 |
I am fond of Mr Whippy ice creams, 99's especially
|
So what a week, not the busiest of the year but pretty busy all the same. 99 appeals of which 52 were won, 44 lost and 3 subject to recommendations.
A glazier was loading glass and so had his PCN cancelled. The van really does need to be close to the shop. Another occasion saw 32 minutes without any loading taking place. That case was lost by the glazier.
The notes of the traffic warden said the tax disc was unclear but it was clear and so this cast doubt on the rest of his evidence and the PCN was cancelled.
There was a failure to send a PATAS form when issuing the Notice of Rejection of Representations. This was a procedural impropriety (as stifling an appeal is an unfairness) and the PCN was cancelled.
A loading bay and pay-to-park bays were not clearly demarcated one form the other and this meant the PCN was cancelled as it was easy to slip from one kind of bay into the other without noticing.
Someone delivering toys to Sue Ryder was held to be unloading and their PCN was cancelled.
A PCN that was being issued by a traffic warden who was not in uniform, who turned up in a private car, and was subsequently served by post was cancelled. The traffic warden does not have to wear a hat but the prescribed uniform must be visible and at the very least the words "Barnet Council" and CEO numbers on epaulets should be visible.
A PCN was cancelled for a kind person who was helping an elderly person to get into their car. The NSL appeal clerks must be so heartless that this sort of case gets to PATAS.
Another June 11 PCN was cancelled due to the Human Rights breach occasioned by the delay as was one from August 11.
A nurse unloading equipment for use of a patient at home had her PCN cancelled. Again you wonder if the appeal system is fit for purpose?
The next case is one where it looks to me like Barnet council / NSL tried to craftily hang on to a payment in doubtful circumstances and the adjudicator wasn't having any of it. Here is what the adjudicator said:
The local authority has not sent any evidence and I therefore find that no contravention is proved and the appeal is allowed.
I point out that the local authority sent a Request Form to this Tribunal on 16th May 2013 seeking a de-registration of the appeal.
Mr Y. was not asked to make submissions upon the application. The appeal was closed on 16th May 2013.
It was in my view manifestly in the interests of justice to review that decision at Mr Y's subsequent request and the appeal was scheduled on 6th September 2013. The local authority made no further submissions upon receipt of the scheduling report.
My Clerk reminded the local authority by letter of 7th October 2013 that the appeal was pending.
As no evidence has been provided I allow the appeal
For the sake of clarification I point out that it was manifestly clear from the timetable of events here that Mr Y had made a payment notwithstanding a clearly expressed intention to appeal. There had been a delay in the scheduling of the appeal and the local authority had in the meantime sent a Charge Certificate. I infer from these events that Mr Y. made the payment of £165 because he was under the apprehension that the penalty would keep rising whilst he appealed.
In my judgment the local authority's subsequent application was inappropriate and should not have been made. Once the case was scheduled the local authority would have readily seen that the appeal intention preceded the payment and that the payment was because of the intimidatory nature of the Charge Certificate. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in issuing the Charge Certificate without knowledge of the appeal. Nevertheless its officials ought to have understood the position once the Charge Certificate was voided by the scheduling of the appeal.
There is nothing in either the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the subordinate Regulations which expressly deny a right of appeal to an appellant simply because a payment has been made. The validity of any subsequent appeal form depends upon the perceived purpose and intention of such a payment.
In a case where the driver drove away it was held that the traffic warden had not begun to prepare the PCN. There are a lot of cases like this at the moment with traffic wardens arriving on scooters and saying they have issued a PCN when really they are still observing. One case I know about was 38 seconds from the warden arriving to the car leaving.
There was a second case where Barnet Council / NSL tried to hang on to £165 and lost (and also burnt the £40 cost of the appeal) and the notes are as follows:
The appellant has not attended at the Angel today. The Council was not represented.
The Council has not sent in a file of evidence as required under the rules this adjudication.
That would normally result in me simply allowing the appeal without detailed consideration of appeal points made.
An unusual characteristic to this present case however is the correspondence with Barnet and in particular the request it made to retain the £165 without the dispute proceeding to adjudication.
I have seen in connection with this the Tribunal's response (Mr Reeve's letter dated 18 November 2013) which I accept correctly informed Barnet to proceed with the submission of a case summary etc. in the usual way.
As it has not done so I am now recording this appeal as allowed.
I am directing the refund is the sum of £165 if it has not already done so.
The Saracens Event Day zone was not proven for the umpteenth time. The adjudicator's notes show that the residents of Hendale Avenue had petitioned against the signage (I presume against its inadequacy).
An evidence pack sent to the wrong address was enough for a PCN to be cancelled.
In their case summary Barnet Council / NSL said both that a motorist "did not pay" and that they had "paid late". That doubt left no doubt about the fate of the PCN, it was cancelled.
A motorist who was only a minute going to collect a visitor voucher and then driving away because the householder didn't have one had his PCN cancelled as the time spent was reasonable.
A Charge Certificate issued after the PATAS appeal had been filed led to the PCN being cancelled as it is, in the circumstances, an unlawful demand for money.
A motorist who was unloading £300 of goods from IKEA (too heavy for me to lift) had their PCN cancelled under the unloading exemption.
The location of 2 suspended places was unclear and as ever ambiguity is construed against the instigator i.e. the council's PCN was cancelled.
An enquiry was treated as representations thus depriving the motorist of the possibility of making formal representations. The council has now been deprived of the PCN income.
A single wheel only partly over a bay line in a car park was held to be "de minimis" i.e trivial and the PCN was torn up.
One of my favourites. The council claimed that when it wrote that the PCN "was attached to windscreen" when they were claiming service by some other method was a "grammatical error". Adjudicators are all solicitors and barristers and don't stand such nonsense. The PCN was cancelled.
What a lovely week. Well done everyone. Keep those appeals rolling in.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment