PATAS - w/c 6 April 15 - Admin error

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	30	763	4	Normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	16	24	67	High

So there you have the stats for the week. Quite a quiet week for new appeals (post Easter) but a good one for motorists who beat the council 2 times out of 3.

The main case of interest was the following one. The council penalise you if you make a simple error but try to explain their own errors away as perfectly acceptable. Adjudicators won't stand for such unfairness.

The Appellant's initial representation centred upon the vague description of the said vehicle's parked position in the Penalty Charge Notice. In response the Enforcement Authority stated its allegation, in its letter of 5th November 2014, to be that the said vehicle was positioned "outside of number 10 Penshurst Gardens."

This information was crucial to the Appellant's further conduct of the matter; it influenced his decision to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice, since he maintained the contrary, that the said vehicle was not so positioned.

For the Enforcement Authority to subsequently suggest that such statement was erroneous and an "administrative error" is not acceptable; these are legal proceedings and the accuracy of information is paramount.

Further, the main issue raised by the Appellant, of which the address was a salient point, was the lack of specific identification of the said vehicle's alleged location on the Penalty Charge Notice in view of the fact that the road in question was lengthy.

That point raised by the Appellant deserved proper consideration, I therefore carefully examined the wording of both the Notice of Rejection itself, and the Case Summary to assist in my determination as to whether or not the Enforcement Authority had accorded requisite consideration as it is obliged so to do.

In addition to the so-called administrative error, I observe there to be a overt failure to adequately identify/rebut or retort to the Appellant's main issue.

I concluded that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a 'procedural impropriety' on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

In this context, 'procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management act 2004 or Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if I conclude that a Ground specified in Regulation 4(4) applies I shall Allow the Appeal.

This Appeal is allowed.

Keep those Appeals rolling in, especially for vagueness of location when the road is a long one.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 30 March - pre Easter

PATAS adjudicators also need a break from parking tickets so do not sit over the Easter holidays. Thus the numbers were down a little:

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	21	751	3	Below normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	14	25	56	Slightly high

There were four cases of note:

1   A man made a minor keying error with his registration and as he hadn't done so before the adjudicator decided to recommend to Barnet for this first offence, that is bound to happen at times, that they cancel the PCN. The adjudicator can only suggest, they cannot order where the rules have been broken. Barnet decided to agree.

2   There were two cases of PCN sent through the post where the adjudicator wasn't convinced that the traffic warden had begun to prepare a PCN so they were cancelled.

3   The old question of time to collect a visitor voucher came up again. Reasonable time must be allowed. the PCN was cancelled.

4   The council still seem to struggle when it comes to the Event Day zone. Another PCN bit the dust.

Keep making those Appeals to PATAS.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 23 March 15 - a mug

Another week at PATAS saw the following new cases and Appeal hearings

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	37	909	4	Normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	19	33	58	Slightly high

There were four cases to tell you about:

1   A bus lane PCN cannot be transferred to the vehicle hirer by the bus company unless the agreement is for 6 months or more, thus effectively making them the keeper. That is a rather unfair piece of legislation that should be changed.

2   A motorist in need of an annual permit was not told (by the Capita call centre at coventry who handle calls for the council) about the dispensation system.

3   An adjudicator was concerned about the astounding submission by the council that a motorist should consult the internet for match days before they leave home. That is what parking signs are meant to inform us of.

Those three cases all had their PCN cancelled. 

This one didn't:

4   The traffic warden noted that the motorist came out of a cafe, mug in hand and was abusive. He didn't say he was delivering glass as the vehicle owner claimed. To note from this is the fact that traffic wardens make notes, that you should read the Evidence Pack clearly before the case and put in further evidence of your own after receiving the evidence and that you should be careful what you say (and not be abusive).

Keep on filing those Appeals.

Your appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 16 March 15 - what Red Route?

Another week has gone by at PATAS

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	35	1049	3	Lower than normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	16	29	55	Normal

So that is the usual number of new Appeals at just over 1,000 and 5 or 6 fewer cases coming out of Barnet than the 4% (=42) one would expect so perhaps more representations are being accepted.

The motorist just got the upper hand helped by the council (NSL) throwing in the towel without doing anything on 6 occasions.

I only have one case to tell you about as it was humdrum sort of week.

A suspension was found by the Adjudicator to be ambiguous and that confusion was compounded by reference to a red route, which only TfL issue PCN for. It is the case that NSL have the contract for the back office enforcement for TfL as they do for Barnet and clearly the staff are forgetting who their master is.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 9 March 15 - moving on

Here are the stats for the most recent week at PATAS:

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	52	1110	5	Higher than normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	23	34	68	Higher than normal

The number of new appeals got over 1,100 for the first time this year. Perhaps this is a sign of spring when more traffic wardens come out to play?

Motorists in Barnet continued to find it worth the effort to contest their PCN.

There were 4 notable cases:

1.   Footway parking in Victoria Rd, NW4 is not enforced so this PCN was cancelled.

2.   An Uber driver was moved on by a traffic warden who then proceeded to send him a PCN in the post which wasn't cricket. It has been cancelled.

T3.   The car was moving at the time the photos were taken. The motorist said they were turning around, not parking. Another cancelled PCN.

4.   An adjudicator said that motorists do not have to research match days in advance, they may not even know there is a stadium somewhere near where they are driving to. It is the signs that, legally, count. The PCN has been cancelled.

Keep those challenges flowing. It's usually worth the effort.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 2 March 15 - a catalogue of errors

This catalogue is probably error free

Here are the statistics for this week

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	34	928	4	Normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	28	40	70	Higher than normal

Four subjects of note in this week, all of which led to cancelled PCN:

- The council still can't seem to prove the Event Day

- People collecting bulky or heavy goods are allowed to get near to their destination and park on yellow lines (mind the no loading times though)

- Vehicles on hire really shouldn't reach PATAS and be the subject of last minute withdrawal by Barnet Council

- A catalogue of council errors

You're all doing very well. Keep it up.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 23 Feb 15 - on hire

Here are the statistics for this week. There are still more Appeals coming out of Barnet than there should be and the motorist is still doing better than average so the council are losing both ways and clearly backing the wrong horses.

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	40	863	5	Higher than normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	19	26	73	Higher than normal

I noticed 5 Appeals in one day where it was accepted by the council at the last moment that the vehicle was on hire and so the PCN can be transferred to the driver. The exception is bus lane PCN where the hire agreement is for 6 months or less which the hire company are stuck with. The council know the rules and should not try and bluff the hire company into paying as it also wastes the fees which have to be paid to PATAS.

In one case the driver returned to his car which prompted the traffic warden to walk away and then send a PCN in the post. that is not acceptable behaviour. The traffic warden has to stay there, continue with the PCN and serve it and it is only if physically restrained or if the car leaves that a postal PCN can then be issued. The PCN in question has now been cancelled.

A car that had part of its wheel outside a bay in the Lodge Lane Car park, but next to a skip, was held to have only committed a trivial offence with which the law does not concern itself, saw the PCN cancelled. It is guidance that a whole wheel should be outside of a bay before a PCN is issued.

You are doing a good job of providing more appeals than the average London Borough sees and getting better results. well done Barnetonians (& visitors).

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance