So in this particular week at PATAS there were 49 PCN cancelled, 32 that were upheld and 2 upheld but recommended for cancellation all the same. 60% of appeals were upheld.
Atheneaum Road has appeared lots of times for dropped kerb offences. This time the length of the drop was found to be excessive. This may help others with their appeal.
A permit was placed in the "wrong" window but that didn't stop the PCN being cancelled.
The council could not prove the existence of an Event day and so the PCN was cancelled.
One of my favourites, this one:
The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. He denied the contravention and denied receipt of the penalty charge notice. The appellant said that he pulled over in order to programme his mobile phone into his hands free when he saw a CEO in front of his vehicle taking a photographs of his vehicle and he therefore drove off. The appellant states that the next he know about the incident was upon receipt of the Notice to Owner and he therefore telephones Barnet Council to request evidence and was told to pay the PCN as it was "pointless appealing".
There is a direct conflict evidence on this case. However I found the appellant to be a credible witness and am not satisfied that the penalty charge notice was properly issued.
I therefore allow this appeal.
I think that the customer service assistance telephone call should go into the "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" category.
Best to stay out of loading bays unless you are specifically allowed, unless a council officer tells you it is OK.
The Appellant parked in a goods vehicle loading bay in reliance on a disabled badge. The Traffic Management Order for the bay , as is commonly the case, contains no exemption for disabled badge holders and the vehicle was on the face of it in contravention.
Atheneaum Road has appeared lots of times for dropped kerb offences. This time the length of the drop was found to be excessive. This may help others with their appeal.
A permit was placed in the "wrong" window but that didn't stop the PCN being cancelled.
The council could not prove the existence of an Event day and so the PCN was cancelled.
One of my favourites, this one:
The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. He denied the contravention and denied receipt of the penalty charge notice. The appellant said that he pulled over in order to programme his mobile phone into his hands free when he saw a CEO in front of his vehicle taking a photographs of his vehicle and he therefore drove off. The appellant states that the next he know about the incident was upon receipt of the Notice to Owner and he therefore telephones Barnet Council to request evidence and was told to pay the PCN as it was "pointless appealing".
There is a direct conflict evidence on this case. However I found the appellant to be a credible witness and am not satisfied that the penalty charge notice was properly issued.
I therefore allow this appeal.
I think that the customer service assistance telephone call should go into the "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" category.
Best to stay out of loading bays unless you are specifically allowed, unless a council officer tells you it is OK.
The Appellant parked in a goods vehicle loading bay in reliance on a disabled badge. The Traffic Management Order for the bay , as is commonly the case, contains no exemption for disabled badge holders and the vehicle was on the face of it in contravention.
However I see no reason to doubt the Appellant's evidence that she followed the recommendation of the Booklet issued to badge holders and checked the position with the Council; and was informed that the badge provided exemption in loading bays. It is not clear whether the Appellant specifically asked about the position relating to goods vehicle loading bays, as opposed to ordinary loading bays,. or whether it is in fact the case that exemption would apply to one but not the other - a possible source of confusion or misunderstanding. However it seems to me in any event that a Council officer dealing with such an enquiry should volunteer clarification on these issues.
This therefore falls to be treated as a case where the Appellant parked in reliance on incorrect incomplete or misleading information given, through its officer, by the Council itself. The public are entitled to rely on information given by public officials in the course of their duties. It is no answer for the Council to say blithely that the information was incorrect. The Council must ensure that it is correct. Allowing the Council to enforce a penalty in these circumstances would be the equivalent of an abuse of process ; and in such a situation no contravention occurs - see the dicta in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905.
The Appeal is therefore allowed and it is unnecessary to consider the various other procedural points raised by the Appellant.
The Saracens Event Day zone continues to cause trouble.
Mr X submitted that when both vehicles were parked in the late afternoon on Friday 10 May, the sign at Vineyard Avenue did not indicate that the next event day would be 12 May.
The Authority said that the sign was changed on 5 May after the previous event on 4 May. It did not offer any proof of this. On the other hand, Mr X produced photographic evidence that on 22 June, the sign was still showing that the next event day was 12 May, thereby missing out an event day on 15 May and on 22 May itself. The evidence suggested that the changing of signs were unsatisfactory and haphazard.
I am not satisfied that Mr X or his partner were given adequate warning of the event day. I would add that there was in fact no evidence of an event day. I am allowing the appeal.
A medical emergency was given due consideration by the adjudicator, although not by the council.
Mr. B senior is a retired surgeon.
He confirmed that the child in question had the symptoms of meningitis.
Mrs. B must have been at her wits' end when she parked the vehicle to go to the doctor's surgery.
I am allowing this appeal on the basis that these were circumstances beyond the driver's control.
The below adjudication confirms why you should drive away when a traffic warden drops out of the sky (arrives on a scooter)
This is a case in which the Enforcement Authority seek to enforce by means of postal service of the PCN. Where a Civil Enforcement Officer had begun to prepare a PCN for service but the vehicle was driven away before the Enforcement Officer had finished preparing it or before it could be served the Enforcement Authority may serve the PCN by post. However, the Enforcement Authority have failed to provide me with any evidence that the Enforcement Officer had begun to prepare the PCN before the vehicle was driven away and I am not therefore satisfied that they were entitled to serve by post. Accordingly I allow the appeal.
I think you get the idea. Keep on submitting those appeals.
This therefore falls to be treated as a case where the Appellant parked in reliance on incorrect incomplete or misleading information given, through its officer, by the Council itself. The public are entitled to rely on information given by public officials in the course of their duties. It is no answer for the Council to say blithely that the information was incorrect. The Council must ensure that it is correct. Allowing the Council to enforce a penalty in these circumstances would be the equivalent of an abuse of process ; and in such a situation no contravention occurs - see the dicta in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905.
The Appeal is therefore allowed and it is unnecessary to consider the various other procedural points raised by the Appellant.
The Saracens Event Day zone continues to cause trouble.
Mr X submitted that when both vehicles were parked in the late afternoon on Friday 10 May, the sign at Vineyard Avenue did not indicate that the next event day would be 12 May.
The Authority said that the sign was changed on 5 May after the previous event on 4 May. It did not offer any proof of this. On the other hand, Mr X produced photographic evidence that on 22 June, the sign was still showing that the next event day was 12 May, thereby missing out an event day on 15 May and on 22 May itself. The evidence suggested that the changing of signs were unsatisfactory and haphazard.
I am not satisfied that Mr X or his partner were given adequate warning of the event day. I would add that there was in fact no evidence of an event day. I am allowing the appeal.
A medical emergency was given due consideration by the adjudicator, although not by the council.
Mr. B senior is a retired surgeon.
He confirmed that the child in question had the symptoms of meningitis.
Mrs. B must have been at her wits' end when she parked the vehicle to go to the doctor's surgery.
I am allowing this appeal on the basis that these were circumstances beyond the driver's control.
The below adjudication confirms why you should drive away when a traffic warden drops out of the sky (arrives on a scooter)
This is a case in which the Enforcement Authority seek to enforce by means of postal service of the PCN. Where a Civil Enforcement Officer had begun to prepare a PCN for service but the vehicle was driven away before the Enforcement Officer had finished preparing it or before it could be served the Enforcement Authority may serve the PCN by post. However, the Enforcement Authority have failed to provide me with any evidence that the Enforcement Officer had begun to prepare the PCN before the vehicle was driven away and I am not therefore satisfied that they were entitled to serve by post. Accordingly I allow the appeal.
I think you get the idea. Keep on submitting those appeals.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment