A DRIVER who successfully overturned a loading bay parking ticket has questioned Harrow Council’s attempts to defend itself over the fine.
Richard Herman, of Rowlands Avenue, Hatch End, received a £110 penalty on March 13, after stopping in a CCTV-monitored lay-by outside Bath Super Shop in Harrow View to collect a bath.
The council refused to quash the ticket, saying he had technically been just parked, because he had not pre-purchased the goods.
Mr Herman successful appealed in person at a Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) tribunal hearing on Friday last week.
Property developer Mr Herman, 45, said: “Obviously I’m happy I won but I just think there’s more to this story. The DVD of the CCTV footage the council supplied is just over five minutes long and then it stops, and doesn’t show me going backward and forward loading my car.
“They have purposely cut if off. Why? Another 10 seconds later and I could have been on screen.”
Mr Herman was also angry the council told PATAS it had not accepted his Bath Super Shop invoice as proof, because the document was not on headed notepaper and could have been created on a computer.
Mr Herman said: “They’re calling me a liar and that’s not on. If they felt there was a problem with the invoice, not only did it have my credit card number on it and a VAT number, but it had the shop’s address and phone number.
“They could have quite easily have contacted the shop to verify the transaction but, instead, they accused me of forgery. It’s out of order.”
PATAS adjucator Michael Burke said: “An authority is perfectly entitled to seek enforcement of a penalty charge where no loading or unloading activity is seen over the period of five minutes.
“However, in this case I have had the opportunity to question Mr Herman and assess him as a witness.
“I am satisfied he has given an accurate account and I am persuaded that the vehicle remained within the loading/unloading exemption.”
Harrow Council’s head of collections and benefits, Fern Silverio, said: “When Mr Herman appealed, he sent the council an invoice that listed a number of items he had bought from the shop. While some items were listed as being paid for in advance, a code was used next to an item the meaning of which was not clear to the council.
“Mr Herman did not provide further clarification and this led the council to believe he had not paid for the item in advance. At the appeal hearing, it became clear Mr Herman had in fact paid in advance for the bathtub and was just parking for the purpose of collection.”
