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