The number of appeals won at 35 out of 55 gives us a percentage success rate of 63.636363...% a recurring number. there were some appeals that looked like recurrences of earlier ones.
There were two PCN from 4 June 11 and 15 April 11 which fell foul of the Human Rights Act as has every other 2001 PCN in 2013 once the point is raised with the adjudicator.
There was a failure to consider informal representations. That was held to be a procedural impropriety.
The council produced the wrong PCN in evidence. Whoops, the real one was then cancelled.
The council took yet another kicking on the Saracens Event Day zone where they have repeatedly written to motorists telling them they should check the internet before they set off. This is what the Adjudicator said
"The Council says in its case summary that it is the motorist's responsibility to familiarise themselves through the internet with the days on which events are taking place. In my view, that is an absurd proposition. It is the responsibility of the Council to properly sign event day restrictions."
"The Council says in its case summary that it is the motorist's responsibility to familiarise themselves through the internet with the days on which events are taking place. In my view, that is an absurd proposition. It is the responsibility of the Council to properly sign event day restrictions."
Someone proved they had paid, why couldn't the council find their money rather than make them go to PATAS to get their PCN cancelled?
Someone else was in the process of paying. If traffic wardens are going to issue parking tickets starting from the second that you get out of your car to look at the sign and get your phone out it is simply unfair but that is what they do sometimes.
Someone else didn't have the necessary vouchers because of a printer problem. Mr Mustard knew about this problem, resident permits weren't issued for at least a week. Why on earth the council hasn't got printer maintenance on contract (it probably has, perhaps a spare part had to come a long way) to avoid this sort of problem is one question. The second is why the council don't make allowances for the problems they themselves cause?
Paying by cash near to where you park has been trouble ever since the bonkers decision was taken to remove cash parking meters. Here is a case that may help you if you have got caught without your phone and didn't know where the nearest paypoint or voucher shop was. These are the adjudicator's comments:
The Enforcement Authority has referred to alternative means for payment being possible at either a Council pay-point outlet or by purchasing a parking voucher from a retailer in accordance with details stated "on the sign post where the pay by phone sign is situated."
According to the Appellant, the relevant sign referred to in the Enforcement Authority's evidence was located on the other side of the road to where she had parked. This informative sign was not visible in any of the other photographs provided by the Enforcement Authority of the sign at the location at which the Appellant had parked, and I have therefore concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, it was not there.
I consider that, whilst not part of the signage required under the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, the additional informative sign is an essential requirement to convey to the motorist the various methods of payment available. I find that the Enforcement Authority had failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to take such steps as are necessary to secure that adequate information as to the effect of the relevant parking regulations was made available.
The alleged contravention cannot be enforced and I allow the appeal.
According to the Appellant, the relevant sign referred to in the Enforcement Authority's evidence was located on the other side of the road to where she had parked. This informative sign was not visible in any of the other photographs provided by the Enforcement Authority of the sign at the location at which the Appellant had parked, and I have therefore concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, it was not there.
I consider that, whilst not part of the signage required under the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, the additional informative sign is an essential requirement to convey to the motorist the various methods of payment available. I find that the Enforcement Authority had failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to take such steps as are necessary to secure that adequate information as to the effect of the relevant parking regulations was made available.
The alleged contravention cannot be enforced and I allow the appeal.
Finally someone was held not to have been next to a dropped kerb. The council tend to issue a PCN first and argue later if your overhang is marginal or even non-existent.
Come on then. It is 2014. Your New Year Resolutions are to not get parking tickets and, if you do, to appeal every parking ticket you get all the way to PATAS. Easier than losing weight or getting fit.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment