PATAS - w/c 5 Jan 15 - got it taped

This week was a busier one although not yet full speed. There were 826 new Appeals registered of which 68, that is 8%, came from Barnet. This was twice the rate at which appeals should arrive for Barnet cases. I keep saying that and eventually the council will get things on an even keel.

There were 40 Appeals actually heard and the council threw in the towel on 16 of them thus wasting PATAS fees of about £500 (it is usual over the holiday season for them to decide not to bother as they are short handed, probably). That helped the motorists win 31 out of the 40 cases which is a win rate of 78%. It doesn't matter to the motorist if they win after or without a fight, you just want your PCN cancelled and the result is the same, nothing to pay.

There were three cases of note.

In the first one the motorist was delivering what was described as a cassette player, which if it was the size of a paperback book, wouldn't qualify for the loading/unloading exemption unless it was being delivered in the course of trade. The council put in evidence a photo of the cassette player but it is hard to assess scale without anything else in the picture, as in mine above. However, I don't think they said it is really a boom box and weighs 6.8 kilos. The motorist was allowed the loading/unloading exemption and the PCN was cancelled.

In the second one the council (NSL) said the motorist never had a residents permit which he, of course, produced a copy of to the adjudicator. Once an adjudicator sees an untruth they tend to turn against that party as they don't know what they can rely on. The PCN was cancelled. Note that you therefore need to stick to the same truthful story throughout all three rounds of challenge.

In the third case a car was partly in a bay and partly on a single yellow line. The PCN was for being parked outside of the bay marking. Here is what the adjudicator said:

It is not disputed that the Appellant's vehicle straddled a shared use bay and a single yellow line. It is also not disputed that the Appellant had a permit entitling him to park in the shared use bay, and that the yellow line was not operational.

The Appellant said that he had made more than one enquiries with the Authority and he had been told that the above manner of parking is permitted. The Authority disagreed. It said that is was not permitted and that even if the advice was given, it was erroneous and the Appellant should have followed the terms and condition on the permit.

Despite the Appellant asserting that parking in such a manner does not constitute a contravention, the Authority has not indicated what provisions in the Traffic Management Order creates such a restriction. I have found a reference to parking outside bay markings in Article 23 of the TMO but the Article also refers to parking places for which special provisions are specified. There are no special provisions specified for the bay at Alba Gardens. There is therefore a reasonably strong argument that no contravention had occurred and that the advice given to the Appellant was correct.

I do not agree that the Authority can disclaim any erroneous advice by reference to its terms and conditions. First of all, the Authority has not provided evidence of the terms and conditions. Secondly and by reason of what I have said above, there is no evidence that such a term and condition is legitimate. Thirdly and bearing in mind that it is a shared use bay, the Authority's argument would mean that the restriction applies to permit users but not those who pay for the parking. The suggestion is untenable. In any event, a general proposition that an enforcement Authority may penalise a motorist who has acted on its erroneous advice cannot be right.

I am allowing the appeal.

If you are telephoning the council for vital advice it might be best to tape the call.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - Twixmas + 1

I didn't expect much to be happening at PATAS during this time as the staff and adjudicators deserve a break and who wants to be dealing with parking tickets between Xmas and the New Year? oh yes, councils everywhere as traffic wardens were on the streets as usual.

Adjudicators were off with the odd reported case probably being just a delayed date posting until 2 January when normal service resumed. back office staff processed new Appeals as they are time sensitive and there was a surge in cases from Barnet for some unaccountable reason. Of the 676 new Appeals lodged between Monday 29 Dec and Friday 2 Jan some 60 of them, that is 9%, came from Barnet. Barnet Council only issue 4% of the PCN issued in London and Appeals were therefore twice as numerous at Twixmas than they ought to have been.

There were 13 Appeals decided upon and 9 went the way of the motorist. That is 69% and means that, on the average, it is always worth appealing.

Have a happy 2015 and keep out of the way of traffic wardens.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

PATAS - to Xmas 14

From 15 to 23 December 14 there were 1,402 new Appeals lodged at PATAS. Of those, 84 were from Barnet which is 6% and higher than it ought to be if Barnet were equally represented at PATAS as between other London boroughs.

The number of actual hearings for Barnet cases was only 21 and of those 15 were won which is 71% so a number of happy motorists with an early Xmas present (deserved naturally).

Very little to tell you about except these two cases in which I repeat the findings of the adjudicators:

Bunns Lane Car Park

This case revolves around a penalty charge imposed for straddling car park bay markings.

The officer colour photographs regrettably show only half a story.

The other half is illustrated in the photographs taken by the appellant.

The appellant is a highly qualified engineer working for a government agency. There is no question in my mind about any "doctoring" of the photographs she has presented. On the basis of these she has a strong case for penalty charge cancellation.

These illustrate how features do in fact block the neighbouring  space from practical use by other motorists (with the possible exception of solo motorcyclists). There is illustrated in the appellant photographs what appears to me to be a damaged steel structure substantially intruding into that neighbouring space and there is also a post with a rubber movable footing. 

It is my conclusion that given that the that adjoining space cannot be seen in practical terms  as a bay and the perimeter marking at the heart of the Council case has no practical function currently, the straddling of the crucial marking cannot properly underlie a valid penalty charge. I have on that basis decided to allow the present appeal. A different conclusion in my view would be preposterous.

I have decided to record that the angles of the officer photographs do appear to have been selected in a way that I have seen as unfair. I regret that I believe I must comment there is a flavour of deliberate  deception in those officer photographs. I would urge the Council to be hesitant in future about pursuing like penalty charges for straddling the particular surface marking which is critical to its case in this particular appeal.

In any event I have recorded this appeal as allowed.

and then an obscure case about advertising your car for sale:

The allegation in this case is using the vehicle in a parking place in connection with the sale or offering or exposing for sale of goods when prohibited. The Enforcement Authority's case is that the vehicle had a note displayed advertising the vehicle itself for sale. They rely on Article 21. of the relevant Traffic Management Order to establish that this is not permitted.

So obscure is the alleged contravention in this case that this is only the 24th appeal against such a PCN according to PATAS records. I note that these involve only 2 Enforcement Authorities and that London Borough of Barnet appear never to have persuaded an Adjudicator to refuse such an appeal.

For my part I take the view that it might be different if a car dealer were parking a fleet of vehicles for sale at a particular location but in the circumstances of this case it is difficult to discern the mischief at which the prohibition is aimed. If the Enforcement Authority are to enforce such an allegation then they must in my view take positive steps to inform the motorist of the prohibition. In the absence of any evidence to this effect I am not satisfied that the signage of restrictions was substantially compliant, clear and adequate to advertise the prohibition and accordingly I allow the appeal.

What the council haven't yet realised is the difference between using your car for street trading, perhaps with a boot stuffed full of cuddly toys that you offer to passers-by at a fiver a time and the perfectly OK practice of putting a sign in your own car, as a private individual, saying that it is itself for sale. Hopefully one day they will get it.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

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