PATAS: has Barnet Council modelled itself on Barnet FC

http://www.barnetfc.com/club/history/

Oh dear, I see that Barnet FC managed to lose again at the weekend, this time by a score of 4-1.

 

On Tuesday 2 October, Barnet Council had 5 cases listed for hearing at PATAS and NSL failed to submit evidence packs, a bit like not turning up to play at all, although the pitch was ready and the referee (adjudicator) had remembered the time of kick-off and so the score was 5-0 to the motorist. If the team has turned out the most likely score was 3-2 in either direction.

 

What else happened that week. On Monday 1st the score was 8-3 to the motorist and 6 cases were awarded to the motorist because of the lack of evidence from Barnet Council / NSL.

 

One sad case was where a young man borrowed his mum's car and simply texted the location number on the sign plate as instructed because he thought it was a premium rate number. The Adjudicator said he did not give the matter enough deep thought. As the detailed instructions were on the other side of the pole then I have some sympathy for the young man as the time plate does not tell you that there is a second sign on the other side of the pole and being narrow it isn't obvious. The young man has learnt an expensive lesson; not that parking is a tricky matter but that Barnet Council are slippery devils. They could have let him off a first contravention as he is unlikely to make this mistake again.

 

Another case concerns being parked more than 50cm ( 19 inches ) from the kerb. This offence is to stop double parking but it gets used to penalise sloppy parkers. There were no photographs or a sketch so the parking ticket was cancelled.

 

More trouble with pay-by-phone in the Bunns Lane car park as the charge was paid after the ticket was issued and the motorist doesn't appear to have made much of a case out so they lost. When appealing you need to provide a clear and comprehensive case.

 

In a case in Hodford Rd the motorist did not see the sign for their bay so used the one from the other side of the road which is a sure fire indication that the motorist wanted to pay for parking and has acted in a fair and reasonable manner. Not so Barnet Council who have put this motorist to time and inconvenience and made them go through 3-6 months of stress. The adjudicator found that the sign for the bay used was not well located and the siting was not for any obvious reason.  The parking ticket was cancelled. Barnet Council should agree to cancel tickets in reasonable circumstances like these rather than fret about the Special Parking Account being short.

 

On the Wednesday there was just one appeal and again the evidence pack was not produced so the parking ticket was cancelled.

 

The Thursday was one of the very rare days since 1 May when NSL took over when the score was in favour of the council, 3-2. It shouldn't have been.

 

The first case was where a motorist with a dispensation received a parking ticket. This must have been a postal hearing as the adjudicator said it should have been produced by the motorist. Well you don't get an actual piece of paper so you can't produce it but the motorist was not present to tell the Adjudicator that. The council should have been asked to confirm that a dispensation had indeed been issued and the ticket should have been cancelled.

 

A claim to have been loading was lost as no evidence was produced. A better prepared case might have succeeded.

 

There was uncertainty in the next case that the PCN was indeed given to the driver so the parking ticket was cancelled.

 

A case was lost for parking on double yellow where the kerb was marked with no unloading blips. Blips are short lines across the kerb. Even with a blue badge you are not likely to win this one. Don't park on double yellows. Picking up and putting down passengers is fine but don't hang around.

 

On the Friday there was only one listed case. NSL did not produce a copy of the parking ticket so it was cancelled.

 

The final tally was 17 to the motorist and 6 to the council / NSL. Another trouncing thanks to a poor effort by the council / NSL.

 

Will Barnet Council get relegated. It looks bad at the minute.

 

Will NSL get the sack. Boy do they deserve it. Parking should be kept in-house. It, along with dustbins and recycling, are the most frequent point of contact with the council; they are the human face of the council. Thus, the staff should be carefully chosen for their skill to do, in the case of parking, a difficult and unpopular job. They should not be chosen on the basis that they are prepared to work for the miserable sum of £8.20 per hour.

 

Keep sending those appeals to PATAS as it costs you nothing and each one costs the council £46. If you have already lost the chance to pay at the 50% rate you have nothing further to lose.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS - end September: 21-7 to public

Serbia beat GB 21-7 at water polo in London 2012 Olympics

So here we are at the end of of the fith month of the contract with NSL and you would really expect the contract to be running sweetly by now. If it was the score out of 28 appeals would be about 14 each but the public are stll giving Barnet Council / NSL a good seeing to.

 

Let us run through the week as usual and highlight any useful cases.

 

Monday 24. The first 3 cases were allowed by Order of the Adjudicator. This is for lack of evidence.

 

The next case was allowed because the signage was inadequate - plenty of that in Barnet.

 

Another case was refused as the motorist had put the wrong registration number into the system. A genuine error like that should not cost £60. You don't even get your parking charge back but I think people should write and ask for it. Once the council have extra work to do they might start to make less miserable and mean decisions. Imagine if senior management had to pay £60 for every mistake they made; even their excessive salaries wouldn't cope.

 

Another case was quite interesting as it centred on whether the 2012 or 2013 permit was showing in the car windscreen. Now let's think about this, there is no doubt that the resident had renewed their permit and all we are arguing about is whether it arrived on time and/or was displayed on time. Now that its what I would call a minor technical point (sounds like pettifogging bureaucracy) , the resident has done what is required of him/her and paid for their permit. They should not then have to go through a 3 stage appeal process to avoid payment of a fine that should have been cancelled as soon as it was seen that the permit had been renewed.

 

Two more cases of allowed by the Adjudicator.

 

The final case concerned pavement parking. It is allowed in part of the street that not the section that the motorist chose. Fair enough, your appeal failed.

 

Tuesday 25. Another appeal allowed by Order.

 

The rejected appeal is an interesting one. It concerned an out of date permit and was lost because there is no legal requirement to send a reminder, per Barnet Council (or NSL on heir behalf). That looks like it was due around the end of April a time when it is known that something went wrong with the reminder system and they were not issued. It is also custom and practice that the council send reminders and PATAS should have also been told this by the council. It is normal in court cases to have to disclose all material in favour of and against your argument. In my view the council / NSL have been less than honest in continuing with this case. If you get a ticket like this refer to custom and practice and that you were relying on the council.

 

What the council have done is profit from their own incompetence which is somewhat unsatisfactory.

 

Wednesday 26. Five appeals were allowed because the documentation pack was not produced by Barnet Council / NSL. On the sixth case the authority ( i.e. Barnet Council / NSL ) submitted a Do not Contest form on the day of the hearing. The applicant arrived for the hearing and this can only be because no-one from Barnet Council / NSl had the good manners to tell the motorist. What excuse can there possibly be for a public body to treat a citizen so badly (this is not the first time that this has happened and is contemptible behaviour. The motorist has lost half a day of their life and been put to expense.

 

Thursday 27. Eight cases. Four won / four lost.

 

The first case was allowed by Order.

The second concerns a civic minded person delivering donations to Barnados and as he has more readers than me I am telling Mr Mustard about this case and I hope he will blog about it this week.

The third concerned a person who tried to pay by phone and it didn't work and they were unable to speak to a real person. The photograph supplied by Barnet Council / NSL was after the event and you couldn't read the dign in it. There were no contemporaneous photographs. The appeal was allowed (must have been an easy decision).

In the next case and old gentleman working in his fruiterers was bit slow to unload his fruit and the traffic warden says he observed the vehicle for 6 minutes but the Adjudicator said he should have been given more leeway in view of his age. Older people everywhere note this for your appeal. The adjudicator is more human than the council.

The next case was a ticket issued on a single yellow line opposite Angelo's in the High Rd at Whetstone (just south of B&Q - I have eaten there, it is really good). Why does the council enforce on Bank Holidays? not just for the money surely?

The next appeal was lost as the motorist thought they were on private land and they were on the road. OK.

Case 7 was a motorist who said they were not on a yellow line but there are photographs. He lost. He was unlucky that he was one of the appeals that the council / NSL did manage to get their act together for. You did cost the council the £46 cost of the appeal though thus reducing their profit.

The final case was for being parked on the crossover section of the highway and although if the grass verge is wide enough for a car to park and not block the pavement or the road the council are still precious about it even though that piece of land is effectively yours to use alone.

 

On Friday 28 two appeals were allowed, one by Order. The second case related to an expired permit and the motorist had been told of the software failure by Barnet Council so why, when they knew of this failing, did they not simply cancel the parking ticket. The motorist attended the hearing and Barnet Council / NSL had failed to produce all of the appeal documents and that is why the appeal was allowed.

 

Saturday 29 was a lovely case. The motorist had paid by phone. They had been at a medical appointment. They came back to their car and felt a bit wobbly. They ran 2 minutes over on the time paid for. A warden wandered up, had a chat and said not to worry. Later, a parking ticket arrived in the post! I can feel the burning injustice from here. How mad would you be. Next time a traffic warden offers you something, get them to write it down or tape them on your camera phone.

 

Overall a good week for motorists and a bad one for Barnet Council / NSL.

 

Keep banging those appeals in.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS - 17 to 22 September - another drubbing

This cute pig is picture 22-6.jpg

Yes, the score this week at PATAS was Barnet Motorists 22, Barnet Council 6. Another right drubbing for the council / NSL. The predicted score in a 28 goal game is 14 apiece.

 

Monday 17th saw four parking tickets cancelled by the Adjudicator for lack of evidence. The two refused appeals were of someone parking on the part of the crossover which leads to their property but that is still the road which seems harsh as they are out of the way. In future they will drive all of the way in. The other lost appeal was someone who claimed to have permission to park across the dropped kerb (which is OK outside of a CPZ) but they didn't produce a letter. Do so next time and you should be fine.

 

Tuesday 18th saw an appeal allowed whereby a Business Permit was displayed in a bay that said it was for Permit Holders (presumably just residents but signage must be clear and unambiguous). The council's evidence was uncertain hence the finding in favour of the motorist.

 

Another appeal was allowed that day where the motorist said they displayed a Visitor Voucher and the traffic warden did not photograph the sides of the vehicle despite claiming to have observed for 12 minutes.

 

The only lost case was withdrawn by the motorist who had parked across a dropped kerb.

 

Wednesday 19th was not the finest hour of Barnet Council / NSL. There was what was described as a catalogue of errors of dates and times. An email was even sent to an incorrect email address. Such incompetents.

 

Another bad case that day (except for the motorist) was because the council / NSL submitted evidence about the wrong car to PATAS. They were described as too quick to issue a ticket to a man getting a voucher from a house (I think we have all heard similar stories) and dates were described as all over the place.. The Notice of Rejection was sent after the 56 days were up. The council / NSL get 56 days in which to deal with formal objections. If they fail, you win. Keep on banging those formal appeals in, the ones you send in response to the Notice to Owner.

 

On Thursday 20th three parking tickets were cancelled by Order of the Adjudicator and another one because there were not enough photographs.

 

Friday 21st was a complete washout. Five parking tickets were cancelled by order of the Adjudicator. Barnet Council and NSL between them are a disaster.

 

Finally on Saturday 22nd two appeals were allowed by Order of the Adjudicator and one more because the Adjudicator was not satisfied that the parking ticket was properly served.

 

What this litany of woe tells you is that it pays to do the paperwork for the 3 appeals which may be necessary to get your parking ticket cancelled.

 

An informal appeal where you ask for the ticket to be cancelled.

 

A formal appeal which can simply repeat the reasons you gave earlier.

 

If that is rejected it costs you nothing to appeal to PATAS so why not give it a go. You have a 50% or more chance of winning (78% won this week)

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS: 10-15 September 12.

15 to 3

This week's PATAS score was 15-3 to the motorist whereas in a typical week it would be 9 all. Thus the council lost 6 more cases than one would expect.

Monday started with a case being allowed by Order of the Adjudicator which simply means that Barnet Council / NSL failed to submit the necessary paperwork.

An appeal was allowed because the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) or parking ticket was dated 5 June 12 but supposedly served on 25 March 2012. Is this a new One Barnet efficiency saving; why not send every resident a parking ticket for the year ahead with their council tax demand?

In another case the council didn't submit a copy of the PCN or any photographs but because the applicant (the motorist) didn't show Barnet Council / NSL were believed. The opposite could have been the case if the applicant had turned up.

 

On Tuesday 11th the council threw in the towel that very morning according to PATAS, which suggests a complete lack of planning and organisation on the part of Barnet Council / NSL.

 

On Wednesday 12th there were four appeals which were allowed by Order of the Adjudicator. Four happy motorists, four more examples of incompetence.

 

The fifth case that day is as disgusting heartless as only a local authority can be. It concerned a passenger with cerebral palsy. a dropped kerb and a single yellow line. No quarter was given by Barnet Council but with their usual, or NSL's, usual level of competence on display the Notice of Rejection quoted the wrong legislation so that = procedural impropriety. The adjudicator took a commonsense view and allowed the appeal as the lines/signs were confusing and misleading.

 

On Thursday 13th four appeals were allowed. Three of them were by Order of the Adjudicator. The other one related to parking in a suspended bay but the evidence was uncertain so the motorist got the benefit of the doubt.

 

On Friday 14th there were 3 appeals allowed by Order of the Adjudicator including one case which had been adjourned so that the council / NSL could provide their evidence which they patently failed to do.

 

On Saturday 15th two tickets were upheld. One where the ticket was not affixed to the car and went missing. It was for parking on a yellow line on Good Friday. Another case, that of Mr McArdle, not John as it happens, confused a Bus & Lorry restricted hours sign with the parking hours. Unlucky, as other adjudicators have cancelled tickets for such confusion

 

Carry on appealing

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS 3 - 8 September - a 3 hour observation period!

Final score: 9-3

9 - 3 was also the final score for Motorists v Barnet Council at PATAS in the week commencing 3 September. The pundits put the match down as a score draw as that is historically the usual result but as one team forgets to send in its team sheet most of the team, or can't remember where they put it, that leaves the goal open for the other player (motorist)

 

On the 3rd two tickets were cancelled by Order of the Adjudicator. That usually means that the council / NSL failed to provide their paperwork.

 

On the 6th there were another two instances of this. The other case that day is quite funny as the traffic warden says he observed the car for 3 hours and the rejection letter was a pro-forma template which ignored the points made (not so funny that part).

 

On the 7th an appeal was allowed as the Council / NSL failed to produce a copy of the PCN.

 

Another ticket was issued after 2 minutes on a single yellow but the driver denies being there and there are no photographs. The appeal was allowed.

 

Another appeal Allowed by Order (do you see a pattern here?)

 

Another appeal allowed where there was a loading bay and double yellow lines which was described as ripe for confusion. The photographs were taken at night and were "very poor" according to the Adjudicator.

 

In one case that was lost the Adjudicator was recommending that the council allow the appeal (the Adjudicator didn't have the power to do so) on the grounds that the penalty was too harsh (but not contrary to the legislation).

 

Another week when the council and/or NSL failed to properly meet the needs of the tribunal and thus less tickets were paid by motorists than would normally be the case.

 

It is clear that it is worth putting in an appeal on any grounds you can think of as there is a strong chance that the paperwork will not be properly dealt with and your parking ticket will be squashed.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS - 28 to 31 August - Bank Holiday Blues

fwaccounting

Monday was a bank holiday. PATAS still listed 16 Barnet Council cases for hearings. 15 of them went the way of the motorist. Possibly the worst week for Barnet Council / NSL since NSL took over on 1 May.

 

Interesting cases.

 

28th - A lady displayed a visitor voucher in her car by 7.30am in the car park in Brent St near Hendon Town Hall. This car park is for Residents. The voucher was missed by the traffic warden. The appeal was allowed because the vouchers say to display in the window nearest the kerb and there are no kerbs in the car park! The traffic warden did not photograph the passenger side window and this was another case where the parking ticket had gone missing from the windscreen of the car.

 

29th - No fewer than 6 appeals were allowed, and the parking tickets cancelled, by Order of the Adjudicator which means that Barnet Council / NSL between them had not produced the necessary paperwork.

 

30th - A motorist appealed as they were helping a disabled passenger (see what a scummy council we have who don't make allowances for those who have suffered misfortune) and the time for setting down must include getting them to their front door (an Adjudicator with compassion and commonsense) and also their shopping which is classed as unloading. In addition the Parking Ticket was not given to them so it was not correctly issued. Why is it that Barnet Council and/or NSL will have read this appeal and turned it down?

 

In another case Barnet Council / NSL were given a 2 week adjournment to produce their paperwork and still failed so the parking ticket was quite correctly cancelled.

 

Banret Council failed to support the issue of a parking ticket in Edgwarebury Gardens by not producing any evidence as to whether it was inside a CPZ or not (they really should know by now). The adjudicator said "the second page of their case summary is confusing and meaningless". Ouch. The parking ticket was cancelled.

 

31st - Three more parking tickets cancelled by Order of the Adjudicator,

 

I can see that the Adjudicator is going to take against Barnet Council soon.

 

As you can see it is well worth your time and trouble to appeal against parking tickets all the way to PATAS.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

Ticket that Ambulance (PATAS cases 20 -25 August)

No commonsense in Camden as well as in Barnet

There were only 12 appeals heard at PATAS in this week and normally the score would be 6 all. As usual, Barnet Council / NSL failed to pull their weight and the outcome was 8 tickets cancelled and 4 upheld.

 

An appeal was successful from an applicant who renewed her permit on 29 April and received it on 3 May. Needless to say on 2 May she got a parking ticket. It was suggested she could have printed the new permit out at home (not everyone has a printer Barnet Council). The council ignored the informal representations that were made which is rude and not businesslike if nothing else. As it happens they issued the parking ticket and the Notice to Owner on 2 May so were guilty of procedural impropriety (or incompetence).

 

There was another case of the parking ticket not being on the car when the motorist got back to it. It is very worrying how often this is the case.

 

Three appeals were allowed by Order of the Chief Adjudicator which usually means there has been a failure by Barnet Council / NSL to produce the necessary paperwork.

 

There was procedural impropriety in another case where Barnet Council / NSL did not produce a copy of the informal appeal letter so the appeal was allowed and the parking ticket was cancelled.

 

A motorist who appealed on the grounds that the lines and/or signs were not proper was lost on the grounds that they were substantially compliant. I don't like this concept of the council's lapses being acceptable but not the ones made by the motorist.

 

One poor chap got a ticket because his car got stranded by snowfall away from home when it was snowing and by the time the roads were clear enough to safely drive on and he could get back to his car he had a parking ticket. The tribunal assumes that in bad weather you will be able to stop what you are doing, your work maybe (air traffic controller, theatre nurse, pharmacist etc) and run off there and then to get your car back. 48hours leeway really should be given after snowfall.

 

An appeal was allowed because the council's / NSL's photographs of signage were unclear and inadequate.

 

One evidently annoyed motorist, Mr M, applied for £1,311 in costs. The case was withdrawn by the council / NSL before the hearing probably in an effort to frustrate the application. It was lost anyway. The council has to have behaved unreasonably before costs are awarded and it is rare.

 

One case had to be refused because there were no valid grounds of appeal but the Adjudicator was recommending the council cancel the ticket because the motorist was looking after parents of 87 & 84 and two young children and also had to drop off their aunt and the lift in her block was broken hence the car was left for a little longer than usual.

 

Finally a parking ticket was issued to a supposedly Heavy Goods Vehicle parked overnight except that it wasn't an HGV it was an ambulance (weights less than 5 tonnes). You would think the traffic warden might have noticed and that some commonsense might well have crept in somewhere along the appeal process but that is not an attribute that is sought when appointing staff to look at parking ticket appeals.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance