On Monday, Barnet Council / NSL stormed out of the blocks and raced into a 11 - 6 lead but they are evidently sprinters in a long distance race as on Tuesday the public pulled level with an 8 - 3 result and then put clear ground between themselves and the council with a 10 - 5. Two more good days for the public followed with the council making up some ground on the Saturday with a 9 -3 drubbing but it wasn't enough with the final score being 46 PCN cancelled, 34 upheld and 9 recommended for cancellation. As we stand that is 58% cancelled.
Less routine cases included one where the traffic warden put "refused by driver" in his notes and then the council / NSL continued to chase the PCN as if it had been served. That is not correct behaviour.
A PCN from 15/9/11 has now been cancelled as it should have been last year sometime.
Someone with half a wheel over a dropped kerb was technically in the wrong but the council have been asked to cancel. Let's see if they do.
Someone misused the TE9 procedure (the one where you swear that you haven't received something). They are now paying £231. It would have been cheaper to pay the PCN itself.
A PCN from 24/6/11 has also been cancelled. If you have a similar PCN make sure you point out the age to PATAS and Article 6 of the Human Rights Act about the right to a fair trial which is not possible after this delay.
The council presented wholly insufficient evidence to PATAS which led to the inevitable cancellation.
Someone drove away and so hadn't been served and the PCN was not served by post so this led to a cancellation.
The traffic warden failed to see the Visitor Voucher in a side window so that PCN got the chop.
Customer services wrongly advised a motorist about the Saracens zone so his PCN was sin binned.
There was a failure to consider informal representations. A no nonsense adjudicator saw that as reason to cancel a PCN (not considering them is at the very least impolite).
A traffic warden put "driver not seen" in his notes but the council's photographs show the driver remonstrating with him! Guess what, that PCN is now invisible.
It seems that the Bunns Lane Car park has various complicated sectors. The adjudicator even thought about making a site visit but as the council hadn't provided a clear overview he though better of it, saved the cost of the trip and the cost of a PCN for the motorist. If you know anything about this car park please add a note in the comment box.
In Gervase Rd (coincidentally there is a letter about this road in the local Times newspaper)
the footway markings were held to be unclear by the adjudicator so if you get a PCN in this road, appeal it all the way to PATAS.
A Saracens Zone PCN was cancelled. I don't think I have yet seen one survive the adjudication at PATAS.
Someone made an error with their blue badge but because they could show that they were elsewhere and couldn't possibly have been parked for 3 hours their PCN was cancelled. This is the first time I have seen this so worth proving where you were if this applies to you. No guarantees though as you will have wrongly set the clock.
It looks like NSL are still back up to their old tricks. A man who was visiting his daughter parked slightly across her drive and had, at the very least, implied permission. Arden Rd is not inside a CPZ so a dropped kerb should only be enforced if the householder phones and requests it, which was not the case here. Why this motorist got dragged all the way through the process to adjudication at PATAS and why the council want to waste £40 on PATAS fees are worthwhile questions.
Seven parking tickets to one person from May 11 were the subject of a recommendation to cancel. Let's see if they get cancelled.
Now, leaving aside the 9 cases subject to recommendation which are as yet unfinished, there were 80 hearings at £40 each so Barnet Council paid out £3,200
If everyone pays up within 28 days, they will get in (assuming a quarter of the contraventions were at lower rate) 26 PCN at £110 and 8 at £60 = £3,340 so a net gain of £140 for a mountain of work.
If I was Barnet Council parking management I would be looking at why so many cases are allowed to go forward to PATAS that are obvious no-hopers and more appeals should be allowed in response to formal representations. NSL Ltd are left to send them directly to PATAS. Perhaps they should go via the council?
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment