DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95274--------------------------------------------------
10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: stamfordman Date: October 23, 2025, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is an intriguing tribunal case.
It's a case where a PCN was issued just 1 minute after a parking
place changed from pay and display to no waiting (and no
loading).
Authorities often say the 10 min grace doesn't apply and we beg
to differ.
So is Mr Burke unsure of the law and so punted it back to
Haringey to tell him or is he playing games? Or what?
--------------
Case reference
Declarant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
following terms:
“The Adjudicator directs that if the Enforcement Authority
continue to seek enforcement of this penalty charge they set out
why they would say the 10-minute grace period allowed by
Regulation 5(2) Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General
Provisions)(England) Regulations 2022 does not apply.”
The Enforcement Authority have failed to respond. In these
circumstances they no longer seek enforcement and accordingly I
allow the appeal.
[img width=584
height=748]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/23pLxKj5/Screenshot-2025-10-23-at-12-56-17.png[/img]
#Post#: 95277--------------------------------------------------
Re: 10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: andy_foster Date: October 23, 2025, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Struggling both to see why this is an issue, and what the
purported issue is.
In general, if a party seeks to argue a point of law that the
tribunal and the other party do not immediately accept, then
they must have an opportunity to argue that point. If a tribunal
refuses to hear legal argument, unless there is binding case law
on the narrow point that cannot be distinguished, that is a
procedural impropriety.
From the summary you have posted, the adjudicator has not batted
it back to Haringey as concerns this case - he has upheld the
appeal, not adjourned it in order for Haringey to teach him law
- but has basically told them to either pony up some cogent
legal argument to support their claim that the grace period does
not apply, or stop fraudulently issuing mickey mouse parking
tickets.
What weight the last part carries, on the basis that decisions
of a single adjudicator are not binding on other adjudicators,
is another matter, but as sabre rattling goes, I would happily
buy the man a pint.
#Post#: 95280--------------------------------------------------
Re: 10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: stamfordman Date: October 23, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So why didn't he allow the appeal in the first place is the
point.
#Post#: 95292--------------------------------------------------
Re: 10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: andy_foster Date: October 23, 2025, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My bad, missed that.
However, absent bing case law on the narrow point, it appear to
be perfectly proper to allow the party purporting to be arguing
a point of law to clarify their argument. In a case where the
party is a LA who then declined to do so, slam dunk from then on
(with that adjudicator at least).
If an individual had made a somewhat cursory and outlandish
one-off claim, and was not there to clarify his point, then
there would be a question as to whether it was proportionate to
adjourn to allow him to expand upon what was almost certainly a
load of old tosh.
In this case, the same question would have arisen. As this is
seemingly not a one-off issue or "argument", the case for
adjourning to allow further opportunity to clarify the argument
seems more compelling.
"The law" is rarely black and white, even where it appears to be
so - for instance for hundreds of years a penalty in contract
law was understood to be a disproportionate deterrent charge,
until the Supreme Court clarified that everyone had been wrong
for hundreds of years, and that the test was the far more
nebulous and subjective question as to whether or not it was
unconscionable. To suggest that an adjudicator "does not know
the law" because he invited a party to clarify their legal point
appears to be somewhat disingenuous.
#Post#: 95298--------------------------------------------------
Re: 10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: andy_foster Date: October 23, 2025, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Haringey's argument would be that the 10 minute grace rule only
applies to vehicles that are in designated parking places, and
that as of 5pm, that place ceased to be a designated parking
place. Effectively saying that it only applies if there would
have been no contravention if the vehicle had been parked 10
minutes later.
Whilst such an argument would require some degree of violence to
be enacted on the language of the legislation, Swift J has done
worse.
#Post#: 95311--------------------------------------------------
Re: 10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: stamfordman Date: October 23, 2025, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes we are well aware of the changes to the regulations and what
this one says.
Again my point is that he hasn't ruled on it - he allowed it
because Haringey didn't respond to something we'd argue he
should have ruled on in the first place.
#Post#: 95316--------------------------------------------------
Re: 10 min grace period case - what was the adjudicator doing?
By: andy_foster Date: October 23, 2025, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So what?
He did not need to rule on the point in order to correctly
dispose of the appeal. When he adjourned, in effect he had
provisionally ruled on the point, subject to any mind-blowing
response from Haringey. If he had explicitly ruled on the point,
once again, so what? It would not bind the other adjudicators,
and would not preclude the point being reconsidered afresh if
Haringey were to deign to produce a substantive argument in a
subsequent appeal.
The real issue is that Haringey appear to be issuing PCNs and
defending appeals on a point that they are unable and unwilling
to substantiate. Yet, you seem to take issue with an individual
adjudicator who chose to play with his food, rather than making
a seemingly irrelevant ruling on a point of law concerning a
great number of cases, without giving Haringey an opportunity to
clarify their argument.
If you are expecting individual adjudicator to channel their
inner Judge John Deed and run around in the middle of the night
gathering evidence to fight widespread injustice, you're in for
a disappointment.
*****************************************************