PATAS - w/c 26 May 14

Brampton Grove, NW4

It was a short week due to the Bank Holiday Monday and so only 832 new Appeals were lodged at PATAS. Of those 64 emanated from Barnet which is 8% or, put another way, twice as many as there should be.

There were 26 Appeals allowed, 6 refused and 2 recommended for cancellation. That was 81% of PCN cancelled which is higher than usual.

There were only 4 notable cases.

1. There was no evidence to support the claim that the motorist drove away. there are a lot of these sort of cases. If you didn't see the traffic warden then appeal all the way.

2. NSL, for the council, wrote that they were unable to cancel. This is not good wording. they are able to cancel but they have chosen not to. Please appeal these all the way to the end.

3. In Brampton Grove, which is ironically quite close to Hendon Town Hall, some signage was found to be confusing.

4. In another case the council (NSL) didn't "properly engage" i.e properly consider, the representations. this is a procedural impropriety. Make sure you set out a clear argument and if the council don't tackle it properly then keep appealing to the end.

Keep those appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 2 Dec 13 - Commonality

In this week there were 86 appeals, two of which were the subject of a recommendation to cancel, 51 PCN were cancelled and 33 upheld. A 61% success rate.

 

There were some common themes.

 

There were 4 PCN for the Saracens Event Day Zone. Now there are none that survive. That tells you it is worth the trouble to appeal all the way to PATAS.

 

There were 3 cases where the PCN was sent by post because the  motorist drove away. All 3 were cancelled as the traffic warden wasn't prevented from giving the PCN to the driver or affixing it to the windscreen. If you get a driveaway postal PCN, that is also well worth appealing. The council look to be issuing PCN by post when they should not do so, they should treat those motorists as the ones who got away and just tell tall tales about them in the pub.

 

There were 4 PCN which had been issued between July 2010 (it was on papyrus) and August 11. All of them are too old for a legal enforcement as the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act has been compromised by the passage of time.

 

Then there were some one-offs.

 

One poor motorist got the bay reference number wrong and paid Westminster £11.10 instead of £7 to Barnet (that illustrates how relatively expensive the leafy outer London suburb of Barnet has become). What this PCN illustrates is that the bay numbers should be in blocks so that at least payment is made to the correct borough (Westminster have no legal right to a payment made under mistake, the motorist can reclaim it) and that technology is not being used for the benefit of the motorist. The telephone knows it is in Barnet by the GPS co-ordinates so PayByPhone could use that data, with the phone holder's permission, to limit the bay numbers to which payment could be made (with a manual override if you are paying from elsewhere, perhaps you left your car in the car park to recover tomorrow as you went to the pub on a whim one evening).

 

An appeal illustrated the misleading nature of the on-line payment method. Do make sure you press the confirm button when you are on the Payment Confirmation page.

 

A suspension sign at low level was held to be unfair and the PCN was cancelled.

 

The next case should not have reached PATAS. The council knew when they dropped the kerb. They were simply hoping that the motorist didn't.

 

The appellant Mr K attended the personal hearing listed for today. I found him to be a sincere and honest witness.

He stated that he is a local resident and that although he was aware that his neighbours with whom he has a good relationship were going to drop the kerb and the residents bay was eventually going to be removed he had not received any advance warning of when this would take place. At the time he parked his vehicle the bay markings were still present as was the residents bay signage which permitted parking during the restricted hours to residents displaying a residents permit which he states was displayed in is vehicle.

I have looked at the photographic evidence. I can still clearly see the residents bay road markings which I find to make the signage at the location to be confusing.

I am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur and allow this appeal.

 

A nurse who was unloading heavy equipment for her patient at home saw her PCN cancelled. How on earth is home care to be provided if one public servant is at the mercy of a different one?

 

Keep those appeals coming. They are worth the time and trouble.

 

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 4 November - be prepared

well prepared

This week was busier than the one before with 58 PCN cancelled, 37 upheld and 4 the subject of recommendations to cancel. So a definite 61% cancelled.

 

There were PCN from 20 July 11, 26 July 11, 19 July 11, 13 July 11, 3 June 11, 17 June 11, 19 April 11 and 21 June 11 all of which were cancelled. At some point the council are going to realise that an old case at PATAS is a waste of £40 (so these 8 appeals lost the council £320) and might just start cancelling them at the formal stage. I think the council have perhaps done a cost benefit analysis and are still making more from old PCN that the motorist pays in a panic when they get a document which is actually well out of time than they are losing at PATAS but that break even point may soon be harder to achieve. If you have a 2011 PCN going to PATAS make sure you appeal on the grounds of a breach of Article 6 of Human Rights Act, right to a fair trial, as you can't remember what you were doing on that day in 2011.

 

The road markings in Stanhope Rd were too worn to enforce so appeal any ticket you get there if the marking you are on are not substantially compliant i.e. you can't make them out properly.

 

The photographs put in evidence of signs were too blurred to discern any details from so that PCN was cancelled so always look at the photos on the council website before you pay up.

 

Where post is left in a communal hallway the presumption of good service of documents is rebutted. The PCN was cancelled.

 

The council put forward inaccurate and irrelevant points so the PCN was cancelled as that was evidence of the council failing to properly consider representations. They do this all the time so make sure you list all the points you can think of and then when the council fail to properly consider one of them that might be enough to sway the adjudicator.

 

There were two cases on the question of PCN sent by post after a driver leaves the scene without getting the PCN in his hand or on the windscreen. The question of whether or not a traffic warden had begun to prepare the PCN was considered because he should make some observations first, things like wheel valve positions, the tax disc etc, and the other case held that driving away was not "prevention of service". If a warden looks like he is going to ticket you I would scarper sharpish and argue later.

 

The bay markings on the footpath in Brunswick Park Rd were in poor condition so the PCN was cancelled.

 

A description of High Rd was not adequate for a PCN that was not received. When you get the next document, the Notice to owner, you should be able to work out whereabouts you were parked without further enquiry. High Rd is miles long.

 

Another barely noticeable yellow line, this time in Hodford Rd, led to another cancelled PCN. My readers are getting really very good at these arguments now.

 

There is something funny with the bays in Wilberforce Rd which are split for no reason. That would be your reason to appeal if you get caught there.

 

A man came home to find someone else's builders had parked in his drive. Whilst he was getting them out he got ticketed. The council and NSL must have rejected his argument. PATAS didn't.

 

An estate agent delivering keys (hard to know who to boo the most, the traffic warden or his victim) was held to be delivering, probably because it was part of his job. Dropping keys off at your nan's probably wouldn't be unloading for a private individual.

 

The Saracens zone got another mauling with the adjudicator saying the council were all at sea. I haven't seen a Saracens PCN survive the adjudicator yet.

 

I am sure you have the idea if you read this blog. Appeal that parking ticket and do it on time.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance