Insufficient documentation.pdf

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: EL 05011M
Adjudicator’s Decision
Mr R XXXXXXXXX
and
Elmbridge Borough Council
Penalty Charge Notice EL26016679
Penalty Charge £60.00
Appeal Allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.
I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.
Reasons
The PCN was issued on 22 March 2006 at 16:11 to vehicle XXXXXXX in Highwaymans
Cottage Car Park for being parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket.
The Appellant states that he returned to his vehicle to find an empty envelope affixed, not
containing a PCN. He had earlier purchased and displayed a valid ticket which may have become
dislodged on his moving the vehicle.
The attendant recorded the vehicle with no valid ticket displayed and took photographs.
Representations were rejected on grounds that no valid ticket was displayed.
I have carefully considered the evidence in this appeal which I will deal with as a postal case.
This is yet another case involving this Council where sufficient documentation in support of their
case has not been provided. I have no idea which part of which traffic regulation order is relied
upon. Whilst a copy of a TRO has been sent to NPAS, nowhere is there any reference to which
Page 1 of 2

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: EL 05011M
article(s) are the basis of the Council’s case. Adjudicators cannot guess what case is put forward.
This is yet another appeal where the case summary has not been completed by the Council, either
in relation to TROs or documentary evidence. The appeal has to be allowed as no particular TRO
has been identified. Secondly, the onus is on the Council to establish that the contravention took
place and that the penalty charge notice was affixed to the vehicle, as the Appellant has raised
that issue. The evidence as to the contravention is contradictory. The attendant’s note records
“AWC” to show that all windows were checked whilst the Notice Details document states:
“All windows checked -No”. The appeal has to be allowed because of this conflicting story.
Thirdly, the Appellant has stated that the envelope on the vehicle contained no PCN. At no stage
can I see that the Council ever once addressed this point. It was a relevant and credible issue
which the Council should have considered. As it never was, this failure entitles the Appellant to
succeed on this third ground.
If this was the first occasion where this Council had failed to deal properly with an appeal, by for
example identifying the basis of the contravention they relied upon by reference to a specific
article in an identified TRO, or by failing to address relevant issues raised by an Appellant, it
would perhaps be unreasonable to highlight the shortcomings. However, this is another of a long
line of appeals known to me where these or similar points have arisen. Appellants are entitled to
expect that contraventions are supported by sufficient evidence and that issues raised are
addressed.
This appeal is allowed.
John Parker
Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991
Date: 17 January 2007
Page 2 of 2