PATAS - from 1 to 13 December 14 - back to normal

Normal service was more or less resumed in this fortnight with 63 Barnet Appeals to PATAS out of 1876 London wide which is 3.4% (the norm is 4%).

Of the Appeals heard there were 53 in the fortnight and 36 of them were won which is 68% for the motorist so the council seem to be struggling to achieve their aim of always winning and are short even of 50% which is the usual across the board success rate.

Winning motorists included the following cases:

Someone was alighting on crutches which takes time.

A vehicle was taken without consent.

8 cases were not contested by the council (which we haven't seen in bulk for a while)

Someone was unloading to their new home (max 20 minutes probably).

A suspension sign was placed too low.

No evidence that the vehicle had been driven away.

"High Rd N20" was not adequate description for a postal PCN.

In Ridge Rd the bay sign was missing.

A traffic warden managed to see an invalid permit but no the valid one in the same windscreen.

More Appeals to PATAS please.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 24 Nov 14 - Back to over 50% won by the motorist

In this week there were 984 new PATAS appeals logged of which 27, that is 3%, came from Barnet so the council are managing to keep numbers, and thus the fees they have to pay, down.

There were a mere 21 appeals of which 13 led to cancelled PCN.

There was another case of helping an elderly passenger. Time must be allowed by traffic wardens before ticketing.

Someone who was collecting heavy bedding was held to be loading so the PCN was washed away.

In another case the council didn't consider the proof of loading that was provided. They should have and it cost them a PCN.

Time for you to complete that PATAS form and get the numbers up again.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 17 Nov 14 - Council on top

On top of K2

In this week there were 962 new PATAS Appeals filed of which only 30, that is 3%, emanated from Barnet so the council must have accepted a greater number of formal challenges than usual.

There were only 25 actual hearings and of those the motorist only won 10 which is a less than average 40% and is the best week that the council had all year.

The council managed to put two copies of the back of a PCN into evidence, but not the front so that was a case they could not win.

The CEO did not make a note that he had checked the PayByPhone system so that was another PCN beaten.

Signs about unloading were found to not be clear enough in Lodge Lane so that was another PCN cancelled.

Someone picking up their 83 y.o. mother was allowed sufficient time to do so, time which the traffic warden did not give them so the PCN issued by the warden became a waste of time.

In a case that was lost someone inked in the date on the pvc cover of their blue badge as it had faded. That obscured the date on the card itself so was held to not be properly displayed. Never be surprised when the adjudicator plays from left field.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 10 Nov 14 - on the pavement

Numbers have really tumbled. In this week there were only 908 Appeals registered at PATAS (one normally expects to see at least 1,000) and instead of Barnet forming 4% of them they were the cause of just 18 Appeals, which is 2%. The plan to spend less on PATAS fees is, so far, going well.

36 Barnet Appeals were heard (there is a 4 week lag from Appeal to decision) and 18 of them were won, so 50% which is sort of how it should be.

The interesting cases were:

A man sat in his car after a minor accident had his PCN cancelled as not properly issued.

One bus lane PCN out of 3 issued in a matter of minutes had been paid and that was deemed to be sufficient. To split the bus lane into separate sections is frowned upon by most adjudicators who see it as one continuous contravention.

A PCN was photographed laying on the pavement. The traffic warden said the motorist came back and took it off the windscreen where he had placed it and put it on the pavement. He/she didn't have a photo of it on the windscreen and the adjudicator believed the motorist. The PCN is now in the metaphorical bin.

A goods vehicle parked in a loading bay and the driver collected 3 shirts from a dry cleaners. I think they must have been for personal use as loading was not found to have occurred. Had it been the dry cleaning van that would have been OK but the loading was evidently not in the course of business.

The signage in Hutton Grove was found to be too faded so the PCN was cancelled.

A PCN was cancelled as the PaybyPhone system was down on 1 July 14, see PATAS case 2140461807 (you can search using that number here for the full report).

