The week of 25 February was a good one for the motorist and a pretty bad for the council which we also have to pay for. There were 97 appeals which cost £42 each so around £4,000 was paid out and 27 tickets worth either £60, £110 or £130 a time will be payable (although not necessarily paid) so using £110 that would be about £3,000 coming in. The council need to look at the way in which NSL are careering about the borough looking for vehicles to ticket. More and more people are starting to appeal.
In the year ended 31 March 12 there were 1,409 parking appeals to Patas, and 79 for bus lanes, out of 150,000 PCN issued so approximately 1% of parking and bus lane tickets end up with an appeal at the PATAS stage. The week of 25 February saw 3.36% of an average week's parking tickets appealed which is an indication to me that all is not well with the issue of parking tickets. As the number of appeals rises the pressure will mount on the parking budget and more and more desperate parking tickets will probably be issued to get the numbers up.
23 of the appeals did not result in a hearing either because the evidence pack was not provided or because the council threw in the towel at the last minute. If you have a good case don't be put off by the council and/or NSL bluffing and blustering, hand on to the end and you might get a pleasant surprise.
Some notable cases:
The Appellant thought he had paid for parking his car, but it turned out that he had paid for his wife 's scooter (not me in case you were wondering) which had been parked and paid for in Westminster previously. It would appear that the same company operate the pay by phone parking for this Enforcement Authority and Westminster. As far as I am aware payment for parking in motor cycle bays is only required in Westminster.
The Appellant's complaint is that he had no reason to believe that the two Enforcement Authorities had a connected payment system (combined account) . I am aware that in Westminster the default system is that where there is more than one vehicle registered the last one paid for is the default vehicle when the next payment is made. So I assume that here as the last payment on this combined account was for the scooter in the area of the other authority, then that was the default vehicle.
However, unless clearly warned to the contrary, a person registered to pay by phone in this Authority would not expect transactions in other authorities to have any bearing. To this extent I agree with the Appellant. The Enforcement Authority have not produced any warnings or information given to users about the combined accounts. Whilst I imagine any automatic system may have announced the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle being paid for, that would not be sufficient given the assumptions against a combined account the motorist would have. To that extent the payment for the wrong vehicle was a systematic fault rather than the Appellant's.
In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.
So you use the hated pay-by-phone system in other places, be careful.
She does not dispute where and
when her vehicle was parked. She says she was displaying a disabled
person's badge. It is common ground that if she was the contravention
cannot be said to have occurred. The Authority has not provided me with
any notes from the Enforcement Officer on that point but asserts that a
note was made that no badge was seen. Four photographs have been
produced but they are of such very poor quality as to be wholly
uninformative.
On the other hand Mrs. G has maintained the same account from the outset. She is a Barnet resident and the Authority does not dispute she holds a Blue Badge. This was an incident at about 17:22 on a late November evening. The natural light must have been poor or non-existent. On balance I accept the Appellant's account and find the contravention did not occur. Accordingly, I allow the Appeal.
On the other hand Mrs. G has maintained the same account from the outset. She is a Barnet resident and the Authority does not dispute she holds a Blue Badge. This was an incident at about 17:22 on a late November evening. The natural light must have been poor or non-existent. On balance I accept the Appellant's account and find the contravention did not occur. Accordingly, I allow the Appeal.
Parking tickets without photographs or with blurred photos and vague notes were cancelled.
There is a redundant dropped kerb in Hamilton Rd and so the parking ticket was cancelled. If you get ticketed for parking across a dropped kerb which seems to have no good purpose then appeal it.
A redundant disabled bay which had been painted over and a proper CPZ bay not put there to replace it led to a cancelled parking ticket. Is there a redundant disabled bay put in for a particular resident who no longer lives there? if so, you can ask the council to remove it.
Don't panic, a nice traffic warden will help you?
The appellant appeared before me. She was in a very emotional state. She said that she had just come from a very difficult appointment at the Paediatric department from Barnet hospital and there were serious issues with her baby and she was she was so overwrought and having a panic attack that she stopped for a few minutes on the yellow line and got out of her vehicle to get some fresh air and calm down.
She had seen as sign on an earlier part of the road showing parking restrictions ending at 6.30 and did not expect that there were different restrictions in force at the location where she came to a stop. She stated that the sign shown in the photographs were a considerable distance from her vehicle and you could not see it as it was camouflaged by trees. She further stated that the CEO even saw the appellant and how distressed she was standing near the vehicle and yet still proceeded to issue a penalty charge notice.
I accept what the appellant says and believe that appellant stopped as a result of having a panic attack and am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur.
I have therefore allowed this appeal. (The sensible and human decision).
Another dropped kerb non-problem:
There is no dispute that this vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb outside the appellant's address she stating that she shares that address with a Mr D.
Parking adjacent to a dropped kerb is prohibited but an exemption is available where a vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the constant of the occupier of those premises - other than where a driveway is shared (which I am satisfied on the appellant's photograph of it this driveway is not).
The appellant seeks to rely upon this exemption.
She submits that she had the permission of her joint occupier, Mr D, to park her vehicle as she did. Mr Dredge has written in support. I acknowledge the council's point that no evidence has been supplied to show that Mr D lives at this property but I am prepared to accept that he does and that he consented to the vehicle being parked as it was and am satisfied on the appellant's case that she may claim the benefit of the exemption claimed.
Well done everyone. remember keep appealing, 3 times for every ticket.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
|
No comments:
Post a Comment