PATAS: 10-15 September 12.

15 to 3

This week's PATAS score was 15-3 to the motorist whereas in a typical week it would be 9 all. Thus the council lost 6 more cases than one would expect.

Monday started with a case being allowed by Order of the Adjudicator which simply means that Barnet Council / NSL failed to submit the necessary paperwork.

An appeal was allowed because the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) or parking ticket was dated 5 June 12 but supposedly served on 25 March 2012. Is this a new One Barnet efficiency saving; why not send every resident a parking ticket for the year ahead with their council tax demand?

In another case the council didn't submit a copy of the PCN or any photographs but because the applicant (the motorist) didn't show Barnet Council / NSL were believed. The opposite could have been the case if the applicant had turned up.

 

On Tuesday 11th the council threw in the towel that very morning according to PATAS, which suggests a complete lack of planning and organisation on the part of Barnet Council / NSL.

 

On Wednesday 12th there were four appeals which were allowed by Order of the Adjudicator. Four happy motorists, four more examples of incompetence.

 

The fifth case that day is as disgusting heartless as only a local authority can be. It concerned a passenger with cerebral palsy. a dropped kerb and a single yellow line. No quarter was given by Barnet Council but with their usual, or NSL's, usual level of competence on display the Notice of Rejection quoted the wrong legislation so that = procedural impropriety. The adjudicator took a commonsense view and allowed the appeal as the lines/signs were confusing and misleading.

 

On Thursday 13th four appeals were allowed. Three of them were by Order of the Adjudicator. The other one related to parking in a suspended bay but the evidence was uncertain so the motorist got the benefit of the doubt.

 

On Friday 14th there were 3 appeals allowed by Order of the Adjudicator including one case which had been adjourned so that the council / NSL could provide their evidence which they patently failed to do.

 

On Saturday 15th two tickets were upheld. One where the ticket was not affixed to the car and went missing. It was for parking on a yellow line on Good Friday. Another case, that of Mr McArdle, not John as it happens, confused a Bus & Lorry restricted hours sign with the parking hours. Unlucky, as other adjudicators have cancelled tickets for such confusion

 

Carry on appealing

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS 3 - 8 September - a 3 hour observation period!

Final score: 9-3

9 - 3 was also the final score for Motorists v Barnet Council at PATAS in the week commencing 3 September. The pundits put the match down as a score draw as that is historically the usual result but as one team forgets to send in its team sheet most of the team, or can't remember where they put it, that leaves the goal open for the other player (motorist)

 

On the 3rd two tickets were cancelled by Order of the Adjudicator. That usually means that the council / NSL failed to provide their paperwork.

 

On the 6th there were another two instances of this. The other case that day is quite funny as the traffic warden says he observed the car for 3 hours and the rejection letter was a pro-forma template which ignored the points made (not so funny that part).

 

On the 7th an appeal was allowed as the Council / NSL failed to produce a copy of the PCN.

 

Another ticket was issued after 2 minutes on a single yellow but the driver denies being there and there are no photographs. The appeal was allowed.

 

Another appeal Allowed by Order (do you see a pattern here?)

 

Another appeal allowed where there was a loading bay and double yellow lines which was described as ripe for confusion. The photographs were taken at night and were "very poor" according to the Adjudicator.

 

In one case that was lost the Adjudicator was recommending that the council allow the appeal (the Adjudicator didn't have the power to do so) on the grounds that the penalty was too harsh (but not contrary to the legislation).

 

Another week when the council and/or NSL failed to properly meet the needs of the tribunal and thus less tickets were paid by motorists than would normally be the case.

 

It is clear that it is worth putting in an appeal on any grounds you can think of as there is a strong chance that the paperwork will not be properly dealt with and your parking ticket will be squashed.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS - 28 to 31 August - Bank Holiday Blues

fwaccounting

Monday was a bank holiday. PATAS still listed 16 Barnet Council cases for hearings. 15 of them went the way of the motorist. Possibly the worst week for Barnet Council / NSL since NSL took over on 1 May.

 

Interesting cases.

 

28th - A lady displayed a visitor voucher in her car by 7.30am in the car park in Brent St near Hendon Town Hall. This car park is for Residents. The voucher was missed by the traffic warden. The appeal was allowed because the vouchers say to display in the window nearest the kerb and there are no kerbs in the car park! The traffic warden did not photograph the passenger side window and this was another case where the parking ticket had gone missing from the windscreen of the car.

 

29th - No fewer than 6 appeals were allowed, and the parking tickets cancelled, by Order of the Adjudicator which means that Barnet Council / NSL between them had not produced the necessary paperwork.

 

30th - A motorist appealed as they were helping a disabled passenger (see what a scummy council we have who don't make allowances for those who have suffered misfortune) and the time for setting down must include getting them to their front door (an Adjudicator with compassion and commonsense) and also their shopping which is classed as unloading. In addition the Parking Ticket was not given to them so it was not correctly issued. Why is it that Barnet Council and/or NSL will have read this appeal and turned it down?

 

In another case Barnet Council / NSL were given a 2 week adjournment to produce their paperwork and still failed so the parking ticket was quite correctly cancelled.

 

Banret Council failed to support the issue of a parking ticket in Edgwarebury Gardens by not producing any evidence as to whether it was inside a CPZ or not (they really should know by now). The adjudicator said "the second page of their case summary is confusing and meaningless". Ouch. The parking ticket was cancelled.

 

31st - Three more parking tickets cancelled by Order of the Adjudicator,

 

I can see that the Adjudicator is going to take against Barnet Council soon.

 

As you can see it is well worth your time and trouble to appeal against parking tickets all the way to PATAS.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

Ticket that Ambulance (PATAS cases 20 -25 August)

No commonsense in Camden as well as in Barnet

There were only 12 appeals heard at PATAS in this week and normally the score would be 6 all. As usual, Barnet Council / NSL failed to pull their weight and the outcome was 8 tickets cancelled and 4 upheld.

 

An appeal was successful from an applicant who renewed her permit on 29 April and received it on 3 May. Needless to say on 2 May she got a parking ticket. It was suggested she could have printed the new permit out at home (not everyone has a printer Barnet Council). The council ignored the informal representations that were made which is rude and not businesslike if nothing else. As it happens they issued the parking ticket and the Notice to Owner on 2 May so were guilty of procedural impropriety (or incompetence).

 

There was another case of the parking ticket not being on the car when the motorist got back to it. It is very worrying how often this is the case.

 

Three appeals were allowed by Order of the Chief Adjudicator which usually means there has been a failure by Barnet Council / NSL to produce the necessary paperwork.

 

There was procedural impropriety in another case where Barnet Council / NSL did not produce a copy of the informal appeal letter so the appeal was allowed and the parking ticket was cancelled.

 

A motorist who appealed on the grounds that the lines and/or signs were not proper was lost on the grounds that they were substantially compliant. I don't like this concept of the council's lapses being acceptable but not the ones made by the motorist.

 

One poor chap got a ticket because his car got stranded by snowfall away from home when it was snowing and by the time the roads were clear enough to safely drive on and he could get back to his car he had a parking ticket. The tribunal assumes that in bad weather you will be able to stop what you are doing, your work maybe (air traffic controller, theatre nurse, pharmacist etc) and run off there and then to get your car back. 48hours leeway really should be given after snowfall.

 

An appeal was allowed because the council's / NSL's photographs of signage were unclear and inadequate.

 

One evidently annoyed motorist, Mr M, applied for £1,311 in costs. The case was withdrawn by the council / NSL before the hearing probably in an effort to frustrate the application. It was lost anyway. The council has to have behaved unreasonably before costs are awarded and it is rare.

 

One case had to be refused because there were no valid grounds of appeal but the Adjudicator was recommending the council cancel the ticket because the motorist was looking after parents of 87 & 84 and two young children and also had to drop off their aunt and the lift in her block was broken hence the car was left for a little longer than usual.

 

Finally a parking ticket was issued to a supposedly Heavy Goods Vehicle parked overnight except that it wasn't an HGV it was an ambulance (weights less than 5 tonnes). You would think the traffic warden might have noticed and that some commonsense might well have crept in somewhere along the appeal process but that is not an attribute that is sought when appointing staff to look at parking ticket appeals.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance