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