In view of the reduced numbers of Appeals I shall move to fortnightly reports and then to monthly if they keep dropping. If more of you make Appeals I will have more to write about.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS w/c 3 Nov 14 - the tide has turned

The number of new Appeals registered at PATAS was 951 which is at the lower end of the range. Of those cases only 24 were from Barnet which is a mere 2.52% of them whereas (unless PCN numbers have dropped) Barnet usually issue about 4% of all PCN London-wide and so it seems that more challenges and/or representations are being accepted. This is partly because every case sent to PATAS costs the council c.£40 in tribunal fees and it was really starting to hurt. It does mean that if you have an argument you should go to the trouble of writing to the address on the back of the PCN or Notice to Owner or email barnet@nslservices.co.uk which is not advertised but is accepted as a means by which representations can be made.

Due to inbuilt lag of a month, as notice needs to be given of hearing dates, there were 56 Appeals heard. Of those, motorists won 26 which is only 46% and below the magic 50% mark at which motorists, as a group, break even. You need to smarten up your act to get this back up above the 50% mark.

Notable cases include:

The sign on the bay in Regents Park Rd outside the new Sainsbury store has been changed to remove the "no waiting" restriction which was confusing the heck out of everyone especially with a single yellow line through half of the bay. In the same week a different adjudicator didn't find the old sign to be confusing, unlike other adjudicators. You still need to be careful though as there are times when you still cannot park there and free parking is a slender 15 minutes.

The bay markings in Lodge Lane were found to not be clear enough.

The foot way bay markings in Greenway Gardens were found to not be clear enough, thus causing confusion as to where you could put 2 wheels on the pavement.

In one case a motorist paid by credit card within 14 days and the council (NSL) insisted they hadn't and dragged them to PATAS where the adjudicator found that payment had been made. What a waste of time for the poor motorist. I would be making a claim for costs on the grounds that the council had been wholly unreasonable (other grounds are being vexatious or frivolous but they don't apply to this case).

Things have changed people. The council are finally getting their act together at this stage of the game. You will have to work harder to win.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

PATAS - w/c 27 Oct 14 - down, down, down

(Duck) down

In this week at PATAS there were 1,040 new Appeals registered for the whole of London. Of those, only 21 were Barnet cases which is half the number that one would expect as Barnet always used to account for 4% of all PCN issued in London, i.e. about 165,000. Now either Barnet are now issuing far fewer PCN, which does not seem likely, or they have wised up & accept more formal representations particularly on cases they know they are going to lose. By doing this they save £40 per PCN and a whole lot of work.

Of the 59 Barnet cases actually heard motorists won 38 of them which is 64% and that is the statistic which the council will attack next and try to win more of their cases, all of them is their target. You are all going to have to sharpen up.

There were 5 cases of note:

1.   In Woodside Grove there is a time plate missing it seems.

2.   In New Way Rd NW9 the foot way parking bays are too vague to enforce.

3.   A suspension sign was mounted on a traffic cone which of course can be moved by any motorist who wants wants to park where it was placed. In fact the best thing to do would be to place it temporarily in your boot, that would make it hard to enforce!

4.   No proof was provided of when a suspension sign was erected.

5.   No cctv was provided despite a request by PATAS.

Those five PCN were cancelled.

Now you know that more arguments are accepted earlier I expect to see you all challenging more PCN.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 20 Oct 14 - the drop

Numbers didn't drop quite as fast as the above ride probably does but this week saw a sea change at PATAS which must come from a change in policy in September 14 or slightly earlier.

The number of new Appeals registered at PATAS was 1,116 of which only 38 related to Barnet PCN. This is a mere 3% and finally below the norm of 4% as that is the proportion of London-wide PCN that Barnet Council issue. I can only conclude that the council have wised up and decided not to reject representations that they know will be accepted at PATAS and thus save themselves £40 for each hearing. What this means is that it is even more worthwhile to challenge your PCN.

There were 58 hearings of which 37 were won by the motorist (64%) so that statistic stayed good and high. I must warn you though that it will drop as the council get better at sorting out good challenges from bad ones.

Five cases they got wrong in this week, and for which PCNs were cancelled are as follows:

- Two bus lane PCNs were issued at the same time in two different locations. They could not survive as one car can only be in one place.

- Four bus lane PCNs were issued as two identical pairs. Two lived and 2 were cancelled.

- What the motorist displayed as his free ticket was in fact the visa receipt of the previous motorist which must have been left behind.

- The wrong PCN was produced in evidence so the council not only lost but possibly also breached the Data Protection Act.

- A PCN sent by post was not received and thus was held not to have been served. End of game.

Keep those Appeals coming and make sure you have some good arguable grounds.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 13 Oct 14 - go back in time

In the week which started on 13 October at PATAs there were 933 new Appeals registered at PATAS. Of those, 39 related to Barnet which is 4% and for possibly the first time in 2014 that is the percentage that one would expect. The winds of change are definitely blowing through parking.

There were 45 Appeals heard and 30 of them, that is 67%, were won by the motorist.

There were 4 cases worth telling you about. In all cases the PCN was cancelled.

- In the first, the bay sign was hidden by an overgrown hedge. The Adjudicator said "Drivers do not have to inspect the hedgerow" although the level of search required will vary from one Adjudicator to another.

- The PCN was left hanging out of its envelope in the traffic warden's pictures. it had gone when the motorist returned. It was held not to have been served which doesn't happen very often.

- There was a note in the windscreen and a Solicitor's letter in the evidence pack about the vehicle having broken down. (The council really need to be able to work out when the truth is being told and not to default to a sceptical position).

- A PCN from 23 July 2012 finally reached adjudication but wasn't detained for long as this was clearly a dead duck. Councils are meant to get on with it at a reasonable pace.

Keep those challenges coming as Appeal numbers are dropping which must mean that more earlier representations are being accepted.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 6 Oct 14 - rather technical

In the week starting 6 October 14 there were 1,099 new Appeals filed across London. Barnet Council accounted for 5.5% of them whereas they really only should be 4%. The percentage does seem to be drifting down though. There were 52 Barnet Appeals heard and of those some 32, that is 62%, were decided in favour of the motorist.

There were some interesting technical points.

- The formal representations were made by a representative who was not authorised to act. therefore the Notice of Rejection was a nullity and the PCN was cancelled.

- A representative, who was authorised, chased the council three times for the Evidence Pack. As he hadn't got it by the hearing date the PCN was cancelled.

- A motorist stopped to help a traffic warden and got a PCN for his pains!

Mr P has attended and explained having a journey to Enfield where his sister lives on Sunday concerned. He told me about his professional work with children in Camden & Islington. He has explained he himself does not have a motor vehicle of his own but uses his brother's for occasional journeys.

He has explained using the area where he stopped was being used as a cut through. He has stated that he stopped solely on account of their being a pavement argument between a motorist and a pair of patrolling enforcement officers.  Mr P has spoken critically of those officers.

The Council case revolves around the report of its officer giving a physical description matching Mr P's. The officer evidence reports a vehicle driving away after stopping in  the disabled bay.

It is my conclusion that there is insufficient evidence today to prove the Council allegation.  I have recorded this appeal as allowed.

- Observations were recorded in the Evidence Pack as not being continuous. Thus the traffic warden's note "NLUL" (no loading or unloading observed) isn't very convincing as he/she wasn't next to the car to see what was going on.

- The motorist was executing a 3 point turn - not parked, he says. The motorist says he was not handed a PCN, the traffic warden says he was. The adjudicator believed the motorist and cancelled the PCN.

Keep those appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 29 Sept 14 - The great escape

In this week at PATAS there were 1053 new Appeals registered London wide and of those 57 were from Barnet which was 5% and higher than they should be.

38 Barnet Appeals were heard of which 24 were successful which is 63%

There were 4 notable cases.

In one the fact that the motorist had £7 in change available was sufficient to cancel the PCN, the adjudicator not realising that you could have a cash wagon with you but only a phone and a credit or debit card will do.

In another case the absence of proof of bus lane signs was enough to cancel the PCN.

In a third case the council did not respond to enquiries made by PATAS.

These were three great escapes.

The motorist who relied on a passing policeman saying it was OK to park on a Bank Holiday was wrongly advised and lost their Appeal.

Keep those Appeals coming as they seem to be tailing off.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Barnet council have let NSL sow the seeds of dissent by indiscriminately scattering PCN

Barnet's PCNS issued by NSL have sown the seeds of dissent

News from Labour

London Borough of Barnet Labour Group

We’re on your side

For immediate release 

1 November 2014

Huge increase in parking appeals

Figures just released by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) show that the number of appeals against parking tickets issued by Barnet Council has risen by 45% and is now the second highest out of all London boroughs.

In 2013-14, there were 3,470* formal appeals against penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Barnet Council, up from 2,393 in 2012-13.  This is even higher than the 3,235 appeals against PCNs issued by Westminster Council tickets, a borough covering central London and which issues far more tickets. (*Extra fees of approx £40,000 had to be paid to PATAS)

The figures also show that Barnet lost almost 60% of its cases at PATAS, one of the worst records in London. In answer to a question submitted by Labour’s environment spokesperson, Councillor Alan Schneiderman, the Council has revealed that in hundreds of cases it doesn't defend its case and the resident’s parking fines are simply written off.  And in some cases, the Council contests the appeal but then fails to submit any evidence leading to parking adjudicators making an automatic judgement in favour of the resident.

Cllr Schneiderman said: “Barnet has been treating motorists as a cash cow for too long and these figures prove it.  A huge rise in the number of appeals is bad enough but the fact that the Council loses almost 60% of appeals - and fails to defend hundreds of them is proof that too many tickets are unfairly issued.”

“It’s time for the Tories to admit that the outsourced parking service has failed and we should look at bringing it back under Council control.”

Ends.

---

Notes:

1.    The Parking and Traffic Appeal Service (PATAS) considers appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued by all London local authorities.

2.    The appeal statistics for 2012-13 and 2013-14 can be found on the PATAS website: PATAS Annual Report

3.    Council Questions to the Leader can be found on Barnet’s website at: Full council meeting 4 November 14

Councillor Schneiderman’s questions are Nos 8, 38 and 54.

---

Doubtless the council will, as is their wont, blame everyone except themselves.

If:

• they don't properly supervise traffic wardens
• have sufficient resources in-house to monitor the back office
• allow NSL to produce evidence packs and not check them before submission
• have a PCN with defective wording
• have a Notice to Owner with defective wording

etc, etc

then the council really only have themselves to blame.

All I do is share knowledge about Appeals but that gives power to the people.

To reduce the number of Appeals in 2014/15 the council should:

• issue fewer than 165,000 PCN p.a.
• not issue so many marginal PCN
• allow 5 or 10 minute grace periods almost everywhere
• sack NSL

Keep those PATAS Appeals coming, it is starting to hurt the council. It is time to ramp up the pressure.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 22 Sept 14 - voucher confusion

In this week (sorry for the delay, I have been rather busy) of 22 September 14 there were 1018 new Appeals logged at PATAS and Barnet are still accounting for a disproportionately high percentage of them at 6% (59) when they should only be 4% based upon them issuing 4% of London's PCN. More people fight back in Barnet than most places. Well done.

There were 56 Barnet cases decided upon of which 38 (68%) were won. It is well worth your time to argue.

One case that was lost is worth mentioning as subtle wordings makes all the difference. 

Some shops sell "parking vouchers" for 30 minutes, an hour or 2 hours of parking. These can only be used in pay-to-park bays. The motorist parked in a residents bay for which they should have used a "Visitor voucher" as they are described on the council website. 

That distinction would be subtle enough but what if the printed voucher is actual headed "Visitor Parking Voucher"? - with the word "Visitor" having been made smaller since the last reprint,

then the confusion would be understandable and you can see why no-one would turn the vouchers over to read the small print.

Three cases that were won by the motorist.

1.  The council (NSL) refused to cancel a PCN for a cloned car as the owner (for some unknown reason) had not reported the cloning to the police. there is no need. If you drive a red Ford and the cloned vehicle is a yellow Vauxhall then the fact that the car isn't yours is evident. This motorist came from West Midlands to PATAS at Islington so was clearly serious.

2.  A vehicle was driven away before the issue of a PCN. This can be lead to a postal ticket but not if the photos were at 12:14 and the PCN at 12:18. You would expect the PCN to be first and then the photos. Too odd to stand.

