Mr K Jalali V Bolton Council

This adjudication was heard on 14th December and I had a hard job convincing the adjudicator that the bay in the picture was unlawful, he was the type of guy who just because there is a bit of paint on the Tarmac that looks like it was a bay then it must be a bay, however as the Adjudicator Mr Mark Hinchcliffe did not have a copy of the TSRGD's with him and I had my copy, I was able to prove that the bay did not exist in Law therefore it was unlawful, of which the DfT agreed with. Mr Hichcliffe was a biased ajudicator and made appellants feel that they were on test and not the Council, in a fit of Pique he had a go at the selfish motorist who park illegally, may I remind Mr Hinchcliffe and the Council, it is not illegal to park in an unlawful bay. The pictures are before and after the Council Changed the bay.
The Following day I sent a letter to NPAS complaining that Mr Hinchcliffe was not qualified to continue as an adjudicator as he had made several errors in law and did not have the necessary reference material required for an appeal to be heard justly and fairly.

I can send a PDF copy of the adjudication or read it here.


National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BO 05375E
Adjudicator’s Decision
Mr Keivan Jalali-Bijari and Bolton Metropolitan Council
Penalty Charge Notice BO61050311 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 02 September 2007 at 16:32 to vehicle MT51 KKV in Mawdsley Street
for being parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading.
In a remarkable email from the Appellant to the Council dated 25/10/07, Mr Jalali-Bijari accepts that he parked in a loading bay – albeit, he says, for only 10 minutes. Nevertheless, he resolved to exercise his right to appeal and, when composing his email, indicated that he would reveal no more details of his grounds of appeal until the hearing. This strategy had, I was told, been successful for other motorists in Bolton. The Council sent a Notice of Rejection.
Mr Jalali-Bijari’s Notice of Appeal, however, raised an issue in advance of the hearing, albeit one
which I find to be without merit. Mr Jalali-Bijari asserted that the PCN failed to comply with
S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 because, he says, instructions for payment appeared on the
tear-off slip. The papers contain a full copy of the PCN. The instructions for payment are, in fact, on the back of the PCN itself.
At the hearing, the Appellant raised a new point. I considered whether to adjourn the case, but
since Bolton Council had chosen not to attend, and since the point raised seemed to be
unanswerable, I decided not to adjourn.
Mr Jalali-Bijari demonstrated that the markings of the bay on 2/9/07 were inconsistent with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002. Recently, the bay has been re-painted
correctly. I have photographs in the file of ‘before’ and after’.
In my judgment, the potential for confusion is, in this case, miniscule. The bay is clearly a
loading bay, and it is manifestly clear from Mr Jalali’s email that he knew it was a loading bay,
and he was not confused at all by the signage.
However, save for de minimis variations, the design of signs, and marked-out bays on the road,
must comply with the regulations.
I therefore have to ask myself - is the double line at the end of this bay a de minimis variation?
An email dated 5/10/07 from an official in the Dept for Transport to a Mr Moss (in relation to a
different, but similar case) described an identical instance of incorrect marking, where the end of
the bay is wrongly marked with a double white line instead of a single white line, as “an unlawful
hybrid of 1028.4 and 1032 which does not conform to a single diagram in TSRDG 2002”. The
official (john.munns@dft.gsi.gov.uk) will presumably have chosen his words with care, and be
aware of the implications of such a rigid analysis, and the use of the word ‘unlawful’. If a bay
design is ‘unlawful’, it is clearly unenforceable and, consequently, anyone can park there
(without doing any loading or unloading) for as long as they like – which is clearly a recipe for
chaos, and to the great detriment of the people and businesses in the area who need ready
access to a loading bay unencumbered by selfish motorists who park there with no intention of
loading or unloading.
I was shown what appears to be evidence that, in May 07, Mawdsley St was on a list of
highways requiring attention due to lines having sustained “wear + tear”. It has now been repainted correctly. I have also considered the wording of the PCN, the Notice to Owner and the
Notice of Rejection, and have found the wording of all these documents to be unobjectionable. I
therefore find the various additional points raised at the hearing in relation to these matters to be entirely without merit.
Solely because, at the time the PCN was issued, the Loading Bay marking did not strictly
comply with regulations, I have decided to allow the appeal.
Mark Hinchliffe
Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991
Date: 16 December 2007