PATAS - w/c 23 Sept 13 - Chaotic

 

In this particular week there were 63 appeals of which 35 were allowed or 55.5555555555%

 

Let's call it 56%

 

The very first case of the week was a "do not contest". The council often throw the towel in at the last minute and waste their £40 fee. Luckily no-one, as in a resident, was on their way to the hearing centre for it.

 

There was the usual argument about whether a PCN was handed to the drive or not. this time the driver was believed.

 

A typical case about the time it takes to collect a visitor voucher. Again the motorist was believed.

There was a reasonable expectation that footway parking is allowed in Rectory Lane due to years of it not being enforced. We really are entitled to clarity in this area.

 

The Saracens Event Day saw Barnet Council fail to get over the try line as they can't prove which days are event days.

 

Here are the adjudicator's comments about a September 2011 PCN

 

This contravention occurred on 22 September 2011. The appellant complains that the first correspondence she received from the council in regard to this matter was on 5 April 2013.  I have read the chronology of proceedings given by the council in its case summary it submitting that it has complied with all statutory requirements in its handling of this case but this allegation is now more than two years old and noting the delays that have occurred particularly that between the issue of the first notice to owner on 31 October 2011 and the charge certificate on 5 April 2013 I have concluded given its staleness that to allow enforcement to proceed would be oppressive and prejudicial to the appellant's conduct of her appeal. I do not for that reason find the contravention proved.

 

In a PayByPhone case there was no evidence form the Verrus system. That played against the council.

 

A bay in Ballards Lane was oddly marked and it wasn't clear the motorist was outside the bay. The PCN was cancelled.

 

The council quoted a 2003 Act about dropped kerbs but it was S86 Traffic Management Act 2004 so the council lost.

 

The council failed to deal with representations properly. That is not unusual and is a procedural impropriety so the PCN was cancelled.

 

The council failed to supply the cctv for a bus lane offence so their case was lost.

 

The council said there was no attempt to pay but their clearly was. There clearly isn't a PCN any longer.

 

There were two cases about footway parking in Barnfield Rd where the bays are not properly signed so the PCNs were cancelled.

 

More footway parking in Gervase Rd.

Mrs S. took a point about the reduced penalty because she made informal representations but had not received a reply. She also took issue with the signage at the location.

Mrs S. accepted that her vehicle was partially on the pavement. She said however that pavement parking is allowed on Gervase Road. The Authority did not disagree as such. It said that the vehicle was not in a pavement bay.

Mrs S. says that the signage at Gervase Road is chaotic. There are upright blue signs which indicated that parking partially on the pavement is permissible. These signs do not refer to bays. There are then full pavement bays and partial pavement bays. One confusion is therefore whether one should park fully in a full pavement bay when the blue upright signs require motorists to park partially on the pavement.

In any event, the Authority has not provided any evidence of signage that says that vehicles must park in bays, nor has it provided evidence to show that the upright signage has clearly indicated that pavement parking is not allowed at the exact location.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

 

Quite a quiet week overall but still lots of hope for those who persist and appeal through all 3 stages.

 

Keep those appeals coming.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance