DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: dbcc33
Date: July 19, 2025, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks for your view [member=2249]stamfordman[/member], keen to
understand what others also think.
ive drafted this just in case (see what you think), but am not
hopeful...more than the cost/time, im thinking how the council
could be deterred from taking these things always to the end
even when they shouldnt- even tho the adjudicator accepted the
evidence was there from outset, she doesnt seem to have told
them off for any procedural impropriety. i can tell you though
that he decided in literally 1 minute, ie it wasnt really a
hearing, the outcome was a given ie obvious.
btw if i do go through with this, i assume i just upload this to
the portal? or is there a different way to submit it?
To the Adjudicator
Re: Case Reference 2250042794
I respectfully submit an application for a cost order under Rule
13 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, based on the following
grounds:
• Unreasonable Conduct by the Council:
- The Council failed to consider the exemption under Article
11 at any stage of the process, despite it being raised from
outset.
- An incorrect legal test was applied by the Council,
requiring visual confirmation of alighting, which is not
supported by the wording of the Order.
- The Council’s conduct prolonged the proceedings
unnecessarily.
• Findings of the Adjudicator:
- The exemption under Article 11 was accepted by the
Adjudicator as having been satisfied through the evidence.
- The Council failed to engage with the substance of this
evidence throughout its enforcement and appeal responses.
• Request for Preparation Time Order:
- I have invested considerable unnecessary time (circa XX
hours) preparing the appeal in response to the Council’s
unreasonable stance, including reviewing legislation, compiling
evidence, requesting advice and drafting submissions.
- Based on the prescribed hourly rate of £45, I request a
Preparation Time Order of £XX.
I trust that the Tribunal will give this application due
consideration in light of the findings and the avoidable
expenditure of time caused by the Council’s actions.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 81710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: dbcc33
Date: July 19, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ive also found these previous cases
-
•
child was accepted under the boarding/alighting exemption.
•
child before boarding nullified the exemption.
•
exemption upheld despite Harrow’s refusal to recognise it.
•
exempt; council incorrectly focused on loading.
not sure if those will add any weight to a cost order
#Post#: 81716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 19, 2025, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let me put a view:
I am satisfied [that although the vehicle was parked and
unattended at the location on the balance of probabilities and]
having heard the Appellant' oral evidence that this exemption
[to assisted alighting] has been established.
That's it, and IMO not the stuff of a costs award.
Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding
costs and expenses.
(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make
an order awarding costs and expenses—
(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an
appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an
appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—
(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or
(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an
appeal was wholly unreasonable;
(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator
considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.
#Post#: 81764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 20, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I said it is a high bar.
You could add that Harrow knows your father is disabled and has
a BB and also behaved unreasonably with the BB mishap as well as
ignoring the exemption and appears not to have taken the case on
its merits and has acted unreasonably in past cases.
#Post#: 87591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: dbcc33
Date: August 28, 2025, 2:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2249]stamfordman[/member] is it better to attend a cost
application hearing in person or just let it to postal vote?
#Post#: 87626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 28, 2025, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no hearing - you just ask for costs. But you have to do
this as soon as possible and not weeks later.
#Post#: 88043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: dbcc33
Date: September 1, 2025, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
but i got asked:
Can you please confirm if you wish to attend a video hearing for
the cost application or if this can be decided as a postal case
which means you do not have to attend"
#Post#: 125330--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow PCN Parked in residents bay without valid permit, BB
holder, half of badge fell off dashboard
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 21, 2026, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This has wended its way to a refused cost award. I think the
costs should have been made because Harrow was well aware of the
situation.
And yes you can attend a costs hearing - I got that wrong.
----------
Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 20 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Decision Cost award refused
Direction -
Reasons
1.The Appellant is making a costs application in respect of an
appeal which I allowed on 18th July 2025. The Appellant attended
that hearing, and also attended the costs application today. The
Council has not attended and has not made any representations in
respect of this application.
2.The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations
1993 set out that: 12(1) An adjudicator shall not normally make
an order awarding costs and expenses, but may, subject to
subparagraph (2) make such an order –(a) against a party
(including an appellant who has withdrawn his appeal or an
enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being
allowed) if he is of the opinion that that party has acted
frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making,
pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable; or(b)
against an enforcement authority where he considers that the
disputed decision was wholly unreasonable (2) An order shall not
be made under subparagraph (1) against a party unless that party
has been given an opportunity of making representations against
the making of the order. Costs orders are made sparingly, and
the test is a high one.
3.I allowed this appeal on the basis, having heard the
Appellant’s oral evidence, that I was satisfied that the
exemption to the contravention, set out in Article 11 of the
relevant Order, had been satisfied. This exemption creates an
exemption in circumstances where a vehicle is waiting, "for so
long as may be necessary to enable that person to board or
alight from the vehicle or load thereon or unload therefrom
their personal luggage”. The Council did not seek to challenge
this decision by way of review/judicial review.
4.The Appellant from the outset had raised the issue of an
exemption within her online representations and also provided
detailed medical evidence relating to her father, who was the
person being assisted at the relevant time.
In correspondence dated 28th October 2024, the Council did not
respond to the issue of the exemption. In its Notice of
Rejection, dated 21st January 2025, it also did not address the
issue of any exemption, as raised by the appellant.
5.Prior to its Case Summary, the EA at no stage responded to the
Appellant’s reliance upon an exemption. Within its Case Summary
it contends that “in order for the boarding/alighting exemption
to apply activity mut be seen taking place”. This is not a
strict reflection of the relevant Article, but rather, appears
to be a somewhat clumsy attempt to indicate that, if no exempted
activity is observed, it is unlikely that a council will
conclude that the activity is taking place. However, it was not
correct to say that the exemption may only be established when
there is observation of the exempted activity. I indeed
concluded that the exemption had been established,
notwithstanding the CEO’s evidence but having heard and accepted
the Appellant’s detailed oral evidence.
6.I accept that the preparation of this appeal was onerous for
the Appellant. The fact that, until the Case Summary was
drafted, no acknowledgment was made of her reliance upon an
exemption, was extremely unhelpful and adds fuel to the
Appellant’s contention that the Council dealt with this case
incompetently. It was unclear, within the Council’s
correspondence, as to whether the Council was a) unaware of the
exemption contained within its own Order, b) had not properly
considered any exemption, or c) had considered it and decided it
was inapplicable. In any event, its position was unclear until
the filing of the Case Summary and its dealings with this case
were unimpressive.
7.However, notwithstanding these deficiencies, I have to apply
the strict legal test. In light of the fact that no exempted
activity was observed, I find that the Council’s refusal of the
appeal and subsequent resisting of the tribunal appeal was not
wholly unreasonable, and that the Council’s behaviour falls
short of being frivolous or vexatious.
8.I must therefore decline to make a costs order in this case.
*****************************************************
Page 13 of 13
DIR Previous Page