirection' Certainly worth a read, paragraph 38, refers to the misdirection by Andrew Harman. The other cases are also worth a read as it states there is no defence for painted YBJ which are not correctly painted, if you cannot prove this confused your judgement. Anyone attending PATAS should air on the side of caution if they have Andrew Harman as their adjudicator. I have no legal background, but I have something which is called common sense. As you can imagine at the first hearing I was very upset with the decision of the Adjudicator, as it was so obvious what had happened, but they failed to use their common sense. On the day of the hearing I was happy Enfield Council sent a representative as I made it clear in the hearing, the Local Authorities should be using CCTV to monitor crime and keep traffic moving, not to penny pitch from motorists for every little thing. On a number of occasions I wrote to the Head of Parking Services at Enfield Council asking them to drop this case and save the Enfield Residents Council Tax for something more useful, do you think anyone used their common sense, nope because it's not their money they are wasting! Thank you to everyone who posted replies. Case Reference: 2130232767 Appellant: Mr Essoo Authority: Enfield VRM: xxx PCN: EF88834460 Contravention Date: 22 Feb 2013 Contravention Time: 13:03 Contravention Location: Green Lanes N13/Sidney Avenue Penalty Amount: £130.00 Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date: 08 Oct 2013 Adjudicator: Austin Wilkinson Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons: BEFORE ADJUDICATORS: Mr Austin Wilkinson Mr Michael Burke Mr Kevin Moore Consolidated cases of: Gillingham -v- L.B. of Newham (2130193949) This appeal was allowed on 29 th May 2013 by Adjudicator Ms Brennan and the London Borough of Newham applied for a review of that decision on 10 th June 2013. Essoo-v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767) This appeal was refused on 15 th July 2013 by Adjudicator Mr Harman and Mr Essoo applied for a review of that decision on 24 th July 2013. Khan -v- Transport for London (2130261437) This appeal was refused on 2 nd July 2013 by Adjudicator Mr Aslangul and Mr Khan applied for a review on 24 th July 2013. ..................................................................... 1 Three Adjudicators are hearing these applications for review because the Parking and Traffic Appeals Adjudicators have agreed that when issues of complexity, or those giving rise to conflicting decisions arise in the tribunal, they will arrange for a hearing to be conducted by a panel of three Adjudicators. Such hearings allow for a breadth of experience and views to be brought to the issues by having more than one Adjudicator - and provide guidance for Adjudicators and for interested parties in other cases involving these issues. 2 The Regulations provide only for a single Adjudicator to hear an appeal . For that reason the consolidated Decision in these cases will be entered into the Statutory Register in the name of Mr Wilkinson . However this Decision does represent the unanimous views of the three Adjudicators . We hope that Adjudicators, motorists, those advising them and local authorities will find this Decision helpful. NATURE OF APPLICATIONS 3 These cases come before us following applications for review made under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993. 4 Mr Essoo attended the Hearing on 26 th September 2013. No other party attended or was represented. An observer was present from the London Borough of Enfield. ORDER OF THIS DECISION 5 We will set out the applicable law. The issues raised by these cases will then be summarised. The applications for review will then be determined on each case. THE LAW 6 Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 ( as amended by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) (No2) Regulations and General Directions 2011) establishes, subject to certain very limited exceptions, a contravention that: " the road markings ... shall each convey a prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles". THE ISSUES 7 Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 Parliament caused the Parking & Traffic Appeals Adjudicators to be the responsible tribunal for adjudging local authority assertions of civil contraventions under this Regulation . Although the Regulation is drafted so as to commendably avoid undue prolixity, nevertheless it needs to be interpreted in a workable manner and applied to the wide-ranging and differing scenarios frequently met by Adjudicators in the many hundreds of appeals brought to this Tribunal each year. 8 Moreover there has been, in recent years, an increasing trend in appellants making use of the resources, mainly via the internet, of self-help websites and in assistance given by individuals and organisations offering both advice and representation in the preparation and conduct of appeals. The Regulations governing this jurisdiction expressly provide that an appellant may seek the assistance of any representative whether or not legally qualified. This trend is entirely understandable since the subject matter of appeals relates to fixed penalties, the size of which renders prohibitive and unrealistic the cost of seeking advice or representation by lawyers. 9 However a side-effect of the increasing use of unqualified representatives and advisers is that appeals are occasionally being presented without the attendant professional standards which would be expected and, indeed, imposed by the Bar Council ( in relation to barristers) and by the Law Society ( for solicitors). One such standard is the expectation that the citing of previously decided cases, showing a wish to have a law interpreted in a particular way, will include all cases relevant to that law, even if some of them encourage an alternative interpretation which is not the one desired . The point is: that a party or his/her representative has a responsibility not to mislead a court into believing that a cited interpretation is the only one possible - especially if the interpretation is a minority one. 10 We note that the case of Sheikh -v- L.B. of Newham (PATAS reference MV0071NE02 - September 2006) has received in recent times an unusually large degree of attention, even though the interpretation contained therein has not been a widely accepted one by the Adjudicators. Since there has been an occurrence of appeals where this case has been cited alone and where there has been no perceptible attempt to show that other Adjudicators have taken a different view, it seems to us to be desirable that the case be re-visited as to whether or not the findings therein are a sustainable and a reasonable interpretation of the above Regulation. 11 It should be emphasised that Adjudicators are a Judicial Tribunal . They are not a Court of Record. Therefore, although the Adjudicators will have regard for each other's decisions and treat them, where appropriate, as persuasive both as to accuracy of law and as to the desirability of consistency, that is the limit of the authority of their decisions . The same is, of course, true of this Panel Decision. 12 In Mr Gillingham's case the issue is whether or not a contravention has occurred if a driver enters a box junction and then stops behind stationary vehicles when, in the alternative, he could have chosen to leave the box junction by an alternative clear exit. 13 Although she has not cited the case, the previous Adjudicator has interpreted the relevant law in the same manner as with the case of Sheikh: that the vehicle did not have to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles but that it was the driver's choice as he could have driven out of the box junction via the nearside lane. Mr Gillingham had cited the earlier case - and had also raised submissions as to the quality of the box junction markings. The Adjudicator had not considered it necessary to make a finding on the issue of the markings. 14 The local authority applied for a review objecting to the interpretation of the law and showing that another adjudicator had not supported it. 15 In Mr Essoo's case he had submitted that only after he had committed the vehicle into the box junction from the left hand lane, did another vehicle, approaching from the right hand lane, cut across in front of him and take the exit space. Therefore he was stranded in the box junction due to the unexpected action of the other driver who had cut across into his lane without signalling. Mr Essoo objected to the local authority's evidence as he submitted that the camera did not show his point of entry. 16 The Adjudicator made a finding of fact that Mr Essoo could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver. However the Adjudicator did not find that there was any defence but that the circumstances were ones which went only to mitigation. 17 Mr Essoo applied for a review in which, once again he objected to the camera evidence. He re-iterated that, at the time he entered the box junction, his exit lane was clear. Only after he entered did the van decide to change lanes and cut in front of him. Mr Essoo's recollection of the appeal hearing was that the previous Adjudicator had made reference to advice in the Highway Code - but that the Adjudicator had stated that this was not law. 18 Mr Essoo raised a question about whether the box junction had been marked in a manner compliant with the Regulations relating to road markings and signs. However this was a new submission which had not been raised before the previous Adjudicator. 19 In Mr Khan's case he had submitted that he was almost at the end of the box when there was an unexpected stopping of traffic ahead and he was unable to react in any other way than by applying his brakes and stopping, since he had no control over the traffic ahead of him. 20 The Adjudicator found that he had driven his vehicle into the box at a time when there were stationary vehicles at the intended exit point. 21 Mr Khan applied for a review because he had objected to the judgment as he stated that the traffic had stopped suddenly and he had no other choice other than taking the action that he did. DETERMINATION OF EACH CASE Gillingham -v- L.B. of Newham (2130193949) 22 The relevant Regulation is , in our view, drafted so as to place upon the driver the duty of exercising a judgment at the point of entry as to whether s/he can proceed into the box without the consequence that the vehicle will have to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The "prohibition" is that of "causing a vehicle to enter.." followed by the consequence. It is the entering into the box junction which constitutes the contravention, once the vehicle has had to stop. 23 We regard it, therefore, as axiomatic that, in determining whether or not the Regulation has been breached, the essence of the case is crystallised in the choices and judgments made by the driver at the point of entry: the judgment to proceed, the choice of exit lane he directed his vehicle towards and the state of the traffic at that exit which could have been predicted by him at the point of entry. 24 We examined all of the evidence including the camera footage. At the point of entry Mr Gillingham made the choice to proceed into the box . That choice included the exit to which the vehicle was directed. It would have been plain to Mr Gillingham that the vehicle would have to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles preventing him from leaving at his chosen exit lane. 25 Therefore in our view this contravention clearly occurred. The vehicle did not stop as a matter of choice. Mr Gillingham had already made his choice as to which direction he was going to drive when he entered. The vehicle stopped because it had to do so in order to avoid colliding with the stationary vehicles in front. That Mr Gillingham might have made an alternative choice of exit is irrelevant, since he did not take it. The law must judge the actual facts of the case: i.e. what the driver did - not what he might have done. 26 Therefore we find that the decision in the case of Sheikh is not a reasonable and sustainable interpretation of the Regulation and is not followed. 27 We are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to review the decision of the previous adjudicator as being a misdirection of law. The decision is set aside . 28 We find that the contravention occurred . 29 Since Mr Gillingham raised a question about the quality of the road markings, we have made a finding that the box junction does pass the test of adequacy laid down in Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England &Wales) Regulations 1996 . 30 The appeal is therefore refused. Essoo -v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767) 31 We had the opportunity of hearing from Mr Essoo in person and we thanked him for his attendance. We examined the camera footage several times. 32 We are not persuaded that there is any justification in Mr Essoo's submission that there was a failure by the local authority to prove the case due to the scope of the camera. The evidence is sufficiently proximate so that the Adjudicator can draw the necessary judgment as to the state of the traffic which the driver would have seen as he entered the box. 33 In examining the camera footage our attention was drawn to the somewhat brisk progress made by Mr Essoo's vehicle. When he entered the box the offending van had already begun to straddle the two exit lanes. A more cautious approach would have given Mr Essoo the better chance of reacting to the van driver's decision to cut across. However it is certainly true that the van driver diagonally cut across the box junction from right to left with the consequence that Mr Essoo's vehicle could not leave the box. 34 The finding of fact made by the previous Adjudicator - that the Appellant could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver - is in our view a generous one. However it was a finding at which the Adjudicator was reasonably entitled to arrive upon the evidence. We therefore consider that we are bound by that finding of fact. 35 Therefore the evidence before the previous Adjudicator was that, at the point of entry, Mr Essoo would have been able to see the free movement of traffic and the likelihood that his exit would be free for his vehicle. Since he could not have predicted that the van driver would perform an intervening act, namely cutting across his right of way, Mr Essoo's judgment was not at fault at the point of entry. Therefore in our view no contravention occurred here. Mr Essoo did not breach the entry prohibition . The vehicle had to stop because of the intervening act of the other driver which was not predictable at the point of entry. A driver cannot be held liable for the contravention when it was outside his judgment to prevent it. 36 In our view the Regulation, describing as it does a consequence that a vehicle has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, does not thereby impose a necessity upon a driver that he must wait outside the box to see if traffic ahead will become stationary before he decides to enter. The traffic may still be moving when s/he enters and yet a contravention still occur if the traffic stops thereafter. This is the driver's risk in the judgment s/he exercises unless, as in Mr Essoo's case, the driver could not have predicted the reason for the stopping of the vehicles ahead. 37 We have had regard to the relevant paragraph advising motorists in the Highway Code. The warning is " You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear." However we are of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. A driver may exercise a prediction in his judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear. He is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event such as the intervening action of another vehicle cutting into his right of way without warning. 38 We are therefore of the view that the interests of justice are served by a review here. Applying the finding of fact to the Regulation, we believe that the Adjudicator has made a misdirection in viewing the circumstances as only proving a contravention subject to mitigation. We review the decision and find that no contravention occurred. The appeal is therefore allowed. 39 On the question of whether or not the box junction complied with the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 (as amended) we find that this is not a ground for review. Mr Essoo's submissions were not new evidence . The submission could have been put to the previous Adjudicator. 40 In any event in the case of R (HERRON) v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR (2011) EWCA Civ 905 the Court of Appeal held that the proper approach to the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 is that the signage therein is there to convey adequate information to motorists as to the relevant traffic restriction. Therefore, substantial compliance with the statutory specifications in the TSRGD suffices - so long as the signage adequately informs motorists of the restriction and does not mislead. 41 It is clear that, in deciding whether or not there was liability for a penalty for a civil contravention, the Court did not regard as necessary the precise replication of signs in accordance with the signage illustrations found in the above Regulations. This is important to note, since the Adjudicators are frequently faced with appeals where appellants claim a defence to a penalty if, for example, a box junction corner does not precisely meet the kerb. The Court of Appeal has clearly departed from such demands for signing exactitude and has placed the emphasis upon whether or not the driver would have understood the information intended by the sign. Khan -v- Transport for London (2130261437) 42 We viewed the camera footage and we are satisfied that when Mr Khan drove into the box he would have been able to see that the traffic was bunching to a halt and that all exit space would be taken. Mr Khan entered the box immediately behind another vehicle and there is no evidence, therefore, of any assessment by him as to whether he would be able to clear the box. Although Mr Khan complained that the traffic had come to a halt sooner than expected, it is sufficiently clear from the camera evidence that the vehicle which stopped in the traffic queue was the vehicle ahead of the one Mr Khan was following. The evidence shows the likelihood that the event was simply the stopping of the traffic queue. The onus was upon Mr Khan , seeing the traffic ahead of him, to have paused before entry to ensure that there would be an exit space for him to leave by. The stopping was clearly predictable at the point of entry. 43 If the state of the traffic had been such that there was clear open road beyond the vehicle ahead of Mr Khan's and that either Mr Khan or the vehicle ahead of him had to stop for an unexpected reason ( for example the unexpected conduct of a pedestrian stepping into the road), then Mr Khan could have submitted that the unexpected happening was unpredictable and he would have had a defence . 44 On the other hand if a driver is following a line of traffic into the box and the traffic comes to a halt for some reason much further along the line, this would not be a defence since , when he entered the box, the driver could have predicted the bunching up of an existing line of traffic for any number of reasons. It was his risk to proceed. 45 Whether or not an unexpected or intervening event is within the ability of the driver to predict at the point of entry, is a question of fact in each case for the Adjudicator to determine. 46 However in this case Mr Khan does not have a defence as when he entered the box he would have been able to see the amount of traffic bunching up and would have had no assurance that he could clear the box. 47 We see that the previous Adjudicator found that Mr Khan had entered the box junction at a time when there were stationary vehicles at the intended exit point. The evidence does not precisely show this. It is not so clear that the line of traffic had already stopped at the time of his entry. 48 However as we have previously stated it is our view that if moving traffic becomes stationary after a driver has entered the box then this is his risk and the contravention does occur. We are satisfied therefore that the previous Adjudicator arrived at the correct conclusion that there had been a contravention. There are no grounds for review and we refuse the application. The appeal will therefore stand as having been refused. MICHAEL BURKE KEVIN MOORE AUSTIN WILKINSON Original Decision Subsequently Reviewed Under Regulation 11 of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 Decision Date 15 Jul 2013 Previous Decision Refused Adjudicator Direction None Reasons The appellant, who appeared before me today, explained that on entering the box his exit lane was clear a vehicle in front (a van) changing lanes without indicating it pulling into his lane and coming to a halt he having to do the same. I accepted that the appellant had no intention of stopping in the box and that he could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver but I was satisfied that his vehicle having as I found entered this box had to stop in it due to the presence of stationery vehicles and I found the contravention proved. The appellant's submissions were mitigation only which I have no power to take into account.

Khan V TFL* Case no. 2130261437 The main question to be considered is whether the appellant caused his car to enter the box junction so that the car had to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The appellant says that he did not cause any congestion or delay at the time that his car was stationary in the box junction. The case of the authority is that the car entered and stopped in the box junction. I find as fact that:**the car entered the box junction at a time when there were stationary vehicles at the intended exit point; the car stopped in the box junction due to the presence of those stationary vehicles. Although the appellant might not have caused any congestion or delay he had in fact stopped his car in the box junction. I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the appellant caused his car to enter the box junction so that the car had to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles because I accept the evidence of the authority.

Gillingham V L.B of Newham Case no. 2130193949 Decision: The contravention occurs if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Mr Gillingham denies the contravention. He states that his car was not stopped in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles because the exit on the nearside lane was clear.** I have seen the CCTV footage. It shows the appellant's car entering the box junction and stopping. However it is clear from the footage that the appellant could have driven out of the box junction into the nearside lane. In those circumstances I am not satisfied that Mr Gillingham's car was stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I allow this appeal.****

My case decision: The appellant, who appeared before me today, explained that on entering the box his exit lane was clear a vehicle in front (a van) changing lanes without indicating it pulling into his lane and coming to a halt he having to do the same. I accepted that the appellant had no intention of stopping in the box and that he could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver but I was satisfied that his vehicle having as I found entered this box had to stop in it due to the presence of stationery vehicles and I found the contravention proved.**The appellant's submissions were mitigation only which I have no power to take into account.

I've heard back from PATAS,* They have decided to review the decision that the Adjudicator made regarding my appeal.* They stated that the proceedings raise common questions of law and would like the hearing to proceed along with two other cases.* I would be very interested to hear from the other parties; Gillingham V L.B of Newham Case no. 2130193949 Khan V TFL* Case no. 2130261437

Can we view the location on google maps?

This is the response from PATAS; The appellant, who appeared before me today, explained that on entering the box his exit lane was clear a vehicle in front (a van) changing lanes without indicating it pulling into his lane and coming to a halt he having to do the same. I accept that the appellant had no intention of stopping in the box and that he could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver but I was satisfied that his vehicle having as I found entered this box had to stop in it due to the presence of stationary vehicles and I found the contravention proved. The appellant's submissions were mitigating only which I have no power to take into account. Andrew Harman

I should have made this point a bit clearer. They did provide video evidence, but it's impossible to pause the video at the moment that I entered the box and more to the point the screen shot (due to the camera angle) does not show the starting point of the box.I was hoping to get this as I was also using this point as a defence and expected they would send in a snap shot picture of me entering the box junction. The Adjudicator didn't seem interested in my entry and exit path of the box junction, but kept going on about me stopping in the box junction - which at the time I thought was completely wrong.I've also noticed from the pictures, the box junction crosses over the double yellow lines, which I will also raise!

Thank you all for you replies, Ericsbrother – I will certainly use the wording ‘Necessity’ when I appeal the Adjudicators decision. Jamberson - I have 14 days to do this, at which point a different Adjudicator will review the case.Green and Mean – It’s very hard to slow the video down to the point when I enter the box junction and even though I pointed this out in my appeal to the LA, they did not provide evidence of me entering the box junction only photos of when I was stationary in the box junction. All this was discussed with the Adjudicator, which he dismissed. I found his attitude a little strange as he sympathised with the situation but said the fact remained I stopped in a box junction and seemed to dismiss the fact that my exit was clear upon entry. One of us was interpreting the wording of the law in a different way…..?As Jamberson rightly points out I didn’t have time to stop, using the safe stopping distances as a guide, I would have needed 75 feet to bring the car to a stop travelling at 30MPH. The Van changed lanes less than 25 feet in front of me, giving me no chance of stopping safely.What made me furious, is when I asked the Adjudicator what I was supposed to do in this situation, (I kid you not) he replied when I approach a box junction even when my exit is clear I should stop and waiting for passing traffic (in lane 2) to pass to avoid anyone to cut in front of me. I have requested a copy of the recorded hearing.Does it seem like the Adjudicator has got this wrong, or have I completely missed something?

Have PATAS got it wrong?This morning I went to the Parking & Traffic Appeals Service, which I thought was going to be a straight forward win for me. Box junction offence. (Enfield Council) Upon entering the box junction my exit was clear (I was in lane 1), the van in lane 2 move across into my lane without indication and this resulted in me having to stop behind the van in the box junction. Vehicle Registration Number xxxx Penalty Charge Notice xxxxxxxx https://parking.enfield.nslservers.co.uk/TicketDetails.aspWhen watching the video please allow for stopping distances, at the time I approached the box junctions my lane was clear.The adjudicator agreed with Enfield Council and I lost, stating the letter of the law “no stopping in a box junction”. I explained my case that my exit was clear at the time I entered the box junction and he said this is in the Highway Code and is not the law (which I am confused about).The video evidence details is above, I would really appreciate your opinion as I feel I need to take this further, mainly to the fact I think the Adjudicator is wrong. I had an exact same case a few years ago and the adjudicator found in my favour. There appears to be no consistency at the Parking & Traffic Appeal Service.

Are there any rules regarding there being a dropped kerb in place or road markings so we can tell where the start and end points are?

I've been helping a friend to appeal a parking ticket, for being parked across a dropped kerb (access to a drive way to private flats). The dropped kerb has no start and end reference points as the height of the kerb is the same along the street and there are no road markings. From the photos which they sent to him, you could not see he was parked over the dropped kerb. So I wrote asking for clarification on where the dropped kerb starts and finishes. Standard line came back about waiting for Notice to Owner to make a formal challenge. At the bottom of the letter, they let me know I can view the images on line, but also state: "Please note that there is no legal requirement for such evidence to be taken, therefore the absence of photographs for a case does not invalidate the contravention" Surely if I take this to appeal, they will have to produce photos and I am hoping they cannot hold back photos and present them at the last minute, which of course could change the way I would proceed?

Any information to help would be greatly appreciated. Basically I have a tree outside my house and the roots have pushed my front garden wall back, to the point where it could potentially fall over. After submitting my claim to the LA they have written back to me with this: We confirm that we have no objections to works commencing in accordance with the estimate provided by Mem’s Building Contractors. Having consideration to the considerable age of the existing front garden wall, the inadequate foundation and the considerable betterment that will be achieved in having the works carried out, the Council would be willing to contribute the sum of £2,150 towards the cost of the works. Please confirm to us the date the works are due to commence and the area excavated exposing any roots from our tree found underneath, so that we may arrange to visit the site at that time. I wrote back asking for the above amount to be sent to me in full & final settlement, which they are not prepared to do. They want to see the front wall excavated and perhaps even the new wall erected before they send me out a cheque. Is this correct? What if (and we are 100% this is not the case) they make us excavate and then say they cannot see the tree roots and refuse to pay? Not many builders will start a job like this without some payment up front, which I am not prepared to do. I even suggested they dig up the pavement (which also needs to be replaced) so they did they own excavating on their own land to determine the cause, but they refused.

Point taken about the view for pedestrians...I'll pay the ticket. Thanks for all replies.

I'm after a little bit of clarification with regards to Zig Zags in a one way street. Let me start by saying I'm not one for parking on Zig Zags and am fully aware why they are there with regards to pedestrian safety. If you continue to read then you will understand my question. Basically I stopped briefly on a Zig Zag and was picked up by the mobile car camera and hit with a ticket 'contravention code 99'. I was parked, first car on the right (where the red ford escort is parked) about 70% on the zig zags. My point is that it is a one way street, hence I am not obstructing the view of oncoming traffic as I would be if traffic was coming from the opposite direction. Is it correct to have the zig zags either side of the crossing on a one way street? Is the ticket enforceable?

Adjudicator’s Reasons The Authority alleged that the Appellant was in a bay which was available at the material time for resident permit holders only. They have not produced a Traffic management Order to this effect but the Appellant has not taken issue with it. I am therefore prepared to accept that the above is common ground. The Appellant argued that he was misled by the sign. The issue therefore is whether the signage was clear. According to the Authority, the bay is a shared use bay from Mondays to Saturdays, 8:00am to 6:30 pm. From 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm Mondays to Saturdays and 8:00am to 10:00pm on Sundays, it is a residents only bay. I presume that it is a free bay at any other times. The signage was set out in two panels as follows. The upper panel carried the information about the residents only aspect of the bay I note it used 6:30 in stead of 6:30 pm which, in the context of a bay that is controlled in the morning as well, is in itself confusing but also confusing when read in conjunction with the lower panel. I shall return to this later. The lower panel purported to describe the share use spaces. There was an arrow which indicated that this only applied to the spaces to the left of the arrow. That is not an issue. The main problem is how the second panel was worded. It started by stating the time: Mondays to Saturdays, 8:00am to 6:30 pm. It then stated resident permit or pay and display. It therefore gives the impression of a normal shared use bay sign, which can be read as if the bay was a shared use bay during those hours, and free at any other times. One must therefore read the upper panel in conjunction with the lower panel to discover that the bay was not free at other times. The first problem with this is that the arrow does not appear in the upper panel, which can give the impression that the spaces to the left of the panel are not governed by the upper panel. Secondly, if different panels refer to different times of controls, the convention is the panels should be placed chronologically so that the uppermost panel covers the earliest times. The position is reversed here with a 6:30 pm control; above an 8:00 am control. The absence of pm after 6:30 made it even more confusing. I find that the signage was misleading and therefore inadequate. I am allowing the appeal.

Sign post and the Adjudicators letter.

Pictures to follow below:

Just seen that I have to have posted more than 20 posts to be able to upload pictures.

Thank you to all those who responded to my post, I can confirm today the Parking Appeals Council have cancelled the PCN and found in my favour. Although they did not have any issue with the Pay and Display machine issuing tickets outside of controlled hours as it is a shared machine for the road round the corner. They did however feel the signs to be confusing! I have posted a clearer picture of the signs and the Adjudicators letter. I feel Haringey Council will appeal this as they may have a few signs which need changing.

The sign:

Sorry for the delay: PNC.pdf

Reading this back - I have realised it's probably not very clear. I bought a pay and display ticket at 7pm but the pay and display bays operate between 8am - 6:30pm after which they become resident only bays, hence me being given a parking ticket when I returned back to my car. Sorry for any confusion

Council