 |
The decisions this week were slightly down on last week but still nearly 2 out of 3 to the motorist. Before the council post a comment saying how well they are doing getting the parking contract on track I do need to tell you that in the following week the council are kicked around the park.
Notable cases this week nclude one where the motorist tried 3 times to get through on pay-by-phone and the final call was with by the traffic warden himself on the phone. The motorist drove away and he dished out a parking ticket; what a nice man! Here is part of what the independent adjudicator had to say:
It is well established that a motorist may take a little time to ensure payment of the parking fee, and that while that is happening he or she will not commit a contravention. That principle is exactly the same for pay by phone bays as it is for pay and display. I find that the whole of the time that Mrs M was parked she was attempting to pay the pay by phone charge. When she was unsuccessful she did what she was required to do, which was to move away. I allow this appeal.
The bay markings in Corringham Rd were not clear. The parking ticket was cancelled.
PATAS decision 2130027724
The appellant submits that the bay in which his vehicle was parked was inadequately marked bay markings being faded and worn he providing photographs in support. A faded bay marking is visible in the enforcement officer's first photograph but noting the absence of any site report in the council's evidence I cannot be satisfied on the papers before me that this bay is clearly marked in accordance with the legal requirements and I find that the contravention has not therefore been proved.
If you have a parking ticket at the same location that would be worth appealing,
There were some dropped kerb cases but I am going to write a guide to avoiding trouble with those tricky beasts quite soon so will not report on them here.
To save time NSL use standard letters. The danger with standard letters is that they can be used where the circumstances are not really relevant, as here, and then the parking ticket gets cancelled:
I have considered the evidence and find that the kerb marking is very worn, it is so worn as to be almost unenforceable.
The Authority is under a duty to provide reasonable signing so as to give the motorist fair warning of any restrictions, which are in force. Once an Appellant has raised the issue of inadequate signing, the burden of proving to the Adjudicator that the necessary standard has been reached falls on the Authority. The obligation on the Authority extends to ensuring that they maintain the signs and road markings so that they are clearly visible.
The Authority is under a duty to provide reasonable signing so as to give the motorist fair warning of any restrictions, which are in force. Once an Appellant has raised the issue of inadequate signing, the burden of proving to the Adjudicator that the necessary standard has been reached falls on the Authority. The obligation on the Authority extends to ensuring that they maintain the signs and road markings so that they are clearly visible.
The Authority served a Notice of Rejection, stating that they had carefully considered the appellant's case, however other than repeating the response given in their letter of the 3 October 2012 the Notice of Rejection makes no mention of the main point in issue which is the visibility of the kerb marking raised by the appellant.
Regulation 5(2) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 imposes a duty on the Authority to consider representations and any supporting documentation and to serve a notice of it's decision.
This obligation does not mean that the notice of the decision should necessarily cover ever point raised by the appellant. However where the appellant has raised an relevant issue it is reasonable to infer from a failure by the Authority to address the issue in the Notice of Rejection that the representations have not been considered.
In this case from the contents of the Notice of Rejection I cannot be satisfied that the Authority considered the appellant's representations.
NSL didn't do very well on this next case either, surely they know how evidence should be presented to PATAS?:
The agreed facts are that Mr
H's vehicle was parked as shown in the Civil Enforcement Officer's
photographs and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued. Mr H says he
was unlocking a padlock to a chain so as to gain access to some car
parking spaces.
The Civil Enforcement Officer has noted that the vehicle was first observed at 10:56 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued two minutes later, at the same time as the photographs were taken. No mention is made of seeing anyone.
Mr H says, and I accept, that there are three spaces which are cordoned off by a chain close to where he had left his vehicle. He was bent down low on the other side of the wall to unlock the padlock which was sticking that day, that may be why the Civil Enforcement Officer did not see him at first. He showed me photographs which he had sent to the authority together with a site plan (this is how to deal with any appeal you make, in good solid detail). That evidence was submitted to the authority but it has been very poorly copied in black and white (that is not in accordance with the instructions requirements for councils to submit evidence).
Mr H says he did not see the Civil Enforcement Officer until he came close to his vehicle to affix the Penalty Charge Notice. He spoke to him explaining what he was doing but the Civil Enforcement Officer ignored him and walked off. The whole episode was witnessed by Mr W, whose statement I have seen. Mr W was going to park in one of the other three spaces behind the chain.
Whilst the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line during restricted hours, Mr H was in the process of unlocking the chain. That is akin to opening a gate to premises where the vehicle can park. Mr H could not have driven through the chain and had to get out of his car to unlock the padlock. It is ludicrous to suggest that he should have found a legitimate place to park, come and unlocked the chain, gone to his car and then driven into the space.
I allow the appeal.
The Civil Enforcement Officer has noted that the vehicle was first observed at 10:56 and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued two minutes later, at the same time as the photographs were taken. No mention is made of seeing anyone.
Mr H says, and I accept, that there are three spaces which are cordoned off by a chain close to where he had left his vehicle. He was bent down low on the other side of the wall to unlock the padlock which was sticking that day, that may be why the Civil Enforcement Officer did not see him at first. He showed me photographs which he had sent to the authority together with a site plan (this is how to deal with any appeal you make, in good solid detail). That evidence was submitted to the authority but it has been very poorly copied in black and white (that is not in accordance with the instructions requirements for councils to submit evidence).
Mr H says he did not see the Civil Enforcement Officer until he came close to his vehicle to affix the Penalty Charge Notice. He spoke to him explaining what he was doing but the Civil Enforcement Officer ignored him and walked off. The whole episode was witnessed by Mr W, whose statement I have seen. Mr W was going to park in one of the other three spaces behind the chain.
Whilst the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line during restricted hours, Mr H was in the process of unlocking the chain. That is akin to opening a gate to premises where the vehicle can park. Mr H could not have driven through the chain and had to get out of his car to unlock the padlock. It is ludicrous to suggest that he should have found a legitimate place to park, come and unlocked the chain, gone to his car and then driven into the space.
I allow the appeal.
Now a case of a voucher not being fully completed. The contravention alleged was of being parked without payment.
I have not found the council's
presentation of its case easy to follow but as I understand its
submissions this vehicle was parked in a pay by phone bay. A motorist
may it says park in such a bay if a valid voucher is on display in the
vehicle. This contravention occurred it submits because although a
voucher was on display in this vehicle it had not been completed
correctly.
I note on the undisputed evidence before me that this voucher was not fully completed but that does not mean that the appellant parked without payment of the parking charge given the voucher was pre-paid. I accept that a contravention may have occurred in this case but it is not that stated on the PCN. I am satisfied that the contravention alleged on the PCN did not occur.
I note the appellant's submissions on the point but I have no power to direct the council to issue a letter of apology in regard to its handling of this case or to require the relevant council officials to undergo training
That is an argument that other people may care to use. You can refer to PATAS case 21230029377. The usual detail which is missed is the vehicle registration number as the type on the voucher is tiny.
There was still a better than 50/50 chance of getting your parking ticket cancelled so keep banging those appeals in. Remember you might have to try 3 times to succeed (informal after the PCN, formal after the Notice to Owner using the same argument and finanlly to PATAS after the Notice of Rejection).
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance
No comments:
Post a Comment