3.  A suspension sign was not on the same post as the time plate. How would you see it otherwise?

Keep those Appeals coming. Can we get them up even higher?

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 15 September 14 - clock watching

Parking tickets can be alarming

In this week at PATAS there were 1,022 Appeals logged across London. Of those 54 came from Barnet which is 5% against the 4% they should be.

47 Appeals were heard and 33 of them were in favour of the motorist. I cannot remember the last time that the council won more than 50% and this means that all motorists really should Appeal to PATAS rather than taking up the 50% offer which is there to tempt you into paying. As long as motorists win more than 50% on average it means that motorists as a pool are better off by challenging to the end rather than paying up. You may be the one paying 100% but that is a reasonable sacrifice on your part for the greater good. The council have to pay c.£40 for every appeal to take place so the costs of this tribunal are at least £100,000 for the costs of the hearing centre as well as paying 45p per PCN issued which is another £74,250 p.a. The more that people appeal the lower the incentive for councils to issue PCN like confetti.

There were three cases worth telling you about.

1.  A PCN for code 30 given to a blue badge holder whose time clock was wrongly set (parked for longer than permitted) should have been for code 01 (on a yellow line) as there was no evidence they had exceeded the time allowed.

2.  A motorist was described as a tall white male by the traffic warden. The motorist turned up at PATAS, had an Indian name and probably wasn't white. The PCN was cancelled.

3.  One car was picked out from a line of them in Victoria Road for pavement parking. It is unusual but the lack of PCN on other cars was taken into account when cancelling this one. The decision may not have told the whole story. Keep off the pavement unless you can clearly park there due to a marked bay being present.

Keep those Appeals coming. The PATAS form is the work of a few minutes to complete.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 8 September 14 - school bags

A slightly busier week at PATAS with 1,019 new Appeals being logged for the whole of London. Barnet accounted for 63 of them which is 6% and a lot more than the 4% they ought to be.

70 Barnet cases were decided and 45 of them, some 64%, went the way of the motorist.

There were four cases worth a mention.

1.  A vehicle parked more than 50cm from the kerb was delivering and evidently couldn't reasonably have done the delivery any other way which led to the PCN being cancelled. When parking do make sure that you are fairly close to the kerb.

2.  The PayByPhone system hung up on a caller and their PCN was cancelled. The outcome of this sort of Appeal is very hard to predict.

3.  A motorist who helped their children in to school with their heavy bags had their PCN cancelled. The time spent doing this must be commensurately short.

4.  Pavement parking was found to be vaguely marked in Barnfield Rd and the PCN was cancelled.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 1 September 14 - 50cm

Another quiet week with fewer than 1,000 new cases across London being registered at PATAS, 935 in fact of which 48, that is 5%, were from Barnet. The Barnet share should only be 4% as that is the percentage of PCN across London that they give out. The extra Appeals imply a greater level of unhappiness with PCN issue.

There were 48 Barnet cases heard this week of which 28, that is 53%, were won. That is Barnet Council's (NSL's) best result for some time but is merely a blip as the following week they lose far more cases than they win.

There are 5 things I want to tell you.

Three PCN were upheld as all of the car was more than 50cm from the kerb. This is how double parking is measured (the traffic warden does it by eye though and could easily be wrong) and it now gets used to generate money from untidy parking. You can park badly, although it is better if you don't, as long as a part of your car is within 50cm of the kerb. That might be a corner of the car or a wing mirror (not the door once opened as some wag recently suggested).

A PCN for a suspended bay was cancelled as the Traffic Management Order said it had to be cancelled by a policeman in uniform. It was only in August 14 that the sign in use was authorised by the Secretary of State so challenge all earlier PCN.

The abbreviations used by the traffic warden when giving you a PCN were not explained and so that PCN was cancelled.

Another PCN was cancelled as the informal challenge (the one in response to the PCN itself) was not responded to. In another case, the formal representations (in response to the Notice to Owner) were not responded to and again the PCN was cancelled.

A car was found to have been cloned. A simple factual matter like that should not end up at PATAS.

Keep those Appeals coming. The system is definitely creaking.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 25 August - stolen car

Another quiet week at PATAS as it was one day short due to the Monday being a Bank Holiday.

There were 899 new Appeals filed for the whole of London of which 47 came from Barnet and that is a run rate of 5% which is higher than the 4% they should represent. Something is going wrong in parking in Barnet.

There were only 25 Barnet appeals heard and of those 14 were good for the motorist so they won 56% of the time, slightly above average.

There are 4 I want to tell you about. the first 3 PCN were cancelled, the final one was upheld.

A nurse practitioner won her appeal inside the Saracens zone. The council really should cut district nurse types some slack as they are doing a valuable job in the community.

Another motorist was told on the phone that their PCN would be cancelled. The adjudicator believed them and therefore made the council do what they said they would do. When you phone up a about a parking ticket you are talking to Capita not NSL and only NSL or the council itself can press the cancellation button. I recommend you tape all your calls to the parking line.

NSL excelled themselves yet again. The DVD they sent of a supposed bus lane contravention was for the wrong car.

A man who had his car stolen with the PCN inside it wanted to pay 50% and was denied. What should have happened is that the unfortunate motorist should have phoned up the parking section with his car registration number and asked for the PCN number and then he could have paid it at the 50% reduced rate.

Keep filing those Appeals.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 18 August 14 - Hot & cross

A quiet week at PATAS without any Saturday hearings (best avoided anyway) as the Monday was a bank holiday. 956 new Appeals were filed of which 60 were from Barnet. This is 6% and is more than a fair share which probably reflects the poor quality of the PCNs and of their processing.

There were 58 Appeals of which 39 (67% or 2/3rds) were won by the motorist.

I'll tell you of one lost Appeal and then of 3 that were won.

The one that was lost related to a yellow line on Good Friday. That is, for parking purposes on yellow lines, a normal day. I expect that the motorist was hot & cross at that PCN and the outcome as it isn't necessary to restrict Bank holiday parking.

Three that were won:

In Ridge Road, NW2 the bay markings were found to be very faded.

In the Lodge Lane Car Park the adjudicator was unhappy with the council for having filed 134 pages of Evidence which was said to be overwhelming for the typical motorist. Having given out the PCN for a PayByPhone bay the council fell over its shoelaces by referring to a meter.

A disabled motorist who didn't display their blue badge clock (but did display the blue badge) was OK as there is no stated requirement in the Traffic Management Order for the clock to be on display.

A quiet week and the next one is even quieter. Time to file some more appeals folks.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 11 August 14 - antisocial parking

In this week at PATAS there were 1,027 new Appeals of which 62 came from parking. As Barnet give out 4% of all PCN they shouldn't really be 6% of Appeals.

57 Barnet cases were considered and 34 PCN, that is 60% were cancelled.

There are seven I want to tell you about, the rest being pretty routine.

1. The motorist had not yet purchased the vehicle which had the PCN. How is it that Barnet Council can't settle a simple ownership question without the matter having to go all the way to PATAS?

2.  Some parking right up to, if not slightly over, a dropped kerb was held to be antisocial but not illegal. Please keep back from dropped kerbs so that residents can exit their drives safely.

3.  A motorist was given a PCN whilst reading the suspended bay sign. They are allowed time to read it and then park elsewhere. The council did not have an approved suspension sign until August so appeal all earlier PCN.

4.  There was poor quality evidence to justify sending out a postal PCN.

5.  There were poor quality photos at night. Photos are not obligatory but they do settle a lot of arguments. If there is no other evidence the PCN may well be cancelled.

6.  A motorist was told their permit was on its way. These have been taking months. It isn't good enough.

7.  Barnet said there wasn't an exemption but their own Traffic Management Order said there was. Oops. Don't take what the council say at face value; check it against the paperwork.

Keep those appeals coming. Motorists are winning more than they lose.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 4 August 14 - mind the gap

hard to find a gap here

In this week at PATAS there were 1,073 new Appeals registered of which 65, that is 6% came from Barnet although they should only account for 4%.

Some 69 Appeals were heard of which 40 led to cancelled PCN which is a 58% win rate for the motorist.

There were 4 cases of note which led to cancelled PCN.

- The sign on the Argos loading bay at North Finchley did not reflect the terms of the Traffic Management Order. Mr Mustard suspects that an old one was exhibited.

- In a case in The Drive (Mr Mustard's patch) both CPZ entry signs were not visible.

- a motorist was served a PCN whilst waiting for a gap in the traffic in order to move off.

- the legend "Loading only" was not marked on the roadway (adjacent to a loading bay). That seems to be the case on a lot of Barnet's loading bays

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 28 July 14 - boring

There were 1,056 new Appeals registered at PATAS from across London. 

46 of them came from Barnet which is 4% and the "right" amount.

Only two were of any great interest.

The signs in Lodge Rd were held to be incompatible. I can't work out what they are incompatible with but any PCN there will be worth contesting.

A resident had dispensation and permit problems which are still ongoing now.

Those 2 cancelled PCN were 2 of the 33 cancelled out of the 46 hearings (coincidentally the same number of decisions as new Appeals although decisions are usually 4 weeks behind Appeals).

Thus, 72% of Appeals were won.

Make sure you Appeal all the way to PATAS if you get a PCN in Barnet.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 21 July 14 - Yew Grove

Yew Grove (Leeds Castle)

In this week at PATAS there were 1,155 new Appeals registered. Of those, 55 came form Barnet which is 5% and 11 more than should be the norm.

There were 5 notable cases all of which led to the PCN being cancelled:

- a grace period was over-ridden and even then the PCN had to be sent in the post as the traffic warden could not produce it in time to stick it on the windscreen.

- a yellow line across a dropped kerb inside a CPZ was held to be confusing as it implied that you could park across the dropped kerb outside the CPZ hours and you can't (unless it is your personal access point to one residence).

- the lines in Yew Grove were held to be not clear enough.

- A motorist from Hastings had their scooter registration mark cloned. Why on earth that reached PATAS without the council comparing photographs of the cloned and real scooter is hard to say.

- a PCN was started on 6 seconds after seeing a car which had passengers alighting. Up to 2 minutes would be allowed for able bodied passengers by the adjudicator.

Of the appeals heard there were 55 (coincidentally) for Barnet and 36, that is 65%, were won. It is well worth appealing to PATAS.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 14 July 14 - a maximum break

the maximum break in snooker is 147

There were 1,150 new Appeals lodged at PATAS in this particular week of which 55, that is 5%, emanated from Barnet which is 9 or 10 more than their ought to be given that the council issue 4% of all the PCN in London.

There were three cases of note.

- A traffic warden who claimed that a motorist drove away and then came back to collect his PCN was not credible. the PCN was cancelled.

- A carer who got a PCN whilst in the house collecting the free carer's permit (a person needing care may have more than one carer so the permit is left indoors) was allowed the requisite time and thus the PCN was cancelled. this is the trouble with not having a 5 minute observation period for many contraventions, traffic wardens work on the hit and run basis.

- An adjudicator decided to look at the record of a particular motorist and it turned out that they had got 147 Appeals registered on the PATAS computer (since September 2000) of which 57 had been refused. I think most of those appeals were in the last year or two. Partly for that reason his claim for costs failed. Now it seems that this motorist is very bad at parking but pretty good at making appeals and must be spending a lot of time doing so. You can't say that he is wrong to challenge as he has won 61% of his cases and thus he is better off than paying them all at the 50% rate. He spends his time but gets time to pay.

I suspect that he must be out in the car a lot and takes a chance when he nips in to shops or to see friends. Only he knows what the problem is. It might be that the motorist is anti authority, we don't know but someone ought to find out.

He is clearly costing the borough a small fortune in Appeals costs (about £6,000) and in the time to deal with his appeals.

The council parking manager should study his cases over the last 2 years, find out what the common themes are and then invite the motorist in for a chat or pop round their house for one, over a nice cup of tea. there are mutual benefits to be gained.

Do try and park properly all of you and avoid even one PCN.

There were Barnet 61 PCN that were decided upon in this week of which 41 led to PCN being cancelled, that is 67% or a 2 in 3 chance of winning. You can see it is worth the bother to appeal to the end.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance