Wednesday, 28 August 2013

TAPAS - w/c 19 August 2013 (typo week)

In this week at PATAS there were 50 cancelled PCN, 36 upheld and 2 subject to a recommendation to cancel and a typo that cost the council a PCN.

On Monday two PCN were cancelled as the council had not proved that the Event Day zone was properly signed in Holders Hill Drive. If you get a match day PCN make sure you ask the council to prove that the signage is correct and in place.

This report was one of my favourites for this week, and includes the rarely seen word "concomitant":

The contravention alleged is that of having parked in a residents' bay without displaying a valid permit. The appellant says that she paid to renew her residents permit, in the sum of £100, on 11th March 2013. She produces evidence of this. This is not disputed by the authority.

The appellant says that having not received her new permit, and having been told by the operator who took the payment to do so while she waited for the replacement, she stuck a copy of the confirmation of payment, which carries all the permit ID details on the face of it, in the windscreen of her vehicle. The officer took a photo of the vehicle with the confirmation displayed.

On the day in question, some 3 weeks after she had paid for her permit, but not received it, this PCN was issued on the basis that she had not displayed a valid permit.

The authority's evidence in response to this is perplexing. In the first place it stated in the informal rejection of her representations that 'the number' she had been given on payment was a 'Dispensation Number' and that 'this number is only temporary until you have been given your residents' permit'. According to their records the 'dispensation' which she has displayed had expired on 26th March and that was why the PCN was issued. (except that it says the dispensation lasts until the permit arrives, it isn't merely for a fixed period)

In its Case Summary the authority says that 'a motorist who is awaiting a new permit must request a temporary dispensation for the vehicle, from the council to cover it until such time as they receive the said permit. The council checked their records and can confirm that there was no dispensation at the time of the contravention'. How would a motorist know to do this? You need a temporary permit to cover the period until you get a replacement permanent permit. Madness. You can print your own permit out at home if you want although it is a poor looking effort without the official hologram and this is probably why most people don't bother. The system should be set up so that every permit is issued on the day of payment.

In other words the council is relying on its own breach of duty of due and prompt administration (failure to issue the permit in a timely manner) in pursuing this PCN. It had accepted the appellant's money for a renewal of the permit, and she had done all she could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the restrictions, and the council has failed during a period of over 3 weeks to issue the permit to which she was entitled. The appellant says that following the issue of this PCN she rang the authority, understandably upset, and complained and the renewal permit arrived by first class post the following day.

It is clear to me that the authority, having received the appellant's representations and checked its records, should have exercised the discretion it alone has to cancel this PCN. That it has had the facts before it and failed to consider the exercise of its discretion on such clear facts strongly suggests that it has fettered its discretion inappropriately.

In the circumstances I allow the appeal on the basis that the authority has in this case been in breach of its concomitant duty to act fairly.

So if you park negligently you get a parking ticket and if the council acts negligently you get a parking ticket. Ain't life grand?, as they say in Private Eye.

The next case was even worse and it makes you wonder why NSL were chosen. Are they the best available? I don't fancy any company which is worse to enforce local parking tickets. This relates to a £110 PCN and of course 50% of that is £55 not £30.
I have heard from the Appellant about his mistake with the scratch card. I accept that it was a mistake, but the contravention has occurred.

It was common ground that the Appellant made informal representations within the discount period and the Authority rejected them and offered to accept a discount in settlement. What happened from that point onwards was remarkable.

The Authority had apparently offered settle the penalty at £30. The Authority had not supplied the letter of rejection and one might draw an inference from that (I think this refers to the evidence bundle and if so this was a little sneaky). The Authority's own correspondence log suggested that it accepted that such an error had been made, and I find that such an offer had been made.

It was therefore of no surprise that the Appellant paid over the £30. He then received a Notice to Owner. This stated that there is an outstanding balance of £80. The Authority's correspondence log then recorded a complaint from the Appellant. The Appellant was apparently told of the mistake and invited to pay a further £30 to clear the balance. The Appellant refused.

The Authority made an offer of settlement. The Appellant is entitled to hold the Authority to it. Instead of just calling it a day as apparently the Authority had tried to do, it issued a Notice to Owner demanding the balance. To compound the error, the Authority then asked for another £30 which would meant that the Appellant would be paying £5 more than what he would have need to pay if such an error had not occurred. When this became an issue at the appeal stage, the Authority chose not to provide a copy of the letter of rejection and it did not explain why there is a balance to pay.

There had been a procedural impropriety. I am allowing the appeal.

I would say that would be a suitable case on which to demand costs as the council/NSL has made a mistake and then tried to cover it up and bully its way out which is wholly unreasonable.

In another case the PCN was cancelled as the driver had left and not been served as the traffic warden had not begun to prepare the PCN.

Of course, back office staff in Croydon don't know where they are when it comes to Barnet:

The Appellant said that he had paid for parking at location no. 5938 which is on the High Road, North Finchley. The enforcement officer's notes indicated that the vehicle was outside Martyn Gerrard and there was a sign outside the confectioners Mr Simms, a few doors from Martyn Gerrard. The sign identifies the location as 5950.

The Authority said that the Appellant claimed that he had parked at location 5938 which was the incorrect location. The location was certainly incorrect but the Appellant said 5939, not 5938.

The Authority said that the Appellant should have paid for 5940, which is around Regents News, 323 Ballards Lane. Regent's News is in deed at 323 Ballards Lane but it is around a third of a mile from Martyn Gerrard who are at 773 High Road North Finchley. I can understand misreading 5939 as 5938, but I do not understand why the Authority had not thought that something was wrong when its PCN and photographic evidence suggested that a contravention occurred on the High Road at location 5940 yet its research show that 5940 was in Ballards Lane. It even went to the trouble of obtaining a Google image showing Martyn Gerrard in the background. I have repeated the exercise. William Hill and Cancer Research are on either side of Martyn Gerrard. There is no Regent's News on that parade of shops at all.

I have therefore no confidence that the vehicle was at location 5940 despite the CEO's photographic evidence of the sign. The CEO would have relied on the sign to do his check and of course the Appellant had not paid to park outside Regent's News.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.
A parking ticket being pursued from 31 May 2011 was described as an "abuse of process" and it was therefore cancelled. If you get an old PCN come back to life on you, keep appealing until you reach PATAS.

A time plate for the bus lane in West Hendon Broadway (headed South, the ones going North belong to Brent) was missing and so the PCN was invalid. Bus lane tickets are hard to get off so check the signs if you get a PCN at that location.

There was an interesting PayByPhone observation:
The Appellant's case is that he had in fact paid; and he produces a bank statement and phone bill in support. The phone bill shows the date in question; and I do not regard it as at all improbable that the debit is shown on the statement the next day. Presumably if it did indeed represent a payment for parking on the 11th and not the 10th the Council would be in a position to produce evidence that there was such a payment for parking on that day and that it therefore cannot relate to the day before. On balance I am satisfied payment was made and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
Well done that motorist for fighting properly armed with his evidence.
Now, the typo error you have been waiting for:
The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. He denied the contravention and said he thought he had parked within a CPZ which only applied Mon- Friday and which the local authority also stated was the case in their initial rejection letter, and the whole matter was therefore very confusing.

I have looked at the penalty charge notice and the photographic evidence. This clearly shows the appellant's vehicle parked on a single yellow line very close to a time - plate which restricts the hours of parking seven days a week and during the hours the appellant was parked.

I am therefore satisfied that the appellant was parked in contravention and that the penalty charge notices were properly issued.

However I am not satisfied that the local authority have properly dealt with the appellant's representations.

The local authority apologise for the typographical error in their response to the informal representations. However their response is more than a typographical error. It confirms that the appellant was parked in a CPZ outside the hours of restriction and therefore misleads the appellant in believing he has a genuine ground of appeal.

I therefore find that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the local authority and allow this appeal.
If you make an error it costs you £110, if the council blunder that is simply a typo even when it isn't. Double standards apply in the world of parking.
Double yellow lines across a dropped kerb could mislead.
They argued that the photograph that the local authority has produced is old, taken from an elevated angle and is therefore misleading.

The photograph that the appellant has produced certainly shows that the stretch of pavement there has been lowered but it most certainly does not meet the level of the carriageway. There is a ridge.

The contemporaneous photographic evidence taken by the officer does not show that it does meet the carriageway.

There are also double yellow lines there. Mr. Perry parked his vehicle on those double yellow lines and displayed his disability badge and clock.

Whilst I accept that the two contraventions - dropped footway and double yellow lines - are mutually exclusive, it is clear that there must be absolute certainty so that the motorist is not misled.

A disabled motorist is permitted to park on double yellow lines as long as the badge and clock are displayed but a disabled motorist displaying the badge and clock is not permitted to park adjacent to a dropped footway, all the more reason for making the dropped footway clear and unequivocal.

I find as a fact that the dropped footway does not meet the carriageway and with the presence of the double yellow lines this is capable of misleading a reasonable, disabled motorist.
I will therefore allow the appeal.

Barnet Council / NSL have an unreasonable expectation that everyone should carry a stock of visitor vouchers in their car for a zone they have not previously visited so that you don't need to go to the house you are visiting to collect a permit - not how life works.
The Enforcement Authority has provided brief notes and photographs. The photographs are not timed. The penalty charge notice (pcn) shows an observation period from 14:31 to 14:32.

The appellant claims that the driver went to collect a visitor's voucher from his home nearby. She claims when he returned to the vehicle with the vehicle with the voucher the pcn had been issued. She complains that the vehicle was observed for only one minute. There is a letter from the driver and a copy of the permit.

On balance, I accept the appellant's account which appears genuine. A motorist should be given sufficient time to obtain and display a visitor's voucher. The observation time in this case was brief. I allow the appeal.

Sometimes the traffic warden walks off when the motorist appears and they think phew but a PCN arrives in the post. It shouldn't.
Mr X stated that she (the traffic warden) then walked off and he assumed that it was the end of the matter and drove away. He explained that at no time did the officer state that she was trying to issue a penalty charge notice or did she ask him to wait. At no stage did he prevent her from issuing a penalty charge notice. Mr Z confirmed his account.

The authority have sought to serve the penalty charge notice by post because, they assert, that their officer attempted to serve the penalty charge notice by fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person who appeared to be in charge of it, "but was prevented from doing so by some person". Her notes do not support this.

I have no hesitation in accepting Mr X and Mr Z's accounts as true as I found them to be credible witnesses. I do not accept that the officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice under regulation 9 or that she was prevented in any way from so doing.

In the circumstances, the authority have not established entitlement to serve this penalty charge notice by post and the appeal must be allowed.
A PCN fixed to your car is a Regulation 9 PCN and one sent by post is a Regulation 10 PCN. You get one fewer appeals with a regulation 10 PCN as it acts like a Notice to Owner.
Finally, in what was a good week for the adjudicators, another Saracens Event Day case:
The Appellant's representations make a number of points, namely:

1 The Penalty Charge Notice was not affixed to his vehicle, but merely tucked under the windscreen wiper;
2 The Penalty Charge Notice did not state the Zone and thus did not accurately make out the contravention;
3 The Appellant formed the view, based on the Enforcement Authority's correspondence, that his Zone E permit would be valid;
4 The date of the alleged contravention was after the last of the event days notified; and
5 The bay lines were worn and thus not substantially compliant

but these were rejected by the Enforcement Authority.

In his appeal, the Appellant repeated the same issues and claimed that the Enforcement Authority had failed to consider his representations and that such failure amounted to a procedural impropriety. He also raised the following:

(i) the sign next to the bay where he had parked was not a standard sign and the Enforcement Authority was required to provide a copy of the special authorisation of the Department for Transport;
(ii) the Event Day Controlled Parking Zone was not properly signed and proof was sought that the event for 12 May 2013 was shown on signs at the necessary locations; and
(iii) the Enforcement Authority was asked to demonstrate the Traffic Management Order authority for setting 12 May as a restricted Event Day
Further observations were raised by the Appellant upon receipt of the Enforcement Authority's evidence, in particular that the Enforcement Authority had failed to show that they had properly communicated the restrictions to show that 12 May was an Event Day.

The Enforcement Authority is in difficulty in this case for the following reasons:

1) There is no evidence that the day in question was an event day.
2) Article 5 of the relevant traffic Management Oder provided by the Council requires a vehicle left in a parking place referred to in Schedule 1 and 2 and in permit area streets during the permitted hours to obtain or display a permit. A "permit area street" is defined in Article 2(1) as a "street or any part of a street described in Schedule 3". Schedule 3, or adequate extracts from it, have not been supplied, and the inclusion of item 347 on a page appearing to form part of Schedule 1 does not provide conclusive evidence that the street in question is a permit area street
3) The sign shown in the Enforcement Authority's photograph is not a permitted sign under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (as amended), and requires authorisation. No evidence of this has been provided or of the zone entry signs and authorisation for them.
4) Direction 25(3) TSRGD as amended prohibits the use of most types of bay markings within a permit parking area (PPA). It would appear from the photographs that such bay markings are present. Authorisation for their continued presence within a PPA is required. (If it were to be argued that a permit area street is not a Permit Parking area authorisation for the signage would be required in any event).
5) The single sign shown in the photographs is in my view inadequate on its own to indicate give a sufficient indication to a motorist parking there as to the event day restrictions that required a permit to park there.

As I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle was in breach of the requirement to display a permit or that the requirement to do so was clearly indicated by clear and correct signage, I cannot be satisfied that a contravention occurred and must allow the appeal.
The next Saracens Event Day is coming up this Saturday 31 August 2013. If you are one of the motorists unlucky enough to be targeted for a parking ticket then make all of the same appeal points as were successful in the above appeal, particularly (i), (ii) & (iii).
Quite a long report this week but if you are in a similar situation you can crib ideas and save yourself £60, 3110 or £130. Remember once the 50% discount offer has expired i.e. you have received the Notice to Owner, you have absolutely nothing to lose by appealing again to the council and then again to PATAS as it is only 28 days after losing a PATAS appeal that the council can increase the amount to pay (or they can increase it 28 days after the Notice to Owner if you don't appeal to PATAS) so you can delay the inevitable and you also have a 72% chance of winning if you put together a half decent argument.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Thursday, 22 August 2013

PATAS - w/c 12 August

This particular week was fairly routine except that there were 5 cases which were refused (technically) with a recommendation that the council cancel. This is an unusually high number in one week and is perhaps a sign that adjudicators generally think that Barnet Council (NSL) is being too harsh. There were 44 cancelled PCN and 29 upheld which is a win rate of 60% (ignoring the 5 in a state of flux).

Here is the first of the recommend cancel cases (the adjudicator is not allowed to cancel a PCN on the grounds of discretion or mitigation, only in accordance with the law).

Mrs A does not dispute that the contravention occurred. She states that she had put a visitors' permit in the car. She had left the window slightly open because of the hot weather. When she returned to her car the permit had fallen down. Mrs A works as a carer and works at various homes in the London Borough of Barnet. She provides a copy of the permit that she states was in the car.

I accept the appellant's evidence. I find as a fact that Mrs A did complete a permit when she parked her car. However as the permit was not properly displayed when the Penalty Charge Notice was issued I find that the contravention occurred.

I have no jurisdiction to take into account the mitigating circumstances raised. I refuse this appeal. However I consider that there is compelling mitigation. Firstly I accept the appellant's evidence that she had parked her car in Redacted Gardens to carry out her work as a carer. Secondly I find that there was a permit in the car but that it had fallen from the dashboard. I recommend that the local authority cancels this Penalty Charge Notice.

So the local authority have already made their decision since the 12 August (long and careful thought obviously) and have rejected the recommendation so the PCN is due for payment. The council might reflect on this when they find it difficult to recruit carers who are poorly paid and can ill afford to lose £110. This event was back in July 12 so it is one of the PCN that has incorrect wording on it. What a pity the carer did not know this.

Someone whose windscreen wiper fell off so they stopped in a bus lane and called a mechanic had their PCN cancelled as it was not safe to proceed on a wet day. Mechanical breakdown and safety trump parking tickets; good to see commonsense in play.

Council evidence was too vague in another case and they relied, as they always do, on a site photograph from google without mentioning that it is not contemporaneous. The adjudicators seem to be catching on:

The Google images might have been taken some time ago and the bay markings may have deteriorated further, leading the CEO to miss them. In any event, I am not satisfied that the Appellant parked outside the bay markings. I am allowing the appeal.

A person who didn't move their car and had 3 PCN issued on separate days had one cancelled. The motorist paid one and the council cancelled the second which means that to be consistent they have to cancel the third one so why didn't they?

A blue badge was displayed in the windscreen but the traffic warden managed not to photograph it. How remiss of them.

This case (PATAS ref 2130330788) could be handy for other people who are appealing;

The facts in this case do not appear to be in dispute. The appellant used his pay by phone app. To pay for parking. Unfortunately the appellant elected the wrong registration number for payment. As the appellant has two accounts for two different vehicles, he mistakenly chose the wrong vehicle registration number.

I have to be satisfied in these circumstances that the contravention is made out, since technically it is. However, I am satisfied that there was no intention to evade payment; indeed the appellant did make a payment, albeit for his other vehicle. The VAT receipt corroborates the appellant's account that he made a genuine error.

The Authority responds by stating that it is not responsible for any error on the part of the appellant. That is correct, but I make a recommendation that bearing in mind there was no attempt to evade payment for parking, and that a genuine error was made, and that the appellant has consistently maintained this account which was supported by credible and reliable evidence, the Authority should not pursue any further enforcement, because to do so would no t be fair and proportionate bearing in mind the mischief that the Authority intends to deal with. Clearly the appellant now knows the implications on making an error, albeit genuine one when paying by phone for parking.

I must refuse the appeal but make a recommendation that the PCN be cancelled for the above reasons.
The council have not yet decided what to do.

In an absolute classic blunder the council rejected an appeal and then issued a Charge Certificate the very next day when a period of 28 days should be allowed. Computer error will get the blame. The PCN is now cancelled.

A Saracens Event day PCN did not go well for the council.

I have dealt with this Appeal in the absence of the parties.

It must succeed. The Authority says that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in contravention of restrictions imposed for "event days" relating to the Saracens Rugby Football Club. The Authority has not shown this was an event day or that any sign anywhere alerted the motorist to that fact.

In its case summary the Authority suggests "the onus is on the driver to familiarise themselves (sic) on the days on which events are taking place. this can be done through the internet via the Saracens website". This has to be wholly unsustainable. The duty is on the Authority to sign appropriately to inform the motorist. He or she may be wholly unaware of Saracens RFC. He or she may not have internet access. In my judgement the Authority cannot avoid its responsibility in this manner.

The contravention cannot be sustained. The Appeal must be allowed.

More education is evidently required about the Saracens Event day zone

For a number of reasons itemised below I shall make a recommendation to the Authority to cancel the PCN.

The appellant and driver were both new to the area and were genuinely confused with regard to these event day parking arrangements. I am further satisfied that if the driver was aware of the restrictions then he would have found an alternative place to park. The relevant sign denoting the specific restrictions is in fact not in the street where the appellant's vehicle was parked, but an adjoining street, namely Thornfield Avenue.

In addition, the mischief that the PCN is intended to address is no longer an issue since the appellant is now aware of the parking arrangements at this location, and as a matter of fact no longer has any reason to visit the area. Furthermore, if the Authority would care to check its records I understand that on this particular day most of the vehicle sin that same street had PCN's issued for the very same reason, and whilst this does not provide any defence for this appellant. It is clearly indicative of a situation where a number of motorists on the same occasion are likely to not have noticed the signage and if they did, not to have understood what the parking restrictions were on this occasion.

This appellant made a genuine error and for all the above reasons I recommend that the Authority cancel the PCN.

Barnet's decision is not yet known.

Another PayByPhone case:

The Appellant, whom I have heard in person in some detail has s discovered from the Verrus records sent by the Council as part of the evidence that she had keyed in one incorrect digit in the registration number of her vehicle. Why the Council could not have explained that to her at an early stage is something of a mystery. She had recently acquired the vehicle and entered an "N" instead of an "M". The two characters are of course adjacent on the keyboard.

As a result of this error payment had strictly speaking not been made for the correct vehicle and a contravention occurred. I am with some regret unable to find that the PCN was issued other than lawfully. However the traffic management purpose to be served by pursuing a penalty in these circumstances is difficult to make out, the Appellant having, in general terms, paid to park her vehicle in the car park. Mistakes of this kind are easy to make. as the reference in the Council's own case summary to attempted payment "kinked" to the vehicle registration number shows only too clearly. This is a case where the Council should exercise its discretion not enforce the penalty and I strongly recommend accordingly.

For the avoidance of doubt, if discretion is exercised I see no reason why the Council should not nevertheless retain the sums paid by the Appellant subsequent to the issue of the PCN.

The PayByPhone system causes a lot more problems than a cash parking meter ever did.

The Appellant described the procedure adopted by her to comply with the parking regime, an identical procedure was adopted a second time on the same date; through no fault of her own, and without her knowledge the automated system reverted to a previous vehicle registration mark in respect of one transaction but not the other. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the same and I have seen the phone record of both transactions.

I found the Appellant's oral evidence to be cogent and credible and I accepted it in its entirety.

In light of the same, and in view of the absences in the Enforcement Authority's evidence I consider there to be compelling reasons warranting this recommendation to the Enforcement Authority.

Looking back, it was a more eventful week than I first thought. What is clear is that it doesn't really matter what the council says as the independent adjudicator will level up the playing field and may well come to a different decision. Keep those appeals coming.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance

Sunday, 11 August 2013

PATAS - w/c 5 August 13

In this week there were 78 hearings and of them some 67% led to cancelled parking tickets (PCN) which wasn't far short of the 72% average of last year.

Interesting successes were

- a PayByPhone error ascribed to the council and/or Verrus
- a Notice of Rejection that the council agreed was wrong
- a case with no photos and insufficient other evidence
- a case in the Saracens Event Day zone in which it wasn't proven that 4 May 13 was an event day.
- a cloned car
- administrative error
- a number of cases from 2011 that should not have been pursued
- kerb marks to restrict loading were not evident
- delay in issuing a blue badge
- a wording error on the PCN
- the evidence pack served at an incorrect address
- insufficient time allowed to obtain a Visitor Voucher

which was my favourite of the week in the slightly tidied up words of the Adjudicator:

The Appellant and his wife attended the hearing. Mr F. was the driver of the vehicle at the material time. The Authority did not attend and it as not represented.

Mrs F. said that she tried to pay for her parking by phone upon her arrival and this was in full view of the CEO. She said that her first call, which was at 17:16:43 was cut off. Her second call at 17:18:47 was answered but took time and a further call because she had to re-register her credit card. The CEO then told her not to bother as she had already issued a PCN.

The PCN was issued at 17:19 when the Appellant was on the phone to the payment people.

The Authority states that the three minute observation period was sufficient and the Appellant exceeded it. The CEO must have seen the Appellant trying to pay during the three minute period and I fail to see how it can be said that the contravention could have occurred when the at a time when Mrs F. was on the phone to Verrus. There was no evidence that Mrs F. was not able to pay, or that she was putting on an act in front of the officer to avoid payment. If there is any doubt, the Authority could have checked with Verrus as to why it took three calls and what these calls were about but it chose not to do so.

The Authority may also wish to reflect on the paucity of the CEO's notes. She noted that she allowed a three minute observation period. What was the point of doing that if the product of the observation was not recorded?

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am refusing the appeal.
Is the council fully in control of NSL's traffic wardens? It would appear not. The law says that the council must take the decision to reject formal representations and so one wonders how this case got through that long stop to the Adjudicator thus wasting £40 of council tax which was spent on the PATAS fee.
You can see how worthwhile it is to keep on appealing all the way to PATAS.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance

Thursday, 8 August 2013

PATAS - w/c 29 July 13

In this week there were 45 PCN (parking tickets) cancelled and 33 upheld with 2 extra cases recommended for cancellation.
The very first case recommended for refusal was someone whose car had transgressed as they had been remanded in custody. Imagine telling the desk sergeant that you will be back in a few minutes as your priority is to move your wrongly parked car? The Adjudicator recommended that Barnet Council accept the 50% that had been understandably paid late in full and final settlement.
A traffic warden noted that the motorist was collecting a KFC. Whether he was or he wasn't, he didn't collect a PCN as it was cancelled by the Adjudicator.
A Tandoori delivery driver didn't have to pay a parking ticket as he was obviously unloading, or delivering as it is known.
The adjudicator couldn't understand why Barnet were chasing payment of a PCN from 21/11/11 when the Charge Certificate wasn't issued until 15/11/12 which breaches the 6 months with no activity rule.
Someone parked a bit askew in Percy Rd but the whole car was not more than 50cm from the kerb so they may have been untidy but they didn't have to pay a PCN because of that.
A case had vague and uncertain evidence so the PCN was cancelled.
A regulation 10 PCN (sent through the post) did not say the the traffic warden was prevented from serving the PCN so it was cancelled (as it is a statutory requirement).
Photographs taken in another case were simply not produced so the PCN was cancelled. Were the council shy or did the photos not prove anything?
I like this comment of the adjudicator "No explanation why CEO did not photograph the driver's window for the permit" which sounds rather like "I think the traffic warden was cheating". The PCN was cancelled.
There were 2 cases of PCN which were being chased in 2011 and no explanation was given for the inordinate delay. This led to two more PCN in the bin.
There was a failure to comply with para 32(d) of the General Regulations 2007 so yet another PCN bit the dust.
I am sure by now that you have the idea that you might as well appeal through all 3 stages as you have nothing to lose.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance

Sunday, 4 August 2013

PATAS - w/c 22 July 2013

A typical week with 39 parking tickets (PCN) cancelled (canx) and 36 upheld.
12 of the cancellation appear not to have been contested at all as they are marked as dismissed by Order of the Adjudicator.
A blue badge was produced as evidence of its existence and so having refused an appeal suddenly Barnet Council agreed to it. Inconsistency is hard for the public to deal with.
A traffic warden told someone they could block a dropped kerb and then a parking ticket was still given out. Whether a parking ticket gets cancelled in this situation or not will very much depend upon circumstances and the adjudicator's view of the motorists truthfulness.
There was no cctv evidence for an alleged bus lane contravention from 2012. Also, the council had issued a charge certificate (a prelude to a court judgment) a month after an appeal was lodged at PATAS which was a procedural impropriety. Ticket canx.
A parking ticket issued by post was not properly issued. Ticket canx.
The traffic management order relied on did not agree with the local signage in N12 so the PCN was canx.
A payment for a PCN was misallocated and it took the intervention of the Adjudicator to bring the case to an end. Ticket canx.
A sprained ankle was a compelling reason for mitigation which it is quire rare of an Adjudicator to grant. Ticket canx.
The council "muddled up the enforcement process". How could this be the case when NSL are doing it? Ticket canx.
There was no proof that the traffic warden had checked the PayByPhone system for a payment. This presumably must be noted on his little handheld machine. Parking ticket canx. You'll be able to use this as an appeal point once you get the evidence pack from the council which will be at least 4 days before the date of adjudication. You can out more appeal points in once you see it.
The signs and lines in a loading bay were uncertain so the PCN was canx.
A parking ticket for parking adjacent to a dropped kerb was cancelled as the vehicle was only next to the taper kerb, the stone that slopes down.
In a case of being in one of those sections of pavement marked out for pavement parking a parking ticket for being outside of a bay was cancelled as that contravention only applies where individually marked out bays are in use not for a bay that might be 50m long.
There was another suspended bay argument, usually it is that the sign is not approved by the Secretary of State but this time it was that the description of the location of the section of road which was suspended which was ambiguous and ambiguity is in law construed against the person who caused it. PCN canx.
A PCN given out in Nursery Walk was unhesitatingly cancelled by the adjudicator who point out the 6 previous appeals at this location for the signage being at odds with the Traffic Management Order. There is a peeved tone to the notes of the Adjudicator and I can see costs being awarded if there are yet more appeals at that location. Enforcement should really stop in Nursery Walk but it probably won't.
Finally, a PCN was cancelled because the council had not dealt with formal representations i.e. ones made in response to a Notice to Owner.
I expect there will be more of the same next week and so I have something to write about next month please keep submitting those appeals.
Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance