An earlier suspension photograph did not prove the notice remained displayed (2026)
Case 2240534952 / 2025-01-16 / Adjudicator Carl Teper
Brereton Road
Carl Teper accepted the driver's evidence that the suspension notice was absent when the vehicle was parked. An earlier installation photograph did not resolve that specific dispute.
“I find the Appellant's evidence to be credible.”
Carl Teper, case 2240534952
The authority alleged parking in a suspended bay. The driver said the suspension notice had not been displayed when the vehicle was left there before the suspension became operational.
The authority produced a photograph showing the notice at an earlier date and later officer photographs showing it during enforcement. Carl Teper nevertheless preferred the driver's written and oral evidence about its absence at the intervening parking time.
The authority also said permit holders had to check their vehicles daily, but did not show how that requirement had been communicated. The appeal was allowed because the allegation was not proved on the evidence in this case, not because the authority had never erected a suspension notice.
A comparable dispute calls for a clear parking chronology and evidence about whether the relevant notice was actually present. An installation photograph is relevant but may not answer an evidenced claim of later absence. This decision sets no universal advance-notice period.
Source and case reference
Search for 2240534952 in the London Tribunals register to read the decision. This case explains how the adjudicator assessed its evidence; another appeal depends on its own facts and applicable restriction.
Find the official decision