London borough accused appellants of fraud with “no adequate evidence”, tribunal finds

A London Tribunal has ordered a penalty charge notice (PCN) to be cancelled after finding the London Borough of Newham accused the appellants of forging defective PCNs "with no adequate evidence to support the allegation".

Tribunal adjudicator Edward Houghton heard a claim that the London borough had sent out incomplete PCNs to two appellants.

The appellants claimed that a page of the PCNs they had received had been left "completely blank".

But the council argued that the documents presented to the court could not be the actual PCNs it had sent, claiming that the original PCNs had been photocopied to leave part of the documents blank.

The adjudicator said the council's position amounted to an accusation of fraud against the appellants and their representative, Ivan Murray-Smith.

Although the council's representatives at the hearing "could not bring themselves to put their case so bluntly and described it as a possible 'theory'," he noted.

"However as neither party has suggested any explanation for the existence of the documents other than fraud/forgery, or a failure in the Council's printing systems, it is clear that this remains the Council's case."

The adjudicator noted that a finding of fraud would have extreme consequences for Murray-Smith's professional and political life.

"Over recent years Mr Murray-Smith has become well known to this Tribunal and regularly appears representing appellants, very often on the basis of technical issues," the adjudicator said.

Murray-Smith is a Conservative councillor at Great Yarmouth Borough Council who represents clients at PCN appeals in his spare time.

He acts for clients at traffic tribunals and has appeared for numerous appellants at London Tribunals.

The adjudicator said: "Whilst I and other Adjudicators do not always agree with Mr Murray-Smith's submissions I have to say as a starting point I find it unlikely that a representative who repeatedly pulls up councils on highly technical issues would suddenly resort to photocopying bogus PCNs."

In the course of the litigation, Newham informed the adjudicator that it does not manually check its PCNs before posting them.

On this point, the adjudicator noted that it seemed "inherently unlikely that any electronic or physical system is so reliable that errors cannot occur from time to time; and the evidence from the Council is well short of what would be required to prove the contrary".

"It is equally well short of that compelling standard that would be required to prove the fraudulent conduct alleged as the alternative."

He concluded that he was satisfied the PCNs were sent to the appellants in defective form and awarded just over £280 in costs to the appellants.

Responding to the ruling, Abi Gbago, Chief Executive at the London Borough of Newham, said: “On this occasion the council made an error. The allegations of fraud and forgery in respect of the PCN’s produced at the Tribunal have been formally withdrawn. The council has apologised for this mistake and any distress caused to Mr Murray-Smith and his clients.”

Gbago added that the council is reviewing its internal processes on how these appeals are conducted with the aim of providing further training “so that this doesn’t happen again”.

Murray-Smith, who began contesting PCNs after successfully fighting his own parking fines as a student, is set to represent clients in an upcoming judicial review challenge brought by Transport for London against a London Tribunals decision that found TfL unlawfully used CCTV for the enforcement of parking offences. 

Adam Carey