contents alg transport & environment committee

2 ALG Transport & Environment Committee Annual Report 2000/2001

Barking & Dagenham Cllr Roy Patient - LabBarnet Cllr Arun Ghosh - LabBexley Cllr LS Newton - ConBrent Cllr Janice Long - LabBromley Cllr Martin Lockwood - Lib DemCamden Cllr John Thane - LabCroydon Cllr Adrian Dennis - LabEaling Cllr Gurcharan Singh - LabEnfield Cllr Betty Costello - LabGreenwich Cllr Peter Brooks - LabHackney Cllr Eric Ollenshaw - ConHammersmith & Fulham Cllr Michael Cartwright - LabHaringey Cllr Ray Dodds - Lab

Members of the Transport and Environment Committee

Contents ALG Transport & Environment Committee02 Members of the Transport and Environment Committee05 Chair’s Foreword – Cllr Nick Dolezal06 Director of ALG TEC’s Introduction08 Policy Unit10 Mobility Unit12 Traffic Enforcement Unit13 Parking Appeals14 Accounts and Balance Sheet20 Statistics23 Taxicard/Freedom Pass Number of Active Members

Joint Report of the Parking Adjudicators28 Chief Adjudicator’s Foreword32 Introduction34 Bus Lane Appeals35 Postal Service of Penalty Charge Notices36 Camera Enforcement37 Ownership and Hiring38 Time Limits39 Handling of Representations40 Footway Parking40 Adequate Signs and Information41 Controlled Parking Zones42 Digest of Cases46 London Parking Adjudicators

3

Southwark Cllr Nick Dolezal - LabSutton Cllr Richard Bailey - Lib DemTower Hamlets Cllr Mark Taylor - LabWaltham Forest Cllr Clyde Loakes - LabWandsworth Cllr Kathy Tracey - ConWestminster Cllr Tim Mitchell - ConCorporation of London Archibald Galloway CCTransport for London Paul Moore

Harrow Cllr Ray Frogley - LabHavering Cllr Jean Mitchell - LabHillingdon Cllr Graham Tomlin - LabHounslow Cllr Valerie Lamey - LabIslington Cllr George Allan - Lib DemKensington & Chelsea Cllr Daniel Moylan - ConKingston upon Thames Cllr David Cunningham - ConLambeth Cllr Kirsty McHugh - LabLewisham Cllr Gavin Moore - LabMerton Cllr Andrew Judge - LabNewham Cllr John Saunders - LabRedbridge Cllr Simon Green - LabRichmond upon Thames Cllr Martin Elengorn - Lib Dem

5

CHAIR’S FOREWORD

This is the first annual report from the ALG Transport andEnvironment Committee. As part of the response to thenew London governance structure – the establishment of the GLA and the election of the Mayor of London – the former Transport Committee for London merged at thestart of the year with a number of other local authoritybodies to form the Association of London Government.Formally, the Committee retains its separate existence.

The Committee has been renamed the ALG Transport andEnvironment Committee and I am pleased to say has, inaddition to our existing transport responsibilities, becomeresponsible for wider policy on transport, planning andthe environment.

This enhanced role will enable us to take a wider view of the key policy areas affecting our quality of life asLondoners – what I like to term the ‘liveability’ issues.This is even more important with so much of theGovernment’s policy and so many of the Mayor’s strategiesfocusing on areas within our remit. A key issue will be towork in partnership with all agencies and layers ofgovernment to improve London.

While this internal reorganisation was underway wecontinued to deliver our services extremely well, andmanaged some notable successes in 2000/01. This annualreport sets out the range of the work carried out by theCommittee, but I keen to mention the followingimpressive list of achievements.

We made the case for London local authorities andsecured £12m funding to cover the increased costs arisingfrom the extension of the concessionary fares legislationto further categories of people with disabilities.

We piloted the use of CCTV cameras for bus lane andstationary parking contraventions – this saw an 85 percent reduction in cars illegally driving in bus lanes.

ALG TEC negotiated a less than inflation cost increase forthe Freedom Pass, and successfully reissued over a millionpasses to older people and people with disabilities in London.

We retendered the Taxicard contract, doubling the numberof taxis available for people with disabilities to use at areduced cost.

ALG TEC implemented the revised excluded route networkfor the Lorry Ban.

We began to expand and develop our new planning andenvironment responsibilities, launching initiatives such as a joint working group with the GLA to investigate the feasibility of a low emission zone for London,representing borough interests to Government overproposals to reform our licensing laws, and responding to the Mayor’s emerging policies for his SpatialDevelopment Strategy.

Finally, I would like to thank all the members from acrossthe political and geographical spectrum in London whohave served so enthusiastically on the Committee, as wellas the officers of the Committee for their commitmentand hard work. I look forward to even greater successnext year.

Cllr Nick Dolezal

➔


DIRECTOR OF ALG TEC’S INTRODUCTION

While our ‘bread and butter’ issues have continued, thisyear has been dominated by the formation of the GLA and Transport for London (TfL). Preparation was wellunder-way at the start of the year, and I was involved in the design of structures for TfL and the transfer ofstaff from TCSU to become the new Transport Technologyand Systems section of the TfL’s Street Managementdivision. The election of Ken Livingstone as Mayor in Mayestablished congestion charging as an overriding priorityfor TfL, while the appointment of Bob Kiley in Decemberset in train a new restructuring of the organisation.

ALG TEC’s overriding aim in working with the Mayor, the GLA and TfL has been to establish a strongpartnership able to deliver real benefits for London. While the Mayor has substantial powers, and TfL also hasdetailed responsibilities for all forms of public transportand some main roads, the boroughs are responsible forthe overwhelming majority of London’s roads, includingmost of London’s main bus corridors. Good partnershipworking is, therefore, essential if the main benefits forLondon are to be achieved. This is reflected in thestatutory requirement for TfL to be a member of ALG TEC,and, in fact, TfL joined the Committee in August 2000.

Establishing an organisation as large as Transport forLondon takes some time and new working arrangementswill take longer to settle down. By April 2001 we werestill in this settling down period, but we look forward tostrengthening working relationships in the future. Theimportance the Mayor has placed on transport as an issue will mean that this strategic relationship betweenthe boroughs and TfL will be even more important in the future.

Reorganisations provided a second main focus for the yearwith the merger of the Transport Committee for London,and four other London-wide borough-funded bodies intothe Association of London Government. One of theimmediate impacts of the merger was that the TransportCommittee took responsibility for transport, planning andenvironment policy. With these extra responsibilities thename ‘Transport Committee for London’ no longer madesense, and there was also the potential for confusion withTransport for London. The Committee agreed, therefore, inJune 2000 to change its name to the ALG Transport andEnvironment Committee, reflecting both its broader remitand the link with the ALG.

At the same time, arrangements were made for TfL tobecome a member of the Committee in line with therequirements of the GLA Act. Although the terms oflegislation dictated this, it provided an opportunity to demonstrate the ability of the boroughs and TfL towork together.

➔

Nick Lester

7

The Committee remains a self-standing organisation as an associated joint committee of the ALG, but the ALG is responsible for carrying out all its activities. While theCommittee remains responsible for its own budget, all itsstaff and assets were transferred to the ALG where theyform the Transport and Environment Committee division.

The 11 members of staff responsible for policy work andfor administration moved to the new ALG headquarters at591/2 Southwark Street. The Committee’s operationalfunctions are still carried out from New Zealand House.More recently TEC staff have been given the responsibilityfor the ALG’s contract with Greater London Enterprise forEuropean activities.

It is clear that the GLA and TfL will provide a major focusof TEC’s activities in the future. Of the Mayor’s eightstatutory strategies, six (transport, spatial development,ambient noise, air quality, biodiversity and waste) fallwithin ALG TEC’s remit, together with the non-statutorystrategy on energy. The GLA and TfL have alreadydemonstrated they intend to be very active, and this has already led to a substantial increase in workload.

While these two reorganisations have dominated the yearother achievements have still been important. The reviewof the excluded network for the lorry ban has been amajor achievement, even though it will not be possible to complete this until the Mayor has finally decided hispolicy. Reletting the Taxicard contract with a wider groupof taxis and with a reduction in costs will ensure animprovement in service to users. Continuing work withSIS has ensured that our parking services, including theappeals service, have regained their previous quality.Enactment of the London Local Authorities Act 2000enabled the enforcement of bus lanes to be restarted inthe autumn with only a short hiatus after deficiencies in the previous legislation were discovered.

During the course of the year the commitment of all ALGTEC staff has been overwhelming. The Committee shouldrecognise that this is a major asset for the members ofALG TEC.

Finally, this year, we lost an important member of staffwith the departure of Caroline Sheppard, who had beenChief Parking Adjudicator since 1992, who left to run theNational Parking Adjudication Service, responsible forparking appeals in England and Wales outside London. We wish her well for the future.

08:07 08:12 08:17 08:24


BackgroundOn 1 April 2000 the new Association of London Governmentcame into being from the merger of the TransportCommittee for London (TCfL) and four other Londonwidebodies funded by the boroughs. From that date TCfLbecame ALG Transport and Environment Committee, with an extended remit to cover policy issues in transport,planning, the environment, consumer protection, tradingstandards and waste.

The Committee’s aims are to ensure that the transport and environment needs of Londoners are recognised andpromoted; the allocation of resources and the developmentof policies and legislation are influenced to the best effectfor London and borough interests (financial and otherwise)are represented and protected. The focus is on helping theboroughs to deliver the best possible services.

Key areas of activity for the ALG TEC policy team in2000/01 were to develop the policy function especially thenew areas of planning and environment, as well as forgerelationships with the Greater London Authority and itsfunctional bodies, in particular Transport for London. A keyobjective was to build a genuine partnership between theGLA and the London boroughs.

TransportIn the transport area the work of ALG TEC focused on theenactment or implementation of three major pieces oflegislation: the GLA Act 1999, the London Local AuthoritiesAct 2000 and the Transport Act 2000.

The implementation of the GLA Act required the ALG tofocus on ensuring a smooth transition of responsibilities tothe Mayor and Transport for London as well as shaping theMayor’s transport strategy and related initiatives to reflectborough priorities and concerns.

A key area for ALG TEC was to ensure a seamless transfer ofstrategic roads to the Mayor’s transport agency – Transportfor London – and ensure continuing close liaison betweenthe boroughs as highway authorities on local roads. ALGTEC policy officers successfully negotiated service levelagreements between the boroughs and TfL to ensure servicedelivery over the initial period of the set up of TfL on theTransport for London Road Network (TLRN). ALG TEC alsonegotiated the level of funding for and a service levelagreement for traffic technology services.

ALG TEC contributed to the development of the Mayor’stransport strategy and worked to ensure that boroughs’concerns were fed into the GLA to help shape the publicconsultation draft. Our work resulted in a number ofmodifications, such as a stronger commitment tosustainable transport policies in outer London and a more practical approach to red route provisions throughout London.

Much attention has been given to the Mayor’s key policyproposal – congestion charging. The response to this keyinitiative exemplifies the approach taken by the ALG TEC in representing borough interests. The Policy Unit hasfacilitated regular working groups for borough officers toliaise with representatives from TfL. Regular seminars wereheld for both borough officers and elected members to helpthe ALG and individual boroughs formulate views on theprinciples and detail of the proposal. Finally the ALGprovided evidence to the Assembly’s Congestion ChargingScrutiny Panel.

Ensuring the maximum funding for borough transportprojects is a key area for ALG TEC work. This was all themore important in 1999/2000 as decisions on funding weretransferred from the Government to Transport for London.The Policy Unit successfully advised TfL on the shape of theborough funding settlement for transport projects for the2001/02 settlement, in line with ALG priorities as well asmodifications to the new system of quarterly payment andmonitoring to reduce the level of bureaucracy. ALG TEC hasalso given evidence to GLA Transport Policy and SpatialDevelopment Committee on process and fundingarrangements.

The London Local Authorities Act 2000 provided theimpetus for a major change on enforcement during the yearby successfully introducing provisions to allow enforcementof parking contraventions using CCTV cameras. Enforcementof bus lane contraventions was introduced on a pilot basisin the boroughs of Newham, Croydon, Hammersmith andFulham and Ealing. However, the initiative was suspendedin July 2000 due to problems with enabling legislation. The initiative was successfully re-launched in September2000 and is being rolled out across London with thedevelopment of a Code of Practice for local authority CCTVenforcement and of guidelines for obtaining ALG TECapproval to commence operations. The initial results showthat this has been a substantial success with reductions inthe numbers of vehicles illegally driving in bus lanes of upto 85 per cent.

POLICY UNIT

➔

9

Further pilots for the camera enforcement of stationaryparking offences is now also being developed. In the areaof accessible transport the Transport Act 2000 extendedthe concessionary fares concession to further categories of people with disabilities. The Policy Unit negotiated withthe then Department for the Environment, Transport andthe Regions (DETR) to secure £12m funding for Londonboroughs to cover the increased costs arising from thisextension. ALG TEC also successfully negotiated withtransport operators to ensure the continuation of the£150m Freedom Pass scheme which saw a furtherexpansion to the network with Croydon Tramlink coming on line.

Also in the area of mobility ALG TEC continued to supportthe Commission on Accessible Transport pilot projects. The projects are jointly funded by ALG TEC, Transport forLondon and the Government to look at ways of better co-ordination of door to door and accessible transport. The pilots included a Lewisham scheme which broughttogether the borough’s social services and educationtransport with dial-a-ride, and one in Newham whichcombined dial-a-ride with Taxicard.

In addition to supporting boroughs in developing policyresponses to EU, Government and Mayoral strategies ALGTEC has helped support boroughs to develop a number ofpractical initiatives. Examples include supporting boroughsin the development of ‘green’ travel measures, such aspilot projects to improve safe routes to school projectsacross London, to the establishment of a new Pan LondonRoad Safety Forum which recognises the boroughs’ key rolein improving road safety.

Environment and PlanningAs part of the ALG’s response to the new arrangements for London governance, the ALG TEC policy team wasexpanded to provide a planning and environment resourceto represent the interests of the London boroughs. The work focused on the Mayor’s spatial development and environment strategies and matters emanating fromnational government. In this first year, this work hasconcentrated on engagement with the GLA and itsfunctional bodies in the development of the Mayor’sstrategies and initiatives and building and developingnetworks of planning contacts across the boroughs, GLA,Government Office for London and other London agencies.

There have been several achievements, forming a solidfoundation on which the future environment and planningwork of the ALG can be built. These include production of Planning Guidance for Air Quality Management Areas(the only detailed guidelines produced nationally on thissubject for planners), responding to the mayor’s emergingplanning policies, the preparation of written evidence forthe GLA’s Environment Committee’s investigation intorecycling, an ALG officer seminar on the Assembly draft ofthe Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy and the establishment of ajoint ALG/GLA steering group on Low Emission Zones.

Other work included negotiations with the GLA on theestablishment of a Capital Standards Initiative to improveLondon’s street environment, and help in launching theLondon Borough Biodiversity Forum.

We have also represented and protected London boroughinterests in proposals to reform licensing laws, andmaintained an overview of public protection issuesincluding food safety, trading standards and environmental health.

Finally, the Policy Unit has also developed and run acomprehensive seminar and conference programme tohighlight key issues of interest to boroughs and otheragencies across London and to demonstrate boroughinnovation and best practice.


The Mobility Unit has two main areas of responsibility,Concessionary Fares (Freedom Pass) and Taxicard.

The year started with the successful biennial reissue of Freedom Passes to eligible London borough residents.In 2000/01 men over 65, women over 60, people withdisabilities and those who are blind were entitled to areduced cost travel concession. In London the concessiontakes the form of a ticket branded as the Freedom Pass,valid for two years, which allows free travel on London’sbuses, tubes, trams and rail network. The cost of thescheme to London’s boroughs is about £150million.

The reissue of Freedom Passes was handled mainlythrough post offices, though some boroughs continue toissue through their own offices. Nearly a million passeshad to be issued in a two-month period, and the complexlogistics of this operation included the delivery ofapplication forms, passes, plastic wallets and brochures to issue points. Added to this was the massive publicitycampaign which surrounded the reissue.

The campaign was based around the message “We’ve got a ticket to ride”. The reissue was launched at the LondonTransport Museum by the then chair of the committee,Cllr Sally Powell. The campaign that followed includedposters at stations, on buses and stops, at town centresand on bus backs. There were also radio advertisements.The poster campaign included photographs that clearlyrepresented the demographic profile of the targetaudience, and was a major success. The warm and positiveimages and the helpful text were extremely well receivedand they continued to be used long after the reissue had concluded.

Towards the end of the year the government announcedits intention to amend the concessionary fares categoriesof eligibility relating to people with disabilities. Thiswould form part of the Transport Act 2000 which alsoestablished a national minimum standard for theprovision of concessionary fares. ALG TEC officers workedclosely with borough colleagues to provide detailedinformation and draft guidance for Government officers.Interestingly, ALG TEC found that due to the positiveapproach adopted by boroughs many of those targeted asbeing excluded by the Government were already in receiptof the concession.

Taxicard is a highly successful scheme provided by ALGTEC on behalf of 29 boroughs. It enables the severelymobility impaired to make subsidised door-to-door tripsusing licensed London taxis.

The contract for Taxicard was competitively retendered in2000 under the tenet of best value. The result was thatthe new contract nearly doubled the number of taxisavailable. There was also a more rigorous approach takento customer complaints and their handling. The detailedcomplaints regime now in place has increased customersatisfaction and helped us target areas for improvement.

The Taxicard database was upgraded and this has helpedwith provision of the telephone helpdesk facility providedfor users by the ALG.

During the year ALG TEC discussed with Transport forLondon the future of Taxicard in the light of the Mayor’scommitment to take over or run a similar scheme.Agreement has been reached that to have two competingsubsidised taxi schemes would be counter-productive forusers, nor has the Mayor the power to take over theboroughs’ Taxicard scheme. Instead, the Mayor has agreedto support raising minimum standards within the existingTaxicard scheme with TfL funding. This should produce ascheme which is operated jointly by the boroughs andTfL. Implementation of the first stage of this is expectedduring 2001/02.

MOBILITY UNIT

➔

1108:28 08:35 08:48 08:53


There are three key operational areas of transport forwhich the committee has responsibility. These are theLondon Lorry Ban, the Health Emergency Badge schemeand parking advice to the boroughs.

The Lorry Ban restricts lorry movements on residentialroads at night and on weekends. It continues to be animportant contribution to the quality of life for manyLondoners.

There are a number of major roads across London thatconstitute a network over which lorries may operate atnight. These roads are excluded from the ban and areavailable to hauliers on a 24-hour basis. However, for thehaulier to use any other London roads requires a permitissued by ALG TEC. There is a dedicated team issuingabout 50,000 permits every year and who also deal withrequests for information.

A team of five enforcement officers police the schemeduring the hours of the ban’s operation. They note thevehicle licence number of lorries operating outside theexcluded network and prosecute those without permits. In 2000-1, there were 2,228 prosecutions, a number ofthese resulted from evidence provided by the use ofLondon’s traffic CCTV network.

The excluded route network was reviewed during1999/2000, with the exception of the roads to betransferred to the Mayor, and a revised traffic order put in place to take effect during 2000.

The Health Emergency Badge scheme is a permit thatwhen displayed, by medical practitioners, in their vehicleindicates attendance at an emergency in a patient’shome. If they are parking where they might attract aparking penalty this badge correctly presented will usuallymean that no Penalty Charge Notice is issued. Theboroughs offer this concession on a discretionary basis,as they do not wish parking to be an issue in the case of medical emergency. However, they require ALG TEC tocarefully review all applications to ensure that only thosedealing with emergencies receive the badge. There isparticular concern that the badge is used under the termsand conditions of issue to ensure that potential misuse is limited and does not diminish the credibility of thescheme. There were nearly 8,000 badges on issue in 2000-01.

The year also saw the ALG TEC appoint a Parking SupportOfficer to co-ordinate support and advice on parkingmatters to the boroughs, the post is totally independentof the Parking Appeals Service.

TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT UNIT

➔

13

Since its inception in 1993 as a service provider theParking Appeals Service (now Parking and Traffic AppealsService) has provided an efficient and reliableAdjudication Service to a vast majority of motoristswishing to appeal against liability for Penalty ChargeNotices issued through the decriminalised parking regimeoperated by the London local authorities. The service hasgrown from strength to strength over the years and has led to the extension of the jurisdiction of theAdjudicators, making it more imperative for the provisionof an efficient service to meet current challenges. With the coming into force of the London LocalAuthorities Act 1996 as amended, the Adjudicators’jurisdiction now includes appeals against bus laneoffences. This highlighted the need for the service to be renamed to reflect its current remit.

In the period between April 2000-March 2001 the totalnumber of appeals were 44,741 as compared to 38,424for 1999/2000. Appellants were successful in 64 per centof these appeals.

The number of local authorities participating in theimplementation of bus lane enforcement has risen fromfour to six, which now includes Wandsworth and Transportfor London. A total of 139 appeals were submitted to theAdjudicators, of which 122 were allowed. The localauthority did not contest 114 of these.

It is proposed that a new automated adjudication systembe introduced at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Servicein the next reporting year. The features of this systemwill include consideration of ancillary applications namely applications for costs and cases referred to theAdjudicators by way of Statutory Declaration, which werepreviously dealt with manually. It is hoped that, withtime and as the Adjudicators become familiar with thenew system, this will lead to a speedier and moreefficient consideration of cases.

The service has been awarded funding from centralgovernment for the Invest to Save project, thecomponents of which are:On Line Submission of Appeal ApplicationsOn Line Penalty Payment facilityRemote Appeal Hearing Via Video Link

Our objectives include widening access to theAdjudication Service, increasing public confidence in, and acceptance of, the appeals process and parkingenforcement regime and to meet the demands of thesignificant growth expected in the next three years. Theproject is being undertaken in partnership with the ALGTEC (which provides the appeals service) and the LondonBorough of Wandsworth. Preparation for theimplementation of remote appeal hearings via video linkis on course with the first such hearing to take place inSeptember 2001. The other components of the projectwill be implemented during the next reporting year.

PARKING APPEALS

•••

➔

09:07 09:22 09:24 09:31

Mobility Unit

2000/01 1999/2000£000 £000

ExpenditureEmployee Costs 182.00 224.00 Premises 0.00 -36.00 Transport 0.00 3.00Supplies and Services 11.00 14.00 Agency Payments 0.00 0.00 Transfer Payments 0.00 0.00 -Payments to Transport Operators 154,418.00 149,846.00 -Survey/Reissue Costs 13.00 221.00 Central/Technical Support 0.00 12.00

Total Expenditure 154,624.00 150,284.00

IncomeBorough Levies 154,951.00 150,864.00 Transfer from Reserves 151.00 80.00 Interest 460.00 159.00 Contribution from LT 133.00 168.00 Other Income 50.00 0.00

Total Income 155,745.00 151,271.00

Transfer to Reserves 1,121.00 987.00

The Committee received the unaudited accounts for 2000-1 in July this year.ALG-TEC Revenue Accounts for the year ending 31st March 2001

ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET


➔

Parking/Policy and Administration and ALG Start-Up Costs

2000/01 1999/2000£000 £000

ExpenditureEmployee Costs 702.00 510.00 Premises 540.00 734.00 Supplies and Services 3,927.00 2,411.00 Agency Payments-SIS Services 3,197.00 2,157.00 -Adjudication 533.00 377.00 Transfer Payments 0.00 0.00 Central/Technical Support 30.00 25.00

Total Expenditure 8,929.00 6,214.00

IncomeBorough Levies 7,875.00 5,467.00 Transfer from Reserves 109.00 133.00 Interest -310.00 17.00 Other Income 261.00 132.00

Total Income 7,935.00 5,749.00

Transfer from Reserves 994.00 465.00

15

Traffic Enforcement Unit

2000/01 1999/2000£000 £000

ExpenditureEmployee Costs 444.00 492.00 Premises 20.00 -6.00 Transport 16.00 15.00 Supplies and Services 181.00 242.00 Agency Payments 0.00 0.00 Transfer Payments 317.00 0.00 Central/Technical Support 21.00 19.00

Total Expenditure 999.00 762.00

IncomeBorough Levies 736.00 701.00 Transfer from Reserves 166.00 0.00 Court Fees and Other Income 393.00 175.00 Interest 40.00 25.00

Total Income 1,335.00 901.00

Transfer to Reserves 336.00 139.00

Health Emergency Badge

2000/01 1999/2000£000 £000

ExpenditureEmployee Costs 19.00 7.00 Supplies and Services 3.00 9.00


IncomeSale of Badges 12.00 20.00

Total Income 12.00 20.00

Transfer to/from Reserves -10.00 4.00


CAT Door-to-Door Pilot

2000/01 1999/2000£000 £000

ExpenditureSupplies and Services 105.00 44.00


IncomeTransfer from Reserves 169.00 30.00 Contribution from DETR 83.00 88.00 Contribution from LT 50.00 25.00

Total Income 302.00 143.00

Balance Carried Forward 197.00 99.00

17

ALG - TEC - Consolidated Balance Sheet as at 31st March 2001

2000/01 1999/2000£000 £000 £000 £000

Tangible Fixed AssetsFurniture and Equipment 234.00 0.00Leasehold Improvements 241.00 475.00 0.00 0.00

Current AssetsDebtors 5,692.00 8,740.00Prepayments 147.00 0.00Cash in hand and at bank 0.00 7,296.00

5,839.00 16,036.00

Total Assets 6,314.00 16,036.00

Current LiabilitiesCreditors -3,609.00 -13,386.00

Total Assets Less Current Liabilities 2,705.00 2,650.00

Provisions 0.00 0.00

Total Assets Less Liabilities 2,705.00 2,650.00

ReservesTransfers from predecessor bodies-Revenue Reserves 2,650.00 2,129.00-Capital Contributions Unapplied 0.00 64.00

2,650.00 2,193.00Less transfer to Revenue Account -596.00 -243.00Transport Operators FaresIncrease Reserve 264.00 550.00Capital Contributions Applied 0.00 -64.00Surplus for the Year 387.00 214.00

2,705.00 2,650.00


Traffic Control Signal Unit

Final Final Gross Net Government Claim Gross Net Government Claim

Expenditure Income Expenditure Grants Position Expenditure Income Expenditure Grants Position

2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 1999/2000 1999/2000 1999/2000 1999/2000 1999/2000£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Capital ExpenditureUrban Traffic Control 55.00 0.00 55.00 55.00 0.00 711.00 0.00 711.00 700.00 11.00Modernisation 794.00 0.00 794.00 794.00 0.00 3,220.00 0.00 3,220.00 3,198.00 22.00Bus Priority 993.00 0.00 993.00 993.00 0.00 4,201.00 4,013.00 188.00 180.00 8.00Signal Schemes 2,241.00 0.00 2,241.00 2,241.00 0.00 6,906.00 4,140.00 2,766.00 2,817.00 -51.00Traffic Control and Monitoring 285.00 0.00 285.00 285.00 0.00 2,161.00 338.00 1,823.00 1,724.00 99.00

Total Capital Expenditure 4,368.00 0.00 4,368.00 4,368.00 0.00 17,199.00 8,491.00 8,708.00 8,619.00 89.00

Direct Revenue ExpenditureCentral Systems 237.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,460.00 163.00 2,296.00 2,260.00 36.00Traffic Signals 1,733.00 0.00 1,733.00 1,733.00 0.00 6,552.00 798.00 5,754.00 5,740.00 14.00Monitoring 77.00 0.00 77.00 77.00 0.00 550.00 27.00 523.00 631.00 -108.00

Total Direct Revenue Expenditure 2,047.00 0.00 1,810.00 1,810.00 0.00 9,562.00 988.00 8,573.00 8,631.00 -58.00

Other CostsStaff 1,911.00 0.00 1,911.00 1,911.00 0.00 6,119.00 2,003.00 4,116.00 4,137.00 -21.00Support Services 606.00 0.00 606.00 606.00 0.00 2,005.00 768.00 1,237.00 1,559.00 -322.00

Total Other Costs 2,517.00 0.00 2,517.00 2,517.00 0.00 8,124.00 2,771.00 5,353.00 5,696.00 -343.00

Investment Interest Account 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 216.00 -216.00 0.00 -216.00

Grand Total 8,932.00 0.00 8,695.00 8,695.00 0.00 34,885.00 12,466.00 22,418.00 22,946.00 -528.00

19

Parking Appeal Outcomes 2000/2001

Total PCNs Total2000-2001 Total Total Bus Lane Total

excluding Wheelclamps Removals Enforcements Appeals of which not Appeals of which appealbus lanes 2000/2001 2000/2001 2000/2001 allowed contested refused withdrawn outcomes

BoroughBarking & Dagenham 22574 0 0 0 168 70 126 2 294Barnet 87165 0 0 0 1002 209 992 9 1994Bexley 69529 0 0 0 398 187 200 5 598Brent 96149 0 3935 0 353 104 447 4 800Bromley 65385 0 39 0 274 137 300 2 574Camden 303332 22328 8239 0 1788 560 1179 12 2967City of London 93142 2166 1849 0 410 142 369 3 779Croydon 101600 1544 3852 38915 484 156 339 6 823Ealing 171178 0 0 14526 1887 1690 242 24 2129Enfield 89650 0 1535 0 104 41 222 1 326Greenwich 62021 2215 2623 0 448 336 382 3 830Hackney 89401 7583 1460 0 431 191 388 2 819Hammersmith & Fulham 142886 0 3071 0 2479 915 1877 12 4356Haringey 142484 2 461 0 2589 1712 135 3 2724Harrow 98771 0 0 0 370 94 550 4 920Havering 45905 0 0 0 97 48 51 0 148Hillingdon 66630 0 0 0 401 224 175 1 576Hounslow 85732 0 0 0 287 189 19 0 306Islington 132859 0 0 0 1272 514 606 5 1878Kensington & Chelsea 233238 15014 8494 0 1292 606 886 5 2178Kingston upon Thames 72837 0 0 0 86 36 91 0 177Lambeth 128562 4789 6330 0 2135 572 744 5 2879Lewisham 52737 0 0 0 204 60 183 4 387Merton 35197 0 0 0 77 17 73 0 150Newham 116597 1334 756 11874 1969 648 784 7 2753Redbridge 80094 0 0 0 125 49 139 2 264Richmond 84075 0 0 0 161 87 44 7 205Southwark 131818 5339 2175 0 1439 319 544 5 1983Sutton 42459 0 79 0 220 132 151 3 371Tower Hamlets 93214 3819 2898 0 783 346 702 9 1485Waltham Forest 120696 0 98 0 391 110 438 4 829Wandsworth 177208 0 2354 4710 750 560 383 3 1133Westminster 857814 24498 16594 0 3907 2096 2199 41 6106

Total 4192939 90631 66842 70025 28781 13157 15960 193 44741

STATISTICS


Figures based on decisions made between the dates 1/4/2000 to 31/3/2001 inc.

➔

21

Proposed on-street penalties 2000/2001

Band A £80 (£40 discounted)

Band B £60 (£30 discounted)

Band A/B

Parking Control NVQ

The end of 2000/01 is as follows:Approved Centres 50Centres Pending Approval 2Candidates Registered 1128Candidates Certificated 185External Verifiers 8Internal Verifiers and Assessors 416

The role of the External Verifier is that of the official representative of the joint awarding body. They are responsible for ensuring that assessment within centres is valid and reliable and reporting to their awarding body on the performance of centres.

Internal Verifiers are the quality assurance link between the external verifier and the assessors within. Assessors are responsible for ensuring that only candidates who are able to provide sufficient evidence to meet the full requirements of the qualification gain a certificate.

ALG TEC along with SITO forms the joint awarding body for NVQ Parking Control Level 2. This qualification is recognised as the industry standard for parking attendants. The joint awarding body is responsible for approving centres to examine candidates and for ensuring the consistency of examination in the centres.

Parking Appeal Hearing Information

Cases ClosedWithin 5 Weeks 17746 42.75%Between 5 & 7 weeks 3482 8.39%Total 41513

Punctuality of Personal HearingsStarted within 15 minutes of scheduled time 7504 92.77%Hearings started within 15 & 30 minutes of scheduled time 483 5.97%Total 8089


23

Taxicard Freedom Pass 30/9/00

BoroughBarking & Dagenham 1,249 22,400Barnet n/a 46,553Bexley 526 35,197Brent 1,751 33,090Bromley 927 49,336Camden 2,972 27,220City of London 159 1,150Croydon 1,002 45,631Ealing 899 39,044Enfield 89 39,048Greenwich n/a 30,546Hackney 2,607 25,968Hammersmith & Fulham 1,993 20,353Haringey 1,508 26,625Harrow 3066 32,536Havering 1,611 39,577Hillingdon 853 36,583Hounslow 1,134 27,981Islington 1,693 24,336Kensington & Chelsea 2,120 18,810Kingston 326 19,670Lambeth 1,305 30,818Lewisham 608 33,223Merton 1,367 24,738Newham 4,450 27,323Redbridge n/a 33,955Richmond 645 24,194Southwark 1,331 30,116Sutton 290 26,567Tower Hamlets 1,661 21,816Waltham Forest 2,165 28,678Wandsworth 1,129 32,458City of Westminster n/a 27,412

Total 41,436 982,951

TAXICARD/FREEDOM PASS NUMBER OF ACTIVE MEMBERS

➔

The Adjudicators received 151 applications for costs under Regulation 12 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993. Costs were awarded in 85 of these cases to a sum total of £4206.69.

Adjudicator’s decisions in 238 cases were reviewed under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993.


London Night-time and Weekend Lorry Ban

Number of permits issued – Short Term 1/4/00 – 31/3/01 5402Short Term Permits issued with 48 hours 1/4/00 – 31/3/01 95%Number of Permits issued – Full Term 1/4/00 – 31/3/01 46,805Full Term Permits issued with 14 days 1/4/00 – 31/3/01 95%Number of Applications refused 1/4/00 – 31/3/01 95 (24%)

New ApplicationsInformation packs sent 795Completed application forms 399 50 % returnedFull permits issued to 67%Short Term permit status 9%Refused 24%

Short Term Permit IssueHaulier with short term status 1510 28%Non-registered Hauliers 1447 27%Full permit holders 2445 45%

Extra Vehicles addedForms received 2693Vehicles added 12937

These are full term permits to full registered hauliers.

Total Number of Prosecutions and Convictions initiated from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

prosecutions (P) / convictions (C)

Total

BoroughBarkingBarnetBexleyBrentBromleyCamdenCorp. of LondonCroydonEalingEnfieldGreenwichH/SmithHackneyHaringeyHarrowHaveringHill/DonHounslowIslingtonKensingtonKingstonLambethLewishamMertonNewhamRedbridgeRichmondSouthwarkSuttonT/HamletsW/ForestWandsworthWestminster

Total

2088 Prosecutions for Financial Year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 (April 1999 to March 2000 – 2228)

2166 Convictions for Financial Year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 (April 1999 to March 2000 – 2093)

P

8272131516313924321063548637621636361721350925874770215689173474348

2088

C

104142374203128212311455810541831930461711470725667460317292166455960

2166

25

It should be noted that the prosecution and conviction figures shown for each month should not be read together. This is because the prosecution figure is the number of cases sent to the legal department for action that month. Whereas the conviction figure is the number of cases dealt with in the Courts that month. This figure relates to cases which would have been sent to the legal department many months previously.

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARKING ADJUDICATORS


I am pleased to present to the Committee this jointreport of the Parking Adjudicators for the year 2000-2001.

The year has been a momentous one for those in thetribunal world. In May 2000 the Lord Chancellorannounced that he had appointed Sir Andrew Leggatt, a retired appeal court judge, to conduct a wide-ranging,independent review of tribunals in England and Wales. Sir Andrew’s remit was to carry out a review at a strategiclevel; to look at the administrative justice system as awhole, but not to produce a detailed and costed blueprintfor change. Key themes included coherence,independence, accessibility and organisation. Sir Andrewwas assisted by Dame Valerie Strachan, formerly Chairmanof HM Customs and Excise, and a small panel of expertconsultees.

There has not been such a comprehensive review oftribunals since the 1957 review under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Franks. Sir Andrew’s review is therefore of theutmost importance for the future of the tribunals system.

The number of tribunals has grown from 30 or so in 1957to about 100 now. There is considerable diversity betweenthem: for example, in organisation, working methods, andformality. The largest hears over 300,000 cases a year,some rarely sit.

Against the background of this review, it is perhapstimely to reflect on where the Parking Adjudicators sit inthis scheme of things; in particular to consider what aretheir particular features as a tribunal.

The Adjudicators are a relatively new venture, dealing asthey do with decriminalised traffic contraventions. In thisrespect, those whom attempt on occasions to categoriseor group tribunals find difficulty in deciding where toplace us. The truth, perhaps, is that tribunals dealingwith these matters stand on their own.

The Adjudicators are a busy tribunal, sitting throughoutthe year. Last year they dealt with over 30,000 appeals.They aim to offer a customer focussed service. To thisend, they sit from 8am to 8pm on weekdays and onSaturday mornings. Appellants are offered a specificappointment time of their choosing. The hearing centreand hearing rooms are designed to be business-like butwelcoming rather than intimidating. In the same vein,appeal hearings are deliberately informal, with theAdjudicator and appellant sitting at an ordinary desk.Appellants are rarely legally represented and theAdjudicators adopt an inquisitorial approach to ensurethat they tease out everything relevant to the appeal.

But the most striking feature of this tribunal is itscomputerised adjudication system, through which everyaspect of the appeals is processed, from the receipt ofthe appeal form to the delivery of the Adjudicator’sdecision. This is the tribunal’s unique contribution to the judicial world. This encouraged two of Sir Andrew’sadvisers, Professor Martin Partington and ProfessorRichard Susskind, both of whom were particularlyinterested in IT issues, to visit us to learn about thesystem. Professor Susskind is also IT Adviser to the LordChief Justice.

In November I attended a conference arranged by theJudicial Studies Board and attended by Sir Andrew and histeam, members of the Council on Tribunals and tribunalheads, to consider the result of the Review Team’sconsultation exercise. I was also pleased to have theopportunity to discuss the review with Sir Andrew andDame Valerie when they visited the ALG to discuss theimplications of their review for local governmenttribunals.

CHIEF ADJUDICATOR’S FOREWORD

➔

29

Sir Andrew’s report was published just as this annualreport was being completed. His report is a considerablepiece of work and makes many recommendations that willrequire careful consideration. Among the most importantare that the administration of tribunals, including thosepresently the responsibility of local government, shouldbecome the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor; and thatthe Lord Chancellor should assume responsibility for allappointments to tribunals. We were gratified to see thatthe report comments favourably on both our computerisedadjudication system and our operation in general. At thetime of writing, the Government has issued a consultationpaper on the report. The consultation period for whichends on 30 November. The final outcome from the reviewwill, of course, be of enormous moment for all thoseinvolved in the work of tribunals.

Among other visitors, we also welcomed on threeoccasions during the year visitors from the Court Serviceconcerned with the Modernising the Civil Courts project,including three members of the Judicial Working Group:Chief Master Winegarten, His Honour Judge Platt andDistrict Judge Stevens. Again, they were especiallyinterested in seeing our computerised process. Indeed,each successive party was so enthused by what they saw,it was their encouragement that prompted others tofollow in their footsteps. As one of them said, “Thefuture’s here and I’ve seen it today”. I am also pleasedthat Mr Paddy Waring, a Member of the Council onTribunals, took the time to visit us.

In May 2000, I attended the Council on TribunalsConference 2000. The Conference was attended by a widerange of stakeholders in the tribunal system: members and staff of the Council, tribunal heads, members of thesecretariat of the Review on Tribunals and delegates frominterested Government Departments. The formal purpose of the conference was to discuss key issues: to highlightthe challenges for tribunals arising from the Government’smodernisation and reform programmes, to share bestpractice in pursuit of an efficient, high quality service totribunal users, and to promote dialogue between theCouncil and tribunals on the Council’s role. However, themain event was the keynote speech by the Lord Chancellorin which he announced the establishment of the Review of Tribunals. The conference naturally spent a good deal oftime considering what issues it would be helpful for theReview to consider. But as well as the formal business, the conference, and other meetings like it, afford aninvaluable opportunity for meeting others involved intribunals and exchanging views and experiences withthem. Without them, it would be all too easy to becomeinward looking and disregard the important widerperspective.

Somewhat closer to home, I have maintained contactthroughout the year with Caroline Sheppard, the ChiefAdjudicator for the National Parking Adjudication Service,our closest tribunal cousin. As well as keeping in touch on matters of shared interest, Caroline is always willing to give me the benefit of her wealth of experience in the field, and I am grateful to her. In addition, a Co-ordination Group has been established under the auspicesof the Department for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions as a forum for discussing issues amongstthose involved in decriminalised traffic enforcement acrossthe country. It is intended that the group will meetoccasionally, perhaps annually.

09:43 09:51 09:53 09:57


I have attended a number of Local Authority user groups.These are particularly useful in giving me the opportunityto clarify issues for Local Authority staff, and so, it is tobe hoped, both improve practice and promote consistency.But among all these macro matters, it has of course beenbusiness as usual for the Adjudicators. I wish to record mythanks to them for the support they have given to theAppeals Service, and to myself personally.

During the year our numbers have been reduced by three,to 34. Sadly, Ruth Blair, who only joined us in 1999, died after a long illness and we extend our condolences to her family. On a happier note, we congratulate GaryHickinbottom on his appointment as a Circuit Judge to theWales and Chester Circuit. Brian James retired on reachingthe age of 70. Appointed in 1994, both were in at theground floor of the initiation of the Appeals Service andeach has made an invaluable contribution to itsdevelopment. We wish them well for the future.

In April 2000, we held a joint conference with theAdjudicators from the National Parking Adjudication serviceand the Scottish Parking Adjudicators. The main subject of the conference was the impact of the Human Rights Act1998, about which more below. The London Adjudicatorsalso held three other training sessions covering a range of topical issues including, among others: more on humanrights, decision writing, the London Local Authorities Act2000 and bus lane appeals.

As a small contribution to efficiency, we have prepared awritten introduction for personal appellants to read beforethe hearing. This explains matters that used to beexplained orally by the Adjudicator, including the status of the Adjudicators and their decisions and some practicalpoints about the hearing, such as the use of the computerscreen. The written introduction saves a little time andensures consistency in the information given.

We conducted a pilot of remote working, in which a smallnumber of Adjudicators were connected to the adjudicationsystem at home to allow them to decide postal cases. The pilot was a technical success, but at present the useof remote working is not economic given the costs ofinstallation and support and the fact that the Adjudicatorwould only be using it for a limited time each week.

The Adjudicators wish to express their thanks to the Headof the Appeals Service and her staff for their unstintingand enthusiastic support throughout the year, withoutwhich the Appeals Service would simply not function.


The Parking Adjudicators were established under the 1991 Road Traffic Act to hear appeals against parkingpenalties. As well as hearing parking appeals, theAdjudicators also hear appeals against Penalty ChargeNotices issued by Local Authorities under the LondonLocal Authorities 1996 for the breach of bus laneregulations. Up to the end of March 2001, only Croydon,Ealing, Hammersmith And Fulham, Newham andWandsworth London Boroughs had implemented the Act,although we understand other Local Authorities plan todo so. Given the limited number of Local Authoritiescurrently exercising their enforcement powers, the numberof appeals is very small. However, they are no lessimportant for that. In addition, from April 2001 Transportfor London also has bus lane enforcement powersfollowing the Transport for London (Bus Lanes) Order 2001, which amended the 1996 Act. This willundoubtedly, therefore, be a growing area of work for theAdjudicators. For this reason, and because perhaps themost important decision by an Adjudicator in the yearwas on a bus lane appeal, bus lane issues are covered in some detail in this report.

We referred last year to the coming into force of theHuman Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000. As seems to be the case across the judicial system, the Act has notso far had as large an impact on our work as might havebeen expected. However, we have introduced oneimportant procedural requirement as a result of the Act.Regulation 5 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993 provides that any party maydeliver representations to the Appeals Service at any timebefore an appeal is determined, and requires the LocalAuthority to copy its representations to the appellant.The practical arrangements in place for the delivery ofrepresentations allowed the Local Authority to copy onlyits Case Summary to the appellant, whereas the LocalAuthority received from the Appeals Service a copy ofeverything submitted by the appellant. We formed theview that these arrangements were not compliant witharticle 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,the right to a fair trial, in two respects.They offended the principle of ‘equality of arms’ anddeprived the appellant of a proper opportunity to prepare his case.The delivery of evidence soon before the hearing alsodeprived the appellant of a proper opportunity to prepare his case.

INTRODUCTION

•

•

➔

33

Consequently, Local Authorities are now required to sendto the appellant copies of all the documents it submits insupport of its case to reach the appellant in the ordinarycourse of post at least three clear days before thehearing, and to confirm to the Adjudicator that it hasdone so. If it fails to comply, it is at risk that theAdjudicator may allow the appeal summarily.

The other major piece of legislation relating to our workenacted during the year was the London Local AuthoritiesAct 2000. This corrected defects in the drafting of thebus lane enforcement regime in the London LocalAuthorities Act 1996, and introduced a number ofimportant revisions to the decriminalised parking regime.We deal with the most significant of its provisions for our purposes in detail below. The Act does not apply to L B Barnet.

Perhaps the most important issue that comes out of thecomparisons in this report between the decriminalisedparking and bus lane enforcement regimes is that ofcoherence – or rather the lack of it. The report identifiesa number of inconsistencies between and within theregimes for which there is no obvious logical justification.The explanation perhaps is that the regimes have been

developed in a piecemeal fashion rather than by referenceto a set of core principles and processes. In our view, thisis regrettable. The inconsistencies are liable to causeconfusion to the motoring public (and perhaps even toLocal Authorities). At best, they are unlikely to enhancethe enforcement process in the public’s eyes; at worst,they could cause resentment and bring enforcementthrough decriminalised schemes into disrepute. In ourview, it is self-evident that all decriminalised trafficpenalties should be enforced through a common set of principles and processes. This is not to say that theremay not be a need for some differences of detail fordifferent contraventions, but those should be the result of need and planning, not accident. There have beensuggestions that more offences will be decriminalised. If so, without the coherent approach we advocate theproblem is likely to get worse. In our view, there is an urgent need for the core principles and processes to be defined so that decriminalisations are implemented in an orderly fashion.

The cases decided this year referred to in this report are set out in detail in the Digest of Cases that follows the report.

10:07 10:07 10:12 10:25


The decriminalised enforcement of bus lane regulationswas introduced by the London Local Authorities 1996under which a penalty charge is payable to the LocalAuthority for contravention of bus lane regulations (which reserve all or part of a carriageway as a bus lane).The Act does not, however, give the Local Authorities theexclusive power to enforce bus lanes. The police maycontinue to take criminal enforcement action under theRoad Traffic Offenders Act 1988 against the driver of thevehicle concerned; and where the police either issue afixed penalty notice to the driver or notify the LocalAuthority of the intention to prosecute the driver, nopenalty charge is payable to the Local Authority.

Under the 1996 Act, the Adjudicators are dubbed TrafficAdjudicators when hearing bus lane appeals.

The important decision to which we referred in ourintroduction was Hull v Croydon, in which the structure of the decriminalised scheme created by the 1996 Act was placed under the Adjudicator’s microscope. The crucial issue in the case was who – the owner ordriver of the vehicle, if anyone – the 1996 Act madeliable for the penalty charge payable to the LocalAuthority. The Adjudicator found that the Act did notmake anyone expressly liable and therefore it could not be used for the enforcement of bus lane penalties.However, drivers could, of course, still be pursued underthe parallel criminal liability.

The Adjudicator commented in his decision on the factthat the Act appeared to have been drafted by referenceto parts of both the criminal 1988 Act scheme (underwhich there is driver liability) and the decriminalisedparking contravention provisions of the Road Traffic Act1991 (under which there is owner liability) withoutadequate regard for whether the provisions adopted fromthese earlier schemes were compatible with one another,or whether the final result comprised a coherent scheme.He observed that the drafting of the scheme was ‘notoptimal’ – a view that cannot be denied. It is highlyregrettable that so defective a piece of legislation shouldhave reached the statute book.

Since this decision was delivered in May 2000, the 1996Act has been amended by the London Local AuthoritiesAct 2000 so that it now places liability for bus lanepenalty charges on the owner of the vehicle. This enabledLocal Authorities to resume bus lane enforcement.

But that is not the only difficulty with the bus lanelegislation. Another is this. One of the grounds forchallenging liability to a parking penalty is that itexceeds the relevant amount. This ground is relevant, for example, where the motorist claims to have paid thereduced penalty within the fourteen days allowed but the Local Authority disputes this. Clearly, in suchcircumstances the motorist must have the right to havehis case decided by an independent tribunal, yet for someinexplicable reason the bus lane scheme does not includethis ground of challenge. This requires remedying.

BUS LANE APPEALS

➔

35

Desirable as it is for decriminalisations to apply acommon set of principles, the fact that bus laneinfringements relate to moving traffic contraventionsnecessarily means that there are some differences in theenforcement regime. One difference is the means bywhich enforcement action is initiated. In relation toparking contraventions, enforcement is usually initiatedby a Penalty Charge Notice being issued by a parkingattendant on the street, either by attaching it to thevehicle or giving it to the person appearing to be incharge of the vehicle. Indeed, until recently this was theonly means of commencing such enforcement. Obviously,these methods of service are not practical where there isa contravention by a vehicle on the move, as with a buslane infringement. Instead, the 1996 Act provides for thePenalty Charge Notice to be served by post on the personappearing to be the owner. Under both regimes, if thepenalty charge is not paid following service of the PenaltyCharge Notice, a second notice is served on the apparentowner. This notice is termed in parking cases the Noticeto Owner and in bus lane cases the Enforcement Notice.

‘Notice to Owner’ is apt in parking cases, because itsignals that this is the first notice aimed at the owner as such; the person in charge of the vehicle when thePenalty Charge Notice is issued on the street may or may not be the owner. The term was presumably thoughtinappropriate for the bus lane regime because the PenaltyCharge Notice has already gone to the owner, andtherefore ‘Enforcement Notice’ used instead.

The London Local Authorities Act 2000 has now extendedpostal service to parking Penalty Charge Notices in twocircumstances: first, where parking restrictions areenforced by camera (as to which see below) andtherefore, in the nature of the operation, there is noparking attendant at the site; and, secondly, where theparking attendant is prevented by any person fromserving a Penalty Charge Notice on the person in chargeof the vehicle. This provision is, we understand, primarilyintended for cases of violence or threats of violence. Itmay be that the meaning of ‘prevented’ in this contextwill in time be tested before an Adjudicator.

The immediate point that comes out of these postalservice provisions, however, is why two notices arerequired at all where enforcement is targeted on theowner from the beginning. It seems to us that having asingle notice, combining the necessary elements of thePenalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner/EnforcementNotice, would be sufficient and, indeed, desirable. Thetwo notice regime is inherently likely to be confusing tosome owners; the more so because, under the legislation,it is only in response to the Notice to Owner orEnforcement Notice that they are entitled formally tochallenge liability by making representations to the LocalAuthority. Having two notices also adds unnecessarily tothe cost and delay of enforcement.

POSTAL SERVICE OF PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES

➔

10:33 10:42 10:51 10:55


Another difference between bus lane and parkingenforcement was that under the 1996 Act, LocalAuthorities were empowered to use evidence from‘prescribed devices’ to found enforcement. A prescribeddevice is essentially one approved by the Secretary ofState. These prescribed devices are, in practice, cameras,either CCTV, static or installed on buses. Clearly, it wouldin practice be more difficult for a parking attendant on thestreet to gather the necessary evidence.

The Act also contains elaborate provisions for recordsproduced by a prescribed device, notably video recordingsand photographs, to be admitted in evidence by means of certification by an authorised officer of the LocalAuthority. The provisions are legally somewhat complex.However, to summarise them, the certificates concern thecircumstances in which the record was produced and thatthe device used to produce the record was of an approvedtype. The Act provides that such certificates are to beregarded as correct unless the contrary is proved. This puts the onus of proving they are not correct on theperson disputing them. However, the Local Authority mustserve on the appellant at least seven days before thehearing copies of the documents on which it intends torely under these provisions; and the appellant may requirethe person who gave the certificates to attend the hearing.

Whilst bus lane enforcement is really dependent uponcamera enforcement, section 4 of the London LocalAuthorities Act 2000 has now extended cameraenforcement to parking regulation to complement on streetenforcement. (In addition to the whole Act not applying toBarnet, this section does not apply to Kensington &Chelsea.) However, this provision merely refers to the useof a camera or other device; it does not expressly requirethe device to be approved. Nor does it make provision forthe admission of evidence by certification, as in bus lanecases. In parking cases, therefore, the Adjudicators willhave to apply general legal principles to the admissibilityof such evidence. This is another unfortunate discrepancybetween the two enforcement regimes.

CAMERA ENFORCEMENT

➔

37

It is central to the decriminalised schemes for bothparking and bus lane enforcement that, subject to certainexceptions, the owner of the vehicle is liable for penaltycharges. One exception in the parking regime applies tohire vehicles. The effect of this exception is that where avehicle is the subject of a hire agreement then, providingthe agreement complies with certain requirements, thehire company may pass liability for parking penalties onto the hirer. The agreement must be for fewer than sixmonths, although it may be capable of extension; it mustalso comply with the Road Traffic (Owner Liability)Regulations 2000, which have replaced the similar 1975Regulations; and the hirer must have signed a statementacknowledging the transfer of liability.

The bus lane scheme, however, does not include thisexception. It is difficult to see why not, both in theinterests of fairness and consistency. We would urge thatthis inconsistency should be remedied at the earliestopportunity.

Vehicles are sometimes the subject of hiring or leasingarrangements for periods longer than six months. Whilstthese necessarily fall outside the vehicle hire exception,they may effect a change of ownership for enforcementpurposes. In both parking and bus lane enforcement thereis a presumption that the keeper registered at DVLA is theowner. However, if the registered keeper can show that hewas not the owner at the time of the contravention, he will not be liable for the penalty; it will be theliability of the actual owner.

If the length and terms of long hiring or leasingagreements are such as to imply a sufficient degree ofpermanence in the arrangement, they may make the hireror lessee the owner. The hirer or lessee will then be liablefor penalties not because of the vehicle hire exceptionbut because they will be regarded as the owner for suchpurposes. This is well established and was dealt with indetail in Autolease Ltd v Barnet (PAS Case No.1970121546), which we reported in our 1996/97 report.It applies equally to both bus lane and parking cases,although it does seem that Local Authorities sometimesoverlook it, particularly in bus lane cases, where perhapsthey are distracted by the lack of the vehicle hireexemption. Moore v Westminster is an example of a case in which the Adjudicator considered both the hire agreement and ownership issues.

Cases that raise the issue of ownership alone form amajor proportion of the cases that come before us. Mostrelate to a simple sale; and those involving the sale oflow value vehicles carried out in a casual manner, wherelittle attention is paid by the parties to the niceties ofthe documentation are among the most difficult todecide. Kasujja v Hammersmith & Fulham and Quail vBarking & Dagenham are interesting examples of the sortsof situations that arise; and the latter illustrates thepoint that a primary function of the Adjudicator is toassess the credibility of witnesses in order to makerelevant findings of fact.

OWNERSHIP AND HIRING

➔

11:02 11:04 11:05 11:11


Another inconsistency is that whilst the London LocalAuthorities Act 2000 prescribes a 28 day time limit forthe postal service of a parking Penalty Charge Notice,there is no time limit in the London Local Authorities Act1996 for the service of a bus lane Penalty Charge Notice.There is no obvious reason for this difference.

The London Local Authorities Act 2000 introduced a timelimit for the service by the Local Authority of the Noticeto Owner in parking cases and the Enforcement Notice inbus lane cases. The provisions are somewhat complex, butthe basic rule is that the notice may now not be servedafter the expiry of six months from the date on which therelevant Penalty Charge Notice was issued. However, theLocal Authority has a further six months to serve a freshNotice to Owner where the Local Authority cancels theprevious one in certain defined circumstances; and thetime limit is extended where the Local Authority hasmade enquiries of the DVLA for ownership informationand that information has not been supplied within thebase time limit.

The Adjudicators endorse the principle of includingspecific statutory time limits within the enforcementregime. The regimes impose time limits on themotorist/owner at each stage, and there seems nocompelling reason for the Local Authority not being in asimilar position. We note that there is no statutory timelimit within which the Local Authority must respond tothe owner’s representations made in response to a Noticeto Owner or Enforcement Notice, although where theLocal Authority fails to respond within 56 days torepresentations made following the clamping or removalof a vehicle it is deemed to have accepted thoserepresentations. Of course, in the latter case the ownerhas paid money to obtain the release of the vehicle. In those circumstances, the imposition of the time limiton the Local Authority ensures that the owner obtainsrelatively early repayment if the Local Authority does notpursue the enforcement process promptly (and we wouldemphasise that in these circumstances the LocalAuthority is under a statutory duty to repay the moneyforthwith). Even so, the absence of a time limit forresponding to Notice to Owner/Enforcement Noticerepresentations has the appearance of an anomaly puttingthe Local Authority in a more favourable position thanthe appellant. The Adjudicators will be vigilant inensuring that the appellant is not disadvantaged by delay by the Local Authority, having regard to its duty of fairness; but the lack of a specific, statutory time limitfor this step in the process looks difficult to justify.

TIME LIMITS

➔

39

It is disappointing that we find it necessary to return tothis seemingly perennial issue this year. But Adjudicatorshave continued to see cases in which the handling of theresponse by the Local Authority to representations hasbeen less than satisfactory. Some Authorities deal withthis process better than others, and some achieve a highstandard. However, there continues to be a worryingnumber of cases where the response does not address the issues made in the representations or does soinadequately or inaccurately.

In one case, the car had been legally parked by the owner and had been moved without his knowledge by acompany carrying out works. This point was clearly put by the owner. Rejecting the representations, the LocalAuthority stated: ‘As the owner of the vehicle, you remainresponsible for it when you leave it on the highway eventhough a third party may move it without your consent’.This is an incorrect statement of the legal position. Oneof the grounds prescribed by paragraph 2(4) of Schedule6 to the Road Traffic Act 1991 on which the owner maycontest liability is:

(c) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at restin the parking place by a person who was in control ofthe vehicle without the consent of the owner.

It is extremely disturbing that a Local Authority shouldhave rejected manifestly well-founded representations,apparently because of ignorance of such a basic matter as the grounds on which representations may be made.

We regret having to say that our current experience stillleaves us with the impression that in a significantnumber of cases the standard in the handling ofrepresentations remains well below that which the publicare entitled to expect and to which Local Authoritiesshould aspire – indeed, have a duty to provide. Againstthis background, the question that concerns us is howmany people give up having had their representationsrejected when in fact they have well-founded grounds forcontesting liability. It is obvious that the poor handlingof representations can be highly prejudicial to the legalentitlements of the public. It is incumbent on all LocalAuthorities to satisfy themselves that their proceduresand practices ensure that representations are properlyconsidered and fairly and correctly dealt with.

We would add that we are concerned about the number of reports from appellants about difficulties incommunicating with Local Authorities: letters unansweredfor long periods of time, difficulty in getting through onthe telephone. Many appellants say that the appeal is thefirst time anyone has listened to what they have to say.It is noteworthy that even appellants whose appeals arerefused do on occasions express themselves satisfied thatat least they have been listened to and that their pointshave been properly considered.

HANDLING OF REPRESENTATIONS

➔


Under section 15 of the Greater London Council (GeneralPowers) Act 1974, parking on footways is prohibitedthroughout London except where specifically permitted.The London Local Authorities Act 2000 has redefined thiscontravention as being parking on any part of a roadother than a carriageway. This replaces the previousdefinition of the contravention as parking on a footway,land between two carriageways, grass verge, garden, or space. The effect of this amendment is to define thecontravention exclusively rather than inclusively. The difficulty with the old, inclusive, definition was thatthere could be land which, whilst not carriageway, mightarguably not fall within the types of land described. This amendment enhances clarity and certainty, and is to be welcomed.

What is the precise limit of the footway can, however,still be a matter of contention. There is a commonmisconception that where there are pavement lights, they must necessarily be outside the footway. This is not so. Indeed, section 180 of the Highways Act 1980specifically provides for the construction in highways of means of admission of air or light to premises underhighways, and requiring them to be kept in repair by theowner of the premises beneath. As the Adjudicator said inAmery v Westminster, each case turns on its own facts.Questions about the extent of the footway are in factmerely a particular type of case concerning the generaltopic of highway extent, with which we dealt last year.

As ever, many appeals have turned on the adequacy andlegality of the signs giving notice of the restrictions. It is important that the Council should comply with itsduty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ TrafficOrders (Procedure) (England &Wales) Regulations 1996 toprovide and maintain signs ‘for securing that adequateinformation as to the effect of the (Traffic Management)order is made available to persons using the road’.

The two cases in the Digest of Cases are illustrations of this point. Cooper v Richmond upon Thames was animportant decision on the practice of marking so-called‘loading gaps’ within parking places. Starkey vHammersmith & Fulham shows the importance of thesigns conveying fully to the motorist the conditions uponwhich they make use of paid for parking facilities.

FOOTWAY PARKING ADEQUATE SIGNS AND INFORMATION

➔ ➔

41

This is a particular aspect of signing on which we havecommented before but still gives us cause for concern.Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) are defined in Direction23(3) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and GeneralDirections 1994, which requires a sign to be erected atevery entrance to a zone showing the hours of restriction.Direction 23(2) exempts, in effect, an Authority from therequirement to provide signs (timeplates) in conjunctionwith individual yellow lines within a zone, except wherethe restrictions differ from those on the zone entry sign.

Adjudicators frequently hear appeals in the following terms.A motorist accepts having parked on a single yellow line,often outside what are generally perceived to be the‘normal’ hours of enforcement, e.g. Monday to Friday 8.30am to 6.30pm, but say they were unable to find a signnear the yellow line in order to establish if it was in factsafe to do so. They often grasp the concept of the CPZ for the very first time only when it is explained by theAdjudicator. Of course, all road users should be familiarwith the regime from the Highway Code, although theexplanation is cursory. However, even for those who fullyunderstand it, there are a number of possible scenariosthat may arise to cause them difficulty when entering a CPZ;

The motorist is concentrating on the traffic and simply fails to see the zone entry sign at all. The motorist may see the sign, but at that point has nointention of stopping within the zone, and so does notmemorise its terms.The motorist does intend to park within the zone, and maysee the zone entry sign, but by the time he has found aparking place, has forgotten its precise terms.Motorists are confused where meters or Pay & Displaymachines in the immediate vicinity permit free parking,e.g. on a Bank holiday Monday, when the yellow lines arestill in force.Alternatively, timeplates do appear where the restrictionsvary from the zone times – if these happen to show lessextensive hours, motorists may rely on them in locationswhere the basic restrictions apply and incur PCNs.

All of these are liable to cause a motorist who had everyintention of parking lawfully to fall foul of the restrictions.It should be appreciated that, even for a motorist whounderstands the concept of the CPZ, the difficulty ofhaving to observe on the move the restrictions shown onthe zone entry signs and then retain them in the memory,makes the CPZ regime inherently more difficult for themotorist to operate within.

One Adjudicator himself describes having to drive abouthalf-a-mile from where he wished to park on a Saturdayafternoon in one north London borough solely in order to find a zone entry sign which showed the hours of restriction.

The problems are compounded in London because amotorist may well pass in and out of a series of zones, all with differing times of restriction.

Adjudicators appreciate that the concept of the CPZ wasintended to make life simpler and to reduce the ‘clutter’created by numerous timeplates. They accept that CPZs may well be effective in e.g. a small town, where there is a single zone in the town centre, but in applying them to alarge conurbation like Greater London there are difficultiesthat can lead to unfairness to motorists.

Direction 23(2) appears not positively to prohibitAuthorities from placing individual timeplates but merelyto lift the requirement to do so. It should also beremembered that whilst the omission of individualtimeplates is permitted, Authorities have a duty underRegulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders(Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations 1996 to place‘on or near the road ...such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite forsecuring that adequate information as to the effect of theorder is made available to persons using the road...’ Theyare also subject to an overriding duty to act fairly towardsmembers of the public.

Adjudicators are aware that at least one Authority hasrecognised the problems that can occur and has erected‘reminder’ signs on a white background within a zone;whilst helpful, it would clearly be preferable for theinternationally recognised yellow ‘No Waiting’ signs to be used.

Adjudicators can see that CPZs might provide legitimateadministrative advantages for Authorities, and can beuseful for identifying, e.g. particular zones for the purposeof permit parking, However, Adjudicators strongly suggestthat whilst Authorities may wish to retain, or even expand,the use of CPZs for their own administrative purposes, theyneed to give careful consideration to what signs arerequired to ensure that motorists are fairly treated.

CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES

•

•

•

•

•

➔


Bus Lanes Hull v Croydon (PAS Case No. CR20/0086)

The facts were that Mr Hull drove in a bus lane, but saidthat he did so unintentionally. He argued that the roadsigns marking the bus lane were unclear; so unclear as tobe unlawful. However, the crucial issue in the case waswho – the owner or driver of the vehicle, if anyone – theLondon Local Authorities Act 1996 made liable for thepenalty charge payable to the Local Authority.

The Adjudicator noted that in the case of decriminalisedparking contraventions, the Road Traffic Act 1991unambiguously makes the owner liable for penaltycharges, subject to certain prescribed exceptions. The situation under the 1996 Act was less clear.

The Adjudicator said that Section 4(2) provided that a‘penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle if theperson in charge of the vehicle acts in contravention ofor fails to comply with’ bus lane regulations. Therefore it was clear that the person who committed thecontravention was ‘the person in charge of the vehicle’.Although in some respects the 1996 Act was intended to be an extension of the provisions of the Road TrafficAct 1991 decriminalising parking contraventions, the provisions relating to who was liable for bus lanecontravention penalties were different. In particular,whilst there were some similarities, there was noprovision making the owner/keeper of a vehicle liable for the penalties. Although section 4(2) made a penaltycharge ‘payable to [the relevant] borough council’, therewas no express provision at all indicating by whom thepenalty was payable.

The Act empowered the Local Authority to serve a PenaltyCharge Notice on the person appearing to them to be theowner requiring payment of a penalty charge, and toserve an Enforcement Notice on that person if the penaltycharge remained unpaid after 28 days. However, therecipient could resist liability to the penalty charge on anumber of grounds, including that at the time the allegedbreach took place he was not in charge of the vehicle. Where this ground was relied on, the owner was requiredto identify the person who was in charge of the vehicle.The Local Authority could then serve a Penalty ChargeNotice on that person. However, that person could resistliability on any of the grounds available to the recipientof the first Penalty Charge Notice. These included that hewas not the owner of the vehicle at the time of thecontravention.

The Adjudicator considered all stages of the enforcementregime in detail and found that, although it set up adetailed enforcement scheme, the Act did not identify any liable person upon whom the scheme could bite.

It was no answer to say that the person liable must bethe owner by necessary implication. In particular, the lawstrained against an interpretation that would impose apenalty on someone for the acts of another, without clearwording. Furthermore, the owner could avoid theenforcement procedure going further against him byindicating that he was not in charge of the vehicle at therelevant time. As to the driver, he could avoid furtheraction by indicating he was not the owner at the time.This ground would inevitably be good in all cases ofPenalty Charge Notices reissued to drivers, because itwould have been the owner himself who had nominatedthe driver.

As the Act did not make any person liable for a penaltyfor a bus lane infringement, it would be unreasonable and irrational, and consequently unlawful, for a LocalAuthority to take steps to enforce such a penalty againstany person as, necessarily, no penalty could be due fromany person pursued. The 1996 Act could therefore not beused by a Local Authority for the enforcement of bus lanepenalties.

Appeal allowed.

DIGEST OF CASES

➔

43

OwnershipKasujja v Hammersmith & Fulham (PAS Case No.2000319541)

The appellant said that he had sold the car on 20 March2000 to the owner of a café where he had gone forbreakfast and to whom he got talking. He produced acopy of a sale contract, giving the price of £1,100. In itthe buyer said that he gave the appellant two cheques,dated 24 and 28 March. The appellant said he also tookaway the café owner’s old Vauxhall, since the café ownerdid not want it. He also took away a document relatingto the Vauxhall. He did not know the café owner.

When the appellant made his representations to the LocalAuthority he gave the name and address of the buyer. An issue in the case was how he was able to do this if hedid not know him, since the name he gave to the LocalAuthority was different from that on the contract, whichcontained no address for the buyer. At the hearing, theappellant’s girlfriend gave evidence that she had preparedthe representations because her English was better, andhe had signed them. She had taken the name and addressfrom the document relating to the old Vauxhall. Bothwere unclear what the document was but said they stillhad it.

The Adjudicator adjourned the hearing to allow theappellant time to produce the document. The appellantsubsequently produced a DVLA Vehicle Licence Applicationrelating to the Vauxhall bearing the name and addressgiven in the representations. He also produced a bankstatement showing the payment in of two cheques for£550 on 30 March.

The Adjudicator accepted the evidence of the appellantand his girlfriend about the sale, supported as it was bythe documentary evidence produced by the appellant, and found as a fact that the sale had taken place.

Appeal allowed.

Quail v Barking & Dagenham (PAS Case No.1990318248)

The appellant gave evidence that she bought the car inquestion in April 1998, but by January 1999 it wasunroadworthy, and when the insurance expired in May1999 she tried to sell it, without success. In June her sonagreed to take it off her hands and she handed him theregistration document, expecting him to notify DVLA ofthe change of ownership, as he had done on previoustransfers from her to him.

The appellant received a large number of Penalty ChargeNotices. Her son informed her that he had sold the car to ‘Bob’, a friend of his wife’s cousin, whose address theappellant supplied to the Local Authority.

The Adjudicator said that whilst he could understand the Local Authority’s scepticism towards the appellant’saccount, he had had the advantage of hearing her inperson and had no doubt she was telling the truth. He found as a fact that she was not the owner of the car later than June 1999.

Appeal allowed.


Vehicle Hire and OwnershipMoore v Westminster (PAS Case No. 2000349622)

The appellant had a contract relationship vertically with the registered keeper above (British Car Contracts)and franchisees, individual driving instructors, below. The Adjudicator had not seen the contractual terms with BCC but could deduce from the franchise agreement(which he had seen) that BCC supplied 6 monthly vehiclesto the appellant who was free to dispose of them tofranchisees, apparently without any limitation imposed by BCC.

The franchise agreement made no reference to theparticular vehicle, nor did it contain the particularsrequired by the relevant Road Traffic (Owner Liability)Regulations. The appellant was therefore not entitled to the vehicle hire exception.

The Adjudicator then considered whether the use of thecar by the franchisee might amount to a transfer ofkeepership that ought to be registered at the DVLA. If so,liability for penalty charges would pass to the franchiseeas a result of Section 82(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1991,which provides that:

“the owner of a vehicle shall be taken to be the personby whom the vehicle is kept.”

The Adjudicator made the following observations on theterms of the agreement. If the vehicle was supplied bythe appellant then the appellant maintained responsibilityfor insuring, taxing and repairing it (para.7). Any excessuse over the expected business use was chargeable andthe car was subject to a weekly hire fee (para.9). Thedriver was not permitted to freely take the vehicle abroador allow a third party to drive (para.12). He concludedthat the appellant was maintaining essential rights ofcontrol subject to a weekly hire fee and thereforekeepership could not be said to have passed. Althoughthe agreement itself might well create a contractual dutyupon the franchisee to reimburse any penalty charges, the appellant was liable to the Local Authority forpayment of the penalties.

Appeal refused.

Footway ParkingAmery v Westminster (PAS Case No. 2010069360)

The issue in the case was whether the land on which theappellant’s motorcycle was parked was part of the publicfootway or was private land. The appellant producedphotographs of the location showing that where thescooter was parked was within a line that includedpavement lights. The Adjudicator said that pavementlights, draymen’s doors etc may be within or without the building line; each case turns on its own facts. Here the photographs showed that the line included not only the pavement lights but also steps to the doorof the premises, a goods drop and stairs to the basementof other adjoining buildings. The basement stairs wererailed from the footway. The Adjudicator found that theposition of the scooter was within the building and didnot form part of the public footway.

Appeal allowed.

SignsCooper v Richmond upon Thames (PAS Case No.1990292166 and others)

The appellant had received a number of Penalty ChargeNotices when he had parked his taxi in a resident’s bayeither outside his house or further down the road. He was not displaying a resident’s permit but maintainedthat he was entitled to use the bays because they werenot correctly signed. In particular, he said that there was no plate in position by either of the bays where heparked; and that although there were plates further down the road they appeared to apply to another bay.

There were double white lines on the road marking aparking place, with single lines dividing it into parkingspaces. Between many of these, at the dropped kerbwhere private driveways joined the carriageway, wereshort stretches of yellow line, apparently intended toprevent obstruction of these entrances. These arecommonly called ‘loading gaps’, although that term is nota statutory one and they have no more significance forloading than any other yellow line. There were platesmarking the parking place at the 30 metre recommendedgap, but none adjacent to the particular spaces where the appellant parked.

45

The Adjudicator considered the legality of the yellow linesmarking the loading gaps. He found that a road can onlybe marked with a yellow line where that is supported by a Traffic Management Order. Under the relevant TMO, theloading gaps were within the parking place and were notrestricted street. The yellow lines were therefore unlawfulbecause yellow lines can only be placed to indicaterestricted street. There is no provision for yellow lines to appear within parking places. Accordingly, the parkingplaces were not lawfully marked.

In any event, even if those parts of the parking placeuntouched by the yellow lines remained legally valid, theywere not marked sufficiently clearly for it to be said thatthe restriction was correctly indicated and therefore nocontravention occurred. The parking place had beendivided into segments each with the appearance of aseparate parking place. A reasonable motorist would be uncertain as to the restrictions applicable to thoseparking spaces that looked as though they had simplybeen left without a plate. The signage was inadequate.

Appeal allowed.

Starkey –v- Hammersmith & Fulham (PAS Case No.2000402077)

The Penalty Charge Notice issued to the appellant’s caralleged that the vehicle was ‘parked without clearlydisplaying a valid permit or pay and display ticket’.

The facts were that the appellant had bought a ticket anddisplayed it on the windscreen. The ticket would not haveexpired by the time the PCN was issued. The ticket wasmissing by the time the appellant returned. He explainedthat his ‘kit’ car had no side windows, and assumed thatthe ticket must have been removed by a mischievousthird party.

The Council asserted that ‘it is the responsibility of thedriver of the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is parkedin accordance with the parking regulations at all times.The Traffic Management Order (TMO) section 6 states;at all times during which the vehicle is left in a parkingplace during the permitted hours the driver shall cause tobe displayed a valid ticket so that the date of issue, timeof expiry and the charge paid in the case of a ticket, arereadily visible from the front or near side of the vehicle.’

The notice on the ticket machine contained various itemsof information, such as the hours when payment was due,the tariff and the words ‘Penalty Charge for failure tocomply with Conditions of Use £80’. A list headed‘Conditions of Use’ stated:

‘During controlled hours it is an offence to:

1 Park without payment and display of ticket2 Transfer tickets between vehicles3 Remain parked after expiry of paid period’

The Adjudicator referred to Burnett -v- BuckinghamshireCounty Council (PAS Case No. HIW0003) in which theAdjudicator, Mr Hickinbottom, decided that ‘...anyregulation by a local authority under its powers under theRoad Traffic Regulation Act 1984 must be signed so thatthe motoring public knows of that regulation.’

The Adjudicator found that the particular provision of theTMO which the Council sought to enforce was not sosigned. Reasonable motorists would read the words ‘parkwithout payment and display of ticket’ as requiring themto display a ticket at the point when they park and leavethe vehicle. The words were not adequate to convey toreaders of the notice that if, after they have compliedwith that condition, the ticket is removed without theirpermission, falls down or in some way its details cease tobe visible, then liability will arise even where the tickethas not expired. Where a substantial penalty will beimposed, a specific warning must appear to makemotorists aware of the importance of taking everypossible step to ensure that the ticket remains visible atall times. The Adjudicator recognised that in the case of a car such as the appellant’s that might present practicaldifficulties, but he must at least be put on notice of therisk he runs.

Appeal allowed.


Adjudicators

Robin Allen appointed December 1996Michel Aslangul appointed Decmber 1996Teresa Brennan appointed July 1999Michael Burke appointed July 1999Hugh Copper appointed December 1995Richard Crabb appointed December 1994Neeti Dhanani appointed December 1996Susan Elson appointed July 1999 Henry Michael Greenslade appointed December 1994Usha Gupta appointed July 1993Caroline Hamilton appointed December 1996Monica Hillen appointed July 1993Edward Houghton appointed December 1994Verity Jones appointed December 1996Anju Kaler appointed July 1999Andrew Keegan appointed July 1993Paul Mallender appointed July 1999Alistair McFarlane appointed July 1999Barabra Mensah appointed December 1994Ronald Norman appointed December 1996Neena Rach appointed December 1994Kathleen Scott appointed December 1996Jennifer Shepherd appointed December 1994Caroline Sheppard appointed December 1999Sean Stanton-Dunne appointed April 1997Gerald Styles appointed December 1994Timothy Thorne appointed December 1996Susan Turquet appointed December 1994Andrew Wallis appointed July 1999Ausin Wilkinson appointed July 1999Diana Witts appointed December 1996Paul Wright appointed December 1994

LONDON PARKING ADJUDICATORS

➔

Chief Adjudicator

Martin Wood

4711:17 11:19 11:22

ALG Transport & Environment Committee591/2 Southwark Street London SE1 0AL

Tel 020 7934 9999Fax 020 7934 9991Email [email protected] www.alg.gov.uk

contents alg transport & environment committee

Documents