 |
| well prepared |
This week was busier than the one before with 58 PCN cancelled, 37 upheld and 4 the subject of recommendations to cancel. So a definite 61% cancelled.
There were PCN from 20 July 11, 26 July 11, 19 July 11, 13 July 11, 3 June 11, 17 June 11, 19 April 11 and 21 June 11 all of which were cancelled. At some point the council are going to realise that an old case at PATAS is a waste of £40 (so these 8 appeals lost the council £320) and might just start cancelling them at the formal stage. I think the council have perhaps done a cost benefit analysis and are still making more from old PCN that the motorist pays in a panic when they get a document which is actually well out of time than they are losing at PATAS but that break even point may soon be harder to achieve. If you have a 2011 PCN going to PATAS make sure you appeal on the grounds of a breach of Article 6 of Human Rights Act, right to a fair trial, as you can't remember what you were doing on that day in 2011.
The road markings in Stanhope Rd were too worn to enforce so appeal any ticket you get there if the marking you are on are not substantially compliant i.e. you can't make them out properly.
The photographs put in evidence of signs were too blurred to discern any details from so that PCN was cancelled so always look at the photos on the council website before you pay up.
Where post is left in a communal hallway the presumption of good service of documents is rebutted. The PCN was cancelled.
The council put forward inaccurate and irrelevant points so the PCN was cancelled as that was evidence of the council failing to properly consider representations. They do this all the time so make sure you list all the points you can think of and then when the council fail to properly consider one of them that might be enough to sway the adjudicator.
There were two cases on the question of PCN sent by post after a driver leaves the scene without getting the PCN in his hand or on the windscreen. The question of whether or not a traffic warden had begun to prepare the PCN was considered because he should make some observations first, things like wheel valve positions, the tax disc etc, and the other case held that driving away was not "prevention of service". If a warden looks like he is going to ticket you I would scarper sharpish and argue later.
The bay markings on the footpath in Brunswick Park Rd were in poor condition so the PCN was cancelled.
A description of High Rd was not adequate for a PCN that was not received. When you get the next document, the Notice to owner, you should be able to work out whereabouts you were parked without further enquiry. High Rd is miles long.
Another barely noticeable yellow line, this time in Hodford Rd, led to another cancelled PCN. My readers are getting really very good at these arguments now.
There is something funny with the bays in Wilberforce Rd which are split for no reason. That would be your reason to appeal if you get caught there.
A man came home to find someone else's builders had parked in his drive. Whilst he was getting them out he got ticketed. The council and NSL must have rejected his argument. PATAS didn't.
An estate agent delivering keys (hard to know who to boo the most, the traffic warden or his victim) was held to be delivering, probably because it was part of his job. Dropping keys off at your nan's probably wouldn't be unloading for a private individual.
The Saracens zone got another mauling with the adjudicator saying the council were all at sea. I haven't seen a Saracens PCN survive the adjudicator yet.
I am sure you have the idea if you read this blog. Appeal that parking ticket and do it on time.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment