Text here from one of them. there are loads more other cases that have been successful and are cross-referenced.The Appellant attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today 30th July 2022 to explain her contention personally. The Appellant's husband also attended the Hearing in the capacity of witness as to fact since he was the driver at the relevant time.The Enforcement Authority assert that vehicle LF68 WJX, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted to use by pedestrians and vehicles of excepted classes only.The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the challenges as comprehensively stated in her full and thorough written representations, supported by video footage and cited ETA cases.The Appellant's contention is twofold:Firstly, the Appellant challenges the adequacy of signage at the location and in the vicinity, and disputes its ability to satisfactorily notify motorists of the restriction.The Appellant also contends undue delay on the part of the Enforcement Authority in its response to the Appellant's formal representations, emphasizing that such delay impacted upon the preparation of her Appeal, most notably with regard to returning to the location to obtain supporting evidence; due to the time lag the situation may have altered. The Appellant and her witness reiterated and detailed all elements of the contention at the Hearing.I had the opportunity to assess and question the Appellant and the witness at the Hearing, I found their evidence to be cogent and credible, and I accepted it in its entirety. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to an operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from showing the said vehicle in situ a single restriction sign on the off-side notifying motorists of the restriction.The Enforcement Authority also adduce 2 map/plans and further images of the location demonstrating the presence of 2 signs, and also respective images relating to the plotted positions on the map/plans. The Enforcement Authority's contemporaneous capture and other images were examined, repeatedly, to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations and videos. I note from the contemporaneous footage that the said vehicle was not alone in passing the signs, two other vehicles take the same course from the same direction in rapid succession. Multiple vehicles making the same transgression is suggestive of an inadequacy of communication of the traffic regime. Further the Appellant cites ETA Case No 222156138 in which I have previously had recourse to apply my mind to the adequacy of the signage. I adopt my former findings, to which I add my observation on the yellow backed signs, one of which I note is affixed to sign positioned in advance of the junction: I find the major sign alone (which incidentally at the time of the Appellant's video capture was obscured by foliage) contains a quantity of information for a motorist to absorb, the addition of the yellow backed sign there adds to the burden and would be better placed elsewhere although I find its legend to be of limited value since motorists may not be familiar with the road names.I accept the Appellant's challenge of the signage, which I have already found to be ambiguous and inadequate.Turning to the Appellant's argument on the aspect of delay; I considered 88 days between representation and response to be dilatory on the part of any Enforcement Authority, but compounded when I note that the Tribunal has been caused to consider numerous similar delays incurred by this Enforcement Authority in its responses to Penalty Charge Notices issued at the same location.I concur with the findings in this regard of Adjudicators Mr A. Harman [ Case Nos 22210870393, 2220135400 & 2220161783], Mr J. Walsh [ Case 2210875728] and Ms N. Goffe [ Case 2210814836] and I find it inequitable therefore for the Enforcement Authority to pursue the Penalty Charge Notice.This Appeal is allowed.
Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1427d