PATAS - June 15

East Finchley High Road

I have moved on to monthly reports as the number of cases going to Appeal seems to be dropping. Barnet are still causing more than their fair share (of 4%) and losing more than the average 50%

Long may their win rate be so low.

All the following were circumstances in which the motorist had their PCN cancelled.

The Saracens Event Day zone. The council got a drubbing over writing that people should check the Internet before you drive to see if it is an event day. Signs weren't proven, the existence of the zone or it even being an Event Day so these are all good grounds on which to challenge. The council nearly always lose Saracens cases if they are put to proof. There were at least 10 cases in June but that is as to nothing compared to the number of PCN issued.

A motorcycle was moved. It is hard for a motorcyclist to stop this from happening unless the bike is chained to something but it does mean that there is a valid reason why the contravention did not occur.

Unloading to the third floor would easily lead to a PCN as the warden drops out of the sky (or so it seems) on a scooter, issues a PCN and then zooms away. As long as you have some documentary proof of your loading or unloading you are at least halfway to a cancellation.

The new Orange bays for permit holders in some North Finchley Car Parks have mostly led to cancellations on the grounds of the lack of clarity of the signs. At least 4 PCN were cancelled for this reason in June.

Cones in a suspended bay. They could easily be moved and are not a recognised way to delineate the suspended area.

Two cases of car cloning which ought to be obvious to the council before the tribunal stage.

If you breakdown and then get your car repaired you do not have to use a vat registered garage. The council's insistence on a vat invoice is misplaced. If you use a one man band, that is Ok as long as you have a bona fide invoice.

The council wrote that "they do no accommodate unusual or mitigating circumstances". How unusual something is is a matter of opinion but if it is relevant to your parking the council must consider it as also they must consider mitigation.

The traffic warden condoned the parking and then sent a parking ticket through the post. they can't.

The common error of paying for the wrong location usually leads to trouble. In this case both locations were in the East Finchley High Road and so the adjudicator allowed the Appeal and cancelled the PCN.

Keep those Appeals coming. I'll keep writing monthly reports with tips and hints.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 25 May 15 - Capita could learn ....

I must apologise for the gap in the blogging brought about mostly by the transformation of PATAS into London Tribunals which led to the register not being available for a few weeks. I will catch up asap.

Here are the stats for the week in question:

so as you can see Barnet were responsible for more than their fair share of new Appeals and contrived to lose more of them than the usual 50%.

There were four cases of note, which all led to the PCN being cancelled:

-  A dropped kerb was not proven

-  The Saracens Event Day Zone was not proven (the council struggle with this)

-  3 spaces in a bay were suspended. The bay had space for 4 cars; the 3 which were suspended was not made clear.

- My favourite, this one, in the words of the adjudicator;

The Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street displaying a badge that had expired and a fairly detailed note explaining that the badge was in the process of being renewed.

Despite that note I would not criticise the CEO for issuing the PCN ( as motorists cannot write themselves exemptions from parking restrictions). However it transpires that the reason there was no valid badge on display is that the Council's agents Capita, had failed to issue him with one at the proper time.

Having heard the Appellant in person in detail there is no doubt at all that the sorry history of his attempt to renew the badge in very good time is correct; and that his request to Capita for the required renewal forms was, as he was informed by Capita when chasing the matter, "lost in the system". When the forms were eventually received on a Saturday morning, he completed them and put them in the post that same morning.

It appears that Capita could learn something from the Appellant's efficiency. 

The Council states that the Appellant should have applied for a temporary dispensation. He was never informed of this by the Council when he made his initial renewal enquiry or at any subsequent stage by the Council's agents Capita. All he was told to do was to display a note, which he did. In my judgement in these circumstances the law follows common sense and does not allow a Council to enforce a penalty for a contravention which occurred entirely as a result of its own failings (Capita being the agent of the Council for these purposes). Allowing it to do so would be the equivalent of an abuse of process and in these circumstances no contravention can be said to have occurred (see the dicta in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905) 

The Appeal is therefore allowed.

The Appellant has shown to me today a charge certificate issued in respect of a very similar case, and where he never received a Notice to Owner. He has of course the right to follow the statutory procedures to set this aside. I am not seized of that matter today. However, if it is the case that the situation in that case is indeed identical, the Council might be well advised to cancel that PCN without further ado, since if the matter ever came to appeal it might well find itself at risk of an order for costs on the Appeal being allowed.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 18 May 15 - Gervase Rd again

Gervase Road & one of its notorious pavement parking bays

Here are the statistics for this short week due to the end of May bank holiday.

There were 4 PCN cancelled which are worth a mention.

The pavement parking bays are badly laid out in Gervase Rd. Scooter based traffic wardens know that and often pop there as they are certain to be able to issue to some poor soul who has parked in the "wrong" place. Your defence is to attack lines and signs as being inadequate and then the council have to prove them and the staff who make up the Evidence Packs will struggle to do so.

The loading bay in High Rd N12 (outside HSBC) was not well enough signed as the sign for it was hidden behind a tree whilst the one for the paybyphone bay was much more visible.

It was uncertain that a car was over 50cm from the edge of the carriageway. Make sure that at least one piece of your car is within that reasonable tolerance.

The notes of the traffic warden were unsatisfactory. You don't normally see them until the Evidence Pack stage (i.e. you have made an Appeal to PATAS) but they are worth taking a look at. If you can't make sense of the abbreviations tell the Adjudicator that at the personal hearing (you should always request a personal hearing and treat the day as a day out in London, have your hearing and then lunch or a visit to the Tate Modern or something like that so that win or lose you have a nice day out).

So in this particular week the number of Appeals stayed high (the parking manager must wonder when they are going to settle down and that will be when PCN are no longer used to fill budget shortfalls) and the success rate was higher than the usual 50%. Well done everyone.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

PATAS - w/c 11 May 15 - Error upon error

Here are the statistics for the week showing a surge in Appeals being filed but a large drop in the success rate for those Appeals lodged a month prior.




That week was the worst for the motorist (Barnet cases only) in the whole of 2015 but having sneaked a look at the following week I can report that the motorist got back on top.

Here are the, often classic, reasons why the motorist lost in this week.

-  Paid for the car and then moved it to a different type of bay.
-  Paid by phone for the wrong car.
-  Parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway.
-  Needed the toilet urgently (the council can be kind to you but the adjudicator has to apply the law. Needing the toilet is not usually a medical emergency).
-  Not loading continuously (whilst repairing a boiler).
-  Paid on-line for a different PCN (keep separate files one each one you get).
-  Blue badge not on display.
-  Parked beyond paid for time (10 minutes grace now given).
-  Blue badge clock not properly set.
-  Broke down and car on footway (leave it in the road).
-  On a single yellow line without realising you are in a CPZ.

So there we have it, a week in which the council won more than they lost but I won't be typing that very often and the council have extra workload to deal with which will probably mean more Appeals not being contested in mid-June which makes this a good time to complete your PATAS form.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 4 May 15 - armageddon

Here are the stats for the week which was a day short due to a Bank Holiday.

Only two that I need to tell you about.

In the first one a PCN was cancelled because the PayByPhone system was down and there isn't a viable alternative in most places, meters now being as rare as hen's teeth. I heard this week that the owners of PayByPhone are putting it up for sale as it is not mainstream to their business and even taking 10% of the payment, as they roughly do in Barnet, it loses money. All I can say to that is they haven't put their technology together very economically if they can't process payments for a single digit percentage. 

The danger of relying on just one form of technology is that the day that armageddon hits the phone network, there will be almost no income for the council.

The second PCN was cancelled as a blue badge holder had one without an expiry date on it and there was, apparently, no reminder system to forewarn you that you need to renew.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 27 April - proof

my sort of proof

Here are the stats for the week:

Quite a quiet week for Appeals though, perhaps caused by Easter which was 4 weeks prior so less paperwork got completed.

Only two cases worth mentioning and the motorist lost them both.

In the first case, proof of the cost of puncture repair was not provided.

In the second case a butcher doing deliveries from his car did not provide any proof of what he was delivering and where.

Adjudicators get lied to all the time so if you have independently produced paperwork to show them that helps your case.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 20 April - seeing orange, or not.

unhelpful

Here are the stats for the week:

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	21	628	3	Below average
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	18	30	60	Above average

So numbers of new Appeals were down by a quarter but the success rate for motorists was the correct side of 50%.

There were 4 cases to tell you about:

-   A 1 minute observation period was found to be inadequate. This is often the case where the driver has to fetch a permit or driver from a nearby property & the person who is providing the same is slow, disabled, elderly etc. There is no absolute right to an observation period, it all depends upon the circumstances of the case. There is now, of course, an Eric Pickles inspired 10 minute grace period after paid for time.

-   A cloned vehicle should not lead to a PCN being pursued all the way to PATAS as often seems to be the case in Barnet. All the council are doing by delaying is hacking off the motorist and losing £40 in PATAS fees.

-   There are bays marked with orange lines in the Woodhouse Car Park (& others). Beware of them as they are a natural trap. One expects bays in car parks to be for people to pay to park in; the orange ones are for permit holders. In the rain one could easily miss the subtle distinction.

-   A driver who was trying to pay by phone reported that the traffic warden was unhelpful. Who would believe it? oh, the PATAS adjudicator. the PCN was cancelled as were the other 3 mentioned above.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.