London Tribunals - February 2016

In February 2016, there were 162 decisions at the tribunal for Barnet Council of which 85, that is 52%, went the way of the motorist. That is a typical result.

The indivdual decisions were a mixed bag of various topics and the interesting decisions, in the written reports of the traffic adjudicators, all of which led to the PCN being cancelled, were as follows:

Dedicated disabled bays - The Appellant’s wife, a disabled badge holder, parked in what she thought was a disabled bay. The bay had the legend DISABLED and the sign read Disabled permit holder 095 only. She thought that the number referred to a zone as she was unaware that there could be bay reserved for the exclusive use of one particular badge holder. The Appellant argues that the sign is misleading and challenges it.

The sign is not permitted by the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. It does not comply with 661A and its permitted variants – the wheelchair symbol is missing and the word permit replaces the word badge. Neither does it comply with any of the 660 signs or their permitted variants as the word disabled is not allowed. As such the sign must have special authorisation of the DoT, but no such authorisation has been produced. In these circumstances I find that the sign substantially non- compliant.

Footway was actually private land - The Appellant attended this hearing together with a friend who lives in the block of flats she was visiting when this Penalty Charge Notice was issued to her vehicle.

The contravention the Appellant is said to have committed is set out in s15(1) Greater London Council (General Powers)Act 1974 - Save as provided in subsections (3), (4), (7) and (11), any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

The Appellant says that she parked on the pavement adjacent to the access or slip road to the block of flats and this was part of the property owned by the freeholders of the block. Her friend confirmed this.

The council maintain that as the public have access to the area and no proof has been given that it is private land the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.

From the photographs that the Appellant showed me, the area in question is quite clearly part of the block of flats and is an access road or forecourt. Between it and the carriageway is a public pavement broken only by dropped footway for access.

There is another pavement between the access road or forecourt and the block of flats. Whilst the public would have access to it if visiting the block of flats, but for no other purpose
given the public pavement referred to above, it does not make that area into a road other than a carriageway or a footpath.

I allow this appeal as I am not satisfied that where the vehicle was parked was a road other than a carriageway or a footpath.

Bunns Lane Car Park 3 hours free - he allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. Mr. A says that he parked on a Saturday, read the tariff board and believed he was entitled simply to park without payment.

The Enforcement Authority have provided a photograph of the relevant conditions of use plate. There is a box giving the tariffs for the bay. This indicates ‘Saturday 8am-6.30pm Up to 3 hours No Charge/Free’. The Enforcement Authority rely on a statement at the bottom of the box ‘FREE PARKING SESSION MUST BE REGISTERED BY PHONE’. However, beyond the use of capitals this direction enjoys no special prominence.

I regard this as a borderline case. However, having considered the matter carefully I do not feel able to say that the signage was clear and adequate to inform the motorist. Accordingly I allow the appeal.

Crossing the bus lane to access premises - The Appellant's case, which I have heard from him in person, is that having executed a lawful U-turn he entered the bus lane in order to gain access to adjacent premises where he had a pickup to make. The relevant Traffic Management Order contains the usual exemption allowing vehicles to cross a bus lane for
such a purpose. The issue in this case is therefore essentially whether in all the circumstances the Appellant's vehicle would fall within that exemption. The distances are quite short and there seems to me some force in the Appellant's submission that it would be unsafe to require his vehicle to pursue a zig-zag course of leaving the bus lane only to turn back across it immediately.

In my judgement the exemption for crossing does not require the vehicle to cross at a right angle and only at a right angle. There are questions of fact and degree in these cases. The
Council has not provided a copy of the CCTV evidence and in its absence it seems to me probable on the particular facts of this case that the exemption would apply. The Appeal is
therefore allowed.

Signing of the overnight waiting ban - I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the Appellant . The sign shown in her photograph indicating the presnce of an overnight prohibition on waiting for buses and lorries has no application at all to the single yellow line. It is simply the sign required by regulations to be present in every street within a Zone prohibiting overnight parking by HGVs. Motorists are required to be aware of the meaning of legally prescribed traffic signs and must take steps to familiarise themselves with them if
necessary. It also looks as if, given the fact that previous PCNs have been issued, the Appellant ought to have been well aware of the waiting restriction in place whether or not those appeals were allowed.

Nevertheless I take the view that where an issue as to the clarity of signage arises a failure by a Council to follow the recommendations of the Traffic Signs Manual, the official government guidance, inevitably puts the Council in some difficulty . The TSM Chapter 3 Para 12.11 specifically recommends that where there are two types of Zone at the same location a time plate to indicate the waiting restriction should be co-located with the overnight parking sign to avoid possible confusion. In the circumstances I am just persuaded that the signage was not as clear as it should have been and on this occasion the Appeal is allowed. The Appellant, however, should note that she cannot continue to plead ignorance or confusion indefinitely.

Single yellow line across a dropped kerb - This vehicle on the council's case was parked adjacent to a lowered footway.

The vehicle was resting on a single yellow line which runs alongside that lowered footway.

There was no dispute that the appellant had parked outside of the yellow line's hours of restriction.

The appellant submitted that given yellow line restrictions were not in force he believed he could park as he did.

There is both a prohibition on parking at this spot adjacent to the lowered footway AND a waiting restriction at it indicated by the single yellow line.

I was satisfied however having noted the appellant's submissions on the point that the marking of a single [as opposed to a double] yellow line alongside this lowered footway
misleads the motorist into thinking that he can park adjacent to it outside of restricted hours applicable in respect of the yellow line notwithstanding the prohibition that is in place. I was not for that reason satisfied that the prohibition on parking adjacent to a lowered footway at this location was clearly communicated to the motorist and found that the contravention had not therefore been proved.

Keep those Appeals coming. If your PCN is at full value you have nothing to lose by making

an Appeal to London Tribunals once you have a Notice of Rejection at full price (i.e. no 50% discount)

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Patas - w/c 23 June 14 - bus lanes

Another quiet week at PATAS with 1,206 new cases filed of which 50, that is 4%, were the expected amount for Barnet.

65 Barnet appeals were heard and 50 finished up with cancelled PCN so you can see how worthwhile it can be to appeal.

Only 4 things of note:

- someone was loading (possibly a decorator) and a ladder was in a photo taken by the traffic warden which rather confirmed it

- 3 PCN in the Saracens Event Day Zone were cancelled

- a baby being collected was subject to the boarding exemption as they can't walk themselves from the house to the car

- two bus lanes that were 250m apart were treated as one by the adjudicator who did not agree with the council's argument that they had discrete 9i.e. separate) legal status. The adjudicator will only allow one PCN to stand if you go through 2 stretches of bus lane, which is very fair of them.

Have you got a PATAS form? Then fill it in. 

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 2 June 14 - Motorists win 2 out of every 3 appeals

I don't see a man at work?

In this week at PATAS there were quite a lot of new Appeals logged, some 1,308 of them. Of those, 94 emanated from Barnet which is 7% and more than the 4% that there ought to be given that Barnet issue 4% of all PCN in London. This might be the product of issuing too many marginal PCN.

Probably due to being busy with software change quite a number of Appeals were not contested by the council so those PCN get cancelled.

Other notable points were

- The Saracens zone cases are still being cancelled 99% of the time.

- Someone got 2 bus lane PCN in 1 minute and another motorist got 3 in 3 minutes. The adjudicator doesn't usually let more than 1 PCN stand as he/she regards it as unfair.

- A sign which was meant to be, possibly, Mon - Fri only had the abbreviation "Mon" on it so the restriction only applies on Mondays. It wasn't a Monday when the PCN was issued so it was cancelled.

- A kerb on the corner of a road had slipped but wasn't deliberately dropped for the purposes of assisting pedestrians to cross the carriageway. That PCN was therefore cancelled but you will, I hope, all try not to park on junctions in the future.

Remember, once you have a Notice to Owner you have nothing to lose by appealing all the way to PATAS. It costs the council £40 and you nothing except a little time. There are lots of restaurants near the hearing centre at the Angel. You could make it into a day out.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - week of 7 April 14 - no free transfer

your bus lane ticket is not transferable

It has been quiet at PATAS with the number of Barnet cases dropping. This is probably because the council has been busy changing its parking ticket processing software and so haven't been sending out any Notices of Rejection which are accompanied by the PATAS appeal form. This hiatus period might mean that the council have taken longer than 56 days to reject your representations (the challenge you made once you had a Notice to Owner) and if that is the case they have no right to reject you, they have accepted the challenge by default. Do make sure you use this as one of your Grounds of Appeal on the PATAS form (the council will have committed a procedural impropriety so you can tick that box) as well as all the other points you have found. When you sit down at PATAS and the Adjudicator has introduced themselves, and told you in brief how your hearing will proceed, you should raise the delay as a preliminary point and you'll probably find yourself having hardly warmed the seat and on your way back out of the Appeal centre with a grin on your face. You could then apply for costs as the council could be considered to have been wholly unreasonable in not following a law that they know very well.

Anyway, there were 33 PCN cancelled and 23 upheld in the week which is 59% of them won by the motorist.

One case that was lost was a bus lane PCN which was given to a car hire company. They tried to have liability transferred to the driver. They cannot do so, it is in the legislation. It seems like an anomaly as parking tickets can be transferred but the law is the law.

Some of the features of winning cases were:

The council denied receiving an informal challenge when they clearly had and the Adjudicator was unimpressed with a failure of a local authority to tell the truth (as they equally are when a member of the public tries to pull the wool over their eyes).

Not seen very often now in the light of the hammering they were taking but an old PCN slipped through the net from 20 July 12 and won't now see its second birthday as it is cancelled.

A sign was facing the wrong way. You have to be able to see CPZ entry signs as you drive along the road and signs next to a parking bay have to face the road.

More woes in the Saracens zone. This time someone trying to get a permit getting the answerphone machine and didn't get called back. Not just the once either. The PCN has been converted into a meaningless piece of paper now.

The photos taken at night time weren't good enough to show the contravention. A traffic warden could make enough notes to otherwise prove such a case, but they didn't.

In Armitage Road a line painted on the road was found not to be substantially compliant. Lines don't have to be perfect but they should be clear as to the restriction they convey.

I know next week isn't much busier at PATAS but expect numbers to keep rising as you all start to get those latent Notices of Rejection. You know what to do, appeal!

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 22 July 2013

A bus lane but no bus

Another fairly typical week at PATAS led to 39 parking tickets being cancelled ("canx") and 36 being upheld.

 

In a bus lane case from 2012 there wasn't any cctv evidence. I wonder if it has all been stored properly or if room was needed on the hard disks for more recent footage? The problem in this case was also that a Charge Certificate was issued a month after the appeal was scheduled at PATAS and nothing further should have been done for the council. This alone was enough to cancel the PCN.

 

A bay wasn't reinstated after roadworks and so without lines PCNs should not have been issued at that location. PCN canx.

 

A PCN was issued to someone which related to the period before they owned the car. Why that wasn't sorted out without a PATAS hearing is a mystery. PCN canx.

 

In another location the Traffic Management Order that was produced and the local sign were for different times so the PCN was canx.

 

Someone had a sprained ankle and this was found to be compelling mitigation for the cancellation of their PCN. The adjudicator has a heart even if Barnet Council and NSL don't.

 

Near to Tally Ho there is a closed pub which is now a closed restaurant called Googoosh. It looks private with 3 spaces marked out for parking. The council issue parking tickets there but as this motorist had parked there for years without receiving a PCN he had a reasonable expectation he would not be ticketed and so his PCN was canx.

 

In a technical case a motorist parked on the pavement but partly outside of the lines. They were given a PCN for parking outside a parking bay but it isn't a parking bay in this situation so they should have been ticketed for pavement parking. Result, the PCN was canx.

 

The council failed to prove the signage for a 3 hour restriction and so that PCN was canx.

 

The description of some suspended bays was misleading and so the PCN was canx.

 

The adjudicator is getting rather bored with pointing out to the council that the signs in Nursery Walk and the Traffic Management Order do not agree with each other and he keeps cancelling PCN. He has suggested they fix the problem.

 

A case in which the council didn't deal with formal representations at all (they have to respond within 56 days) led to the PCN being canx.

 

I am not sure that enough appeals are being done. Could you appeal every ticket you get please. remember you can appeal 3 times, once informally in response to the PCN, once again on the same grounds when you get the Notice to owner and finally to PATAS when the council send you a Notice of Rejection of Representations. No doesn't always mean no when the council reject your appeal; the adjudicator might say it means yes. There is only one way to find out; appeal!

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

de minimus non curat lex (Trifle to you)



The wrong sort of trifle
(picture: http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1354650/ )

Here is a report from PATAS about the way in which trifling errors can be ignored.

The appellant appeals claiming that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued within a minute of the restriction coming into force and this does not allow for any margin or error in the time. He questions the accuracy of the time of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice. He also explains why his vehicle is seen continuing to wait at the location after the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.

The Authority has produced a copy of the contemporaneous notes and photographs taken by the civil enforcement officer, as well as other evidence in support of the alleged contravention.

The Authority has explained that the time on the handheld machines used to issue Penalty Charge Notices is set by the atomic clock so it is accurate. Nevertheless it is true to say that issuing a Penalty Charge Notice within a minute of the restriction coming into force does not allow for any margin of error. I accept the reason given by the appellant for the vehicle remaining at the location once the Penalty Charge Notice had been issued. In my view the contravention in this case was so minor as to be inconsequential. Therefore I find the principle of the principle of "de minimus non curat lex" applies. This is a legal principle which basically means that law does not concern itself with trifles; so that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

I allow the appeal.

So if you are only an inch out of the parking bay, or only stopped for a few seconds, or travelled less than 20 metres in a bus lane etc or any other trivial offence that only a pedantic council employee (or NSL) would contend was worth paying £110 for, appeal and quote the principle of de minimis!

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance