Mr Mustard doesn't look tribunal decisions other than for Barnet but sometimes he stumbles over ones that are interesting, like this one. 6 December was a Sunday so the days on the sign are relevant.
Why TfL fought the Appeal is unclear as a motorist wouldn't make up a story about sign changes as they are all logged by whoever erects them. Also, they have all been photographed by the google streetview car, and others, and clearly this sign has been changed at some point.
Costs are rarely awarded but the adjudicator thought that the high bar had been reached on this occasion.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
That level of 'compensation' is, frankly, insulting.
ReplyDeleteThe motorist was wrongly fined. The motorist's correct appeal was ignored. The motorist took time off work to argue the case. The motorist has done nothing wrong and, despite this, has had his time wasted and has ended up £30 poorer because he wasn't even properly compensated for the time he had to take off work.
Quite why Mr Houghton (the adjudicator) decides that wasting this motorist's time is only worth £50 is, of course, not explained. Could we ask how much Mr Houghton was paid for his time? At least he wanted to be there, which is more than can be said for the motorist.
Basic reciprocity suggests that if TfL are going to try it on for £130, then they should pay at least that much if found to have behaved this badly. Maybe more to encourage greater care to be taken.