PATAS w/c 17 Mar 14 - The low down

The council's appetite for PCN income is constant

Last week at PATAS there were 87 hearings. There were 11 instances of witness statements TE9 which I will ignore. There were 3 cases where the adjudicator couldn't find a legal reason but asked the council to cancel the PCN all the same. That left 73 standard cases of which 47 were won, that is 64% 

Time spent completing a PATAS form is never wasted.

Cases of note, in which the PCN was cancelled unless I tell you otherwise, were:

- one where the photos were too dark to make anything out (you should also deny that the contravention took place as then the only other evidence is the traffic warden's scant notes)

- a time plate that is mounted too low and is filthy in Highwood Hill

- a dropped kerb that was much wider than the entrance (presumably because the part of the drop that leads to a hedge, fence or wall can't be said to be dropped for the purpose of entering a drive)

- 5 cases where the vehicle had been taking without consent

- 2 stolen vehicle PCNs where a crime number was held (why oh why do these ever get to PATAS?)

- a sign too low in Hermitage Lane (realistically it should be visible above the bonnet of a car but it will be a question of judgment by the adjudicator as to whether low is too low or not)

- in their response to representations the council wrote about the wrong hour of restriction so were held to have not properly considered the representations which is a procedural impropriety

- we don't see many now, as they must largely have gone through the system, but there as a PCN from the distant days of 21 July 12. There was a process delay of 6 months 3 days which is just enough to breach your Human Right to a fair trial, when taken with the alleged bus lane contravention being 2 years ago.

- no photo, no tax disc number

- the adjudicator found it unacceptable that any photographs taken more than 5 minutes after the PCN could not be uploaded to the system. this is effect the suppression of evidence to the adjudicator.

- an unclear suspension (they often are)

- PCN not handed to driver as alleged.

- a medical emergency caused an urgent need to use the toilet (you will need proof of your medical condition)

- A traffic warden said it was OK to park there (this sort of claim is hard to prove)

- Saracens zone not proven

Excellent work everyone. Keep those appeals flowing.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.