London Tribunals - February 2016

In February 2016, there were 162 decisions at the tribunal for Barnet Council of which 85, that is 52%, went the way of the motorist. That is a typical result.

The indivdual decisions were a mixed bag of various topics and the interesting decisions, in the written reports of the traffic adjudicators, all of which led to the PCN being cancelled, were as follows:

Dedicated disabled bays - The Appellant’s wife, a disabled badge holder, parked in what she thought was a disabled bay. The bay had the legend DISABLED and the sign read Disabled permit holder 095 only. She thought that the number referred to a zone as she was unaware that there could be bay reserved for the exclusive use of one particular badge holder. The Appellant argues that the sign is misleading and challenges it.

The sign is not permitted by the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. It does not comply with 661A and its permitted variants – the wheelchair symbol is missing and the word permit replaces the word badge. Neither does it comply with any of the 660 signs or their permitted variants as the word disabled is not allowed. As such the sign must have special authorisation of the DoT, but no such authorisation has been produced. In these circumstances I find that the sign substantially non- compliant.

Footway was actually private land - The Appellant attended this hearing together with a friend who lives in the block of flats she was visiting when this Penalty Charge Notice was issued to her vehicle.

The contravention the Appellant is said to have committed is set out in s15(1) Greater London Council (General Powers)Act 1974 - Save as provided in subsections (3), (4), (7) and (11), any person who causes or permits any vehicle to be parked in Greater London with one or more wheels on or over any part of a road other than a carriageway or on or over a footpath, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

The Appellant says that she parked on the pavement adjacent to the access or slip road to the block of flats and this was part of the property owned by the freeholders of the block. Her friend confirmed this.

The council maintain that as the public have access to the area and no proof has been given that it is private land the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.

From the photographs that the Appellant showed me, the area in question is quite clearly part of the block of flats and is an access road or forecourt. Between it and the carriageway is a public pavement broken only by dropped footway for access.

There is another pavement between the access road or forecourt and the block of flats. Whilst the public would have access to it if visiting the block of flats, but for no other purpose
given the public pavement referred to above, it does not make that area into a road other than a carriageway or a footpath.

I allow this appeal as I am not satisfied that where the vehicle was parked was a road other than a carriageway or a footpath.

Bunns Lane Car Park 3 hours free - he allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge. Mr. A says that he parked on a Saturday, read the tariff board and believed he was entitled simply to park without payment.

The Enforcement Authority have provided a photograph of the relevant conditions of use plate. There is a box giving the tariffs for the bay. This indicates ‘Saturday 8am-6.30pm Up to 3 hours No Charge/Free’. The Enforcement Authority rely on a statement at the bottom of the box ‘FREE PARKING SESSION MUST BE REGISTERED BY PHONE’. However, beyond the use of capitals this direction enjoys no special prominence.

I regard this as a borderline case. However, having considered the matter carefully I do not feel able to say that the signage was clear and adequate to inform the motorist. Accordingly I allow the appeal.

Crossing the bus lane to access premises - The Appellant's case, which I have heard from him in person, is that having executed a lawful U-turn he entered the bus lane in order to gain access to adjacent premises where he had a pickup to make. The relevant Traffic Management Order contains the usual exemption allowing vehicles to cross a bus lane for
such a purpose. The issue in this case is therefore essentially whether in all the circumstances the Appellant's vehicle would fall within that exemption. The distances are quite short and there seems to me some force in the Appellant's submission that it would be unsafe to require his vehicle to pursue a zig-zag course of leaving the bus lane only to turn back across it immediately.

In my judgement the exemption for crossing does not require the vehicle to cross at a right angle and only at a right angle. There are questions of fact and degree in these cases. The
Council has not provided a copy of the CCTV evidence and in its absence it seems to me probable on the particular facts of this case that the exemption would apply. The Appeal is
therefore allowed.

Signing of the overnight waiting ban - I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the Appellant . The sign shown in her photograph indicating the presnce of an overnight prohibition on waiting for buses and lorries has no application at all to the single yellow line. It is simply the sign required by regulations to be present in every street within a Zone prohibiting overnight parking by HGVs. Motorists are required to be aware of the meaning of legally prescribed traffic signs and must take steps to familiarise themselves with them if
necessary. It also looks as if, given the fact that previous PCNs have been issued, the Appellant ought to have been well aware of the waiting restriction in place whether or not those appeals were allowed.

Nevertheless I take the view that where an issue as to the clarity of signage arises a failure by a Council to follow the recommendations of the Traffic Signs Manual, the official government guidance, inevitably puts the Council in some difficulty . The TSM Chapter 3 Para 12.11 specifically recommends that where there are two types of Zone at the same location a time plate to indicate the waiting restriction should be co-located with the overnight parking sign to avoid possible confusion. In the circumstances I am just persuaded that the signage was not as clear as it should have been and on this occasion the Appeal is allowed. The Appellant, however, should note that she cannot continue to plead ignorance or confusion indefinitely.

Single yellow line across a dropped kerb - This vehicle on the council's case was parked adjacent to a lowered footway.

The vehicle was resting on a single yellow line which runs alongside that lowered footway.

There was no dispute that the appellant had parked outside of the yellow line's hours of restriction.

The appellant submitted that given yellow line restrictions were not in force he believed he could park as he did.

There is both a prohibition on parking at this spot adjacent to the lowered footway AND a waiting restriction at it indicated by the single yellow line.

I was satisfied however having noted the appellant's submissions on the point that the marking of a single [as opposed to a double] yellow line alongside this lowered footway
misleads the motorist into thinking that he can park adjacent to it outside of restricted hours applicable in respect of the yellow line notwithstanding the prohibition that is in place. I was not for that reason satisfied that the prohibition on parking adjacent to a lowered footway at this location was clearly communicated to the motorist and found that the contravention had not therefore been proved.

Keep those Appeals coming. If your PCN is at full value you have nothing to lose by making

an Appeal to London Tribunals once you have a Notice of Rejection at full price (i.e. no 50% discount)

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 13 April : dropper kerb / clanger

Here are the stats for this particular week.

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	30	1063	3	Below average
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	16	24	67	A little low

There were 10 or so fewer appeals to PATAS in this week for some unknown reason.

Even worse, the council somehow managed to win more of them than did the motorist. Looking at the reasons for failure it looks like a simple case of a number of poor and/or poorly argued cases arrived together. I don't think this will be a regular occurrence or is a sign that the council has really got its act together.

Just one notable case. A PCN given out for being across a dropped kerb where the householder had not asked for enforcement action to be taken led to a cancelled PCN. This is to allow home owners (with their own personal dropped kerb, not for a shared drive and not inside a CPZ during zone hours) to make maximum use of the road space. If you get a dropped kerb PCN outside a residence it is always worth asking for proof that the householder made a call to parking enforcement. near cycle lanes and at junctions and other places where pedestrians, you must keep clear of dropped kerbs (and of roads raised to the level of the pavement).

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 11 November - meter what meter?

This particular week was slightly quieter than other recent ones but still there were 73 cases of which 39 led to cancelled PCN i.e. a 54% success rate.

 

There were the usual reasons for PCN being cancelled, Barnet Council / NSL throwing in the towel, some confusion over meters, evidence packs sent to the wrong address, copy PCN being produced by Barnet Council / NSL which weren't the same as the original, poor photographs and poor notes and muddled papers.

 

The council / NSL didn't think there was a parking meter in the Stanhope Rd Car Park. I have seen a queue of people waiting to use their debit and credit cards at it so it must be there. Of course, the staff in Croydon who produce the evidence packs don't have a clue about Finchley, it is simply a far away place on a map. This is one price of outsourcing, the lack of local knowledge.

 

In a curious case the traffic warden claimed that the expiry date had been altered on a blue badge. It hadn't been.

 

The council / NSL appeals system is like this case: broken. Thank goodness for the commonsense that you get from the independent adjudicator.

This Penalty Charge Notice was issued because the Enforcement Authority say that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a resident's permit bay without displaying a permit. Unless the Appellant expressly concedes that the restrictions were properly marked and signed in compliance with the relevant part of the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, the Enforcement Authority must first establish with evidence that they were. This is normally done by evidence from the Civil Enforcement Officer who issued the Penalty Charge Notice or the cctv footage if issued following observation by camera, or photographic evidence and/or maps/plans of the area.

The evidence supplied are the notes of the civil enforcement officer who issued this Penalty Charge Notice. The notes do not mention a sign/time plate and whilst the Enforcement Authority have produced a library photograph of the location which shows a sign what is written on it is not legible.

In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that this resident's permit bay was correctly signed and so must allow this appeal.

Even if the Enforcement Authority had produced evidence of the sign, I would have still allowed the appeal as I accept the Appellant's case that he could not move his vehicle because of a broken key and that he called out a locksmith to provide a replacement. There is no evidence that the broken key was the Appellant's fault and I find that the exemption that the vehicle is prevented from moving by circumstances beyond the driver's control applies.

There were the usual arguments about whether a PCN was handed to the driver or not.

 

Here is another adjudicator's report about a single yellow line across a dropped kerb in Rosemont Avenue which might help you at other locations:

Mr E. initially made representations on the basis that his car was parked on a single yellow line and there was a disabled badge displayed. However the Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the contravention of parking adjacent to a dropped kerb. Mr E. appeals as he states that the Penalty Charge Notice should not have been issued because there is no evidence that the occupier of the premises asked for a Penalty Charge Notice to be issued.

A Penalty Charge Notice may not be issued for this contravention when residential premises have a driveway that is not shared with other premises and the purpose of the dropped footway is to assist vehicles to enter or leave the road from or to the highway unless the Enforcement Authority is requested to do so by the occupier of the premises.

I have seen the notes made by the civil enforcement officer, photographs taken on 19th July 2013 and also a photograph from Google Street view showing the location. I find that the evidence shows that the dropped kerb was not outside a driveway to residential premises. Therefore there was no requirement for the occupier of premises to request that a Penalty Charge Notice be issued.

Mr E. refers to Parking and Traffic Appeals Service case 2110067442. In that case an Adjudicator found that it was misleading to mark a location with a single yellow line and a dropped kerb on the basis that as parking adjacent to a dropped kerb is prohibited at all times if the location is also marked with a yellow line it should be with a double yellow line and not a single yellow line.

I am not bound by the decision of another Adjudicator. However the appellant has clearly raised the issue of the appropriateness of marking a location where parking is prohibited at all times with a single yellow line where restrictions are in operation only part of the time. The local authority has referred to this in its case summary but in my opinion has not adequately answered the issues raised.

I find that in the particular circumstances of this case the presence of a single yellow line at a location where there was also a dropped kerb was misleading.

I allow this appeal.

 

There was the usual case of someone getting a PCN in the minute that they were collecting a Visitor Voucher. The PCN is no more.

 

A delivery in the course of business was another exemption that was applied and the PCN cancelled. I ask myself why NSL don't cancel PCN when the obvious owner of a business appeals on this basis. The time of business owners is precious and this sort of behaviour could be the final straw that drives them out of the borough.

 

In a drive away case it was held that the traffic warden had not begun to prepare the PCN so was not prevented from serving it. There is currently an epidemic of traffic wardens issuing PCN in a hurry with them arriving by post.

 

Here is a case to do with paying your PCN on-line. This has ramifications for anyone who has chosen to pay up in the first 14 days.

 

Mr J. accepts that the contravention occurred. He believes he made payment of £55 the following day via the council's website. He produced a confirmation printed on 15 May 2013. The authority's position is that they did not receive any payment. Mr J. accepts his account was not debited.

The Authority is only obliged to accept payment of the discounted penalty if payment is made within 14 days of service of the Penalty Charge Notice. The amount is paid when it is received. The full amount becomes payable thereafter. That is the legal position. The authority does have discretion to extend that period.

In this case, payment was not taken because Mr J. had to press the "confirm" button before the transaction could be authorised. The heading on the form stating "Payment Confirmation" is confusing and does lead users to believe that payment has in fact gone through. The authority would be well advised to change this heading to avoid such situations arising in future. Mr J. was clearly not intending to avoid payment and the wording is not helpful. I would therefore strongly recommend that the authority now accept payment of £55 for this Penalty Charge Notice.

 

Barnet Council / NSL haven't thought about this long and hard as they have already rejected the recommendation which was only made on 16 November. I think they have to tell Mr J. why and doubtless the ambiguity in their system will all be his fault!

 

Next week, 99 PCN are appealed. You can do your bit to make it 100 a week by appealing every PCN you receive.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance 

TAPAS - w/c 19 August 2013 (typo week)

In this week at PATAS there were 50 cancelled PCN, 36 upheld and 2 subject to a recommendation to cancel and a typo that cost the council a PCN.

On Monday two PCN were cancelled as the council had not proved that the Event Day zone was properly signed in Holders Hill Drive. If you get a match day PCN make sure you ask the council to prove that the signage is correct and in place.

This report was one of my favourites for this week, and includes the rarely seen word "concomitant":

The contravention alleged is that of having parked in a residents' bay without displaying a valid permit. The appellant says that she paid to renew her residents permit, in the sum of £100, on 11th March 2013. She produces evidence of this. This is not disputed by the authority.

The appellant says that having not received her new permit, and having been told by the operator who took the payment to do so while she waited for the replacement, she stuck a copy of the confirmation of payment, which carries all the permit ID details on the face of it, in the windscreen of her vehicle. The officer took a photo of the vehicle with the confirmation displayed.

On the day in question, some 3 weeks after she had paid for her permit, but not received it, this PCN was issued on the basis that she had not displayed a valid permit.

The authority's evidence in response to this is perplexing. In the first place it stated in the informal rejection of her representations that 'the number' she had been given on payment was a 'Dispensation Number' and that 'this number is only temporary until you have been given your residents' permit'. According to their records the 'dispensation' which she has displayed had expired on 26th March and that was why the PCN was issued. (except that it says the dispensation lasts until the permit arrives, it isn't merely for a fixed period)

In its Case Summary the authority says that 'a motorist who is awaiting a new permit must request a temporary dispensation for the vehicle, from the council to cover it until such time as they receive the said permit. The council checked their records and can confirm that there was no dispensation at the time of the contravention'. How would a motorist know to do this? You need a temporary permit to cover the period until you get a replacement permanent permit. Madness. You can print your own permit out at home if you want although it is a poor looking effort without the official hologram and this is probably why most people don't bother. The system should be set up so that every permit is issued on the day of payment.

In other words the council is relying on its own breach of duty of due and prompt administration (failure to issue the permit in a timely manner) in pursuing this PCN. It had accepted the appellant's money for a renewal of the permit, and she had done all she could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the restrictions, and the council has failed during a period of over 3 weeks to issue the permit to which she was entitled. The appellant says that following the issue of this PCN she rang the authority, understandably upset, and complained and the renewal permit arrived by first class post the following day.

It is clear to me that the authority, having received the appellant's representations and checked its records, should have exercised the discretion it alone has to cancel this PCN. That it has had the facts before it and failed to consider the exercise of its discretion on such clear facts strongly suggests that it has fettered its discretion inappropriately.

In the circumstances I allow the appeal on the basis that the authority has in this case been in breach of its concomitant duty to act fairly.

So if you park negligently you get a parking ticket and if the council acts negligently you get a parking ticket. Ain't life grand?, as they say in Private Eye.

The next case was even worse and it makes you wonder why NSL were chosen. Are they the best available? I don't fancy any company which is worse to enforce local parking tickets. This relates to a £110 PCN and of course 50% of that is £55 not £30.

 

I have heard from the Appellant about his mistake with the scratch card. I accept that it was a mistake, but the contravention has occurred.

It was common ground that the Appellant made informal representations within the discount period and the Authority rejected them and offered to accept a discount in settlement. What happened from that point onwards was remarkable.

The Authority had apparently offered settle the penalty at £30. The Authority had not supplied the letter of rejection and one might draw an inference from that (I think this refers to the evidence bundle and if so this was a little sneaky). The Authority's own correspondence log suggested that it accepted that such an error had been made, and I find that such an offer had been made.

It was therefore of no surprise that the Appellant paid over the £30. He then received a Notice to Owner. This stated that there is an outstanding balance of £80. The Authority's correspondence log then recorded a complaint from the Appellant. The Appellant was apparently told of the mistake and invited to pay a further £30 to clear the balance. The Appellant refused.

The Authority made an offer of settlement. The Appellant is entitled to hold the Authority to it. Instead of just calling it a day as apparently the Authority had tried to do, it issued a Notice to Owner demanding the balance. To compound the error, the Authority then asked for another £30 which would meant that the Appellant would be paying £5 more than what he would have need to pay if such an error had not occurred. When this became an issue at the appeal stage, the Authority chose not to provide a copy of the letter of rejection and it did not explain why there is a balance to pay.

There had been a procedural impropriety. I am allowing the appeal.

I would say that would be a suitable case on which to demand costs as the council/NSL has made a mistake and then tried to cover it up and bully its way out which is wholly unreasonable.

In another case the PCN was cancelled as the driver had left and not been served as the traffic warden had not begun to prepare the PCN.

Of course, back office staff in Croydon don't know where they are when it comes to Barnet:

The Appellant said that he had paid for parking at location no. 5938 which is on the High Road, North Finchley. The enforcement officer's notes indicated that the vehicle was outside Martyn Gerrard and there was a sign outside the confectioners Mr Simms, a few doors from Martyn Gerrard. The sign identifies the location as 5950.

The Authority said that the Appellant claimed that he had parked at location 5938 which was the incorrect location. The location was certainly incorrect but the Appellant said 5939, not 5938.

The Authority said that the Appellant should have paid for 5940, which is around Regents News, 323 Ballards Lane. Regent's News is in deed at 323 Ballards Lane but it is around a third of a mile from Martyn Gerrard who are at 773 High Road North Finchley. I can understand misreading 5939 as 5938, but I do not understand why the Authority had not thought that something was wrong when its PCN and photographic evidence suggested that a contravention occurred on the High Road at location 5940 yet its research show that 5940 was in Ballards Lane. It even went to the trouble of obtaining a Google image showing Martyn Gerrard in the background. I have repeated the exercise. William Hill and Cancer Research are on either side of Martyn Gerrard. There is no Regent's News on that parade of shops at all.

I have therefore no confidence that the vehicle was at location 5940 despite the CEO's photographic evidence of the sign. The CEO would have relied on the sign to do his check and of course the Appellant had not paid to park outside Regent's News.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

A parking ticket being pursued from 31 May 2011 was described as an "abuse of process" and it was therefore cancelled. If you get an old PCN come back to life on you, keep appealing until you reach PATAS.

A time plate for the bus lane in West Hendon Broadway (headed South, the ones going North belong to Brent) was missing and so the PCN was invalid. Bus lane tickets are hard to get off so check the signs if you get a PCN at that location.

There was an interesting PayByPhone observation:

 

The Appellant's case is that he had in fact paid; and he produces a bank statement and phone bill in support. The phone bill shows the date in question; and I do not regard it as at all improbable that the debit is shown on the statement the next day. Presumably if it did indeed represent a payment for parking on the 11th and not the 10th the Council would be in a position to produce evidence that there was such a payment for parking on that day and that it therefore cannot relate to the day before. On balance I am satisfied payment was made and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

 

Well done that motorist for fighting properly armed with his evidence.

 

Now, the typo error you have been waiting for:

 

The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. He denied the contravention and said he thought he had parked within a CPZ which only applied Mon- Friday and which the local authority also stated was the case in their initial rejection letter, and the whole matter was therefore very confusing.

I have looked at the penalty charge notice and the photographic evidence. This clearly shows the appellant's vehicle parked on a single yellow line very close to a time - plate which restricts the hours of parking seven days a week and during the hours the appellant was parked.

I am therefore satisfied that the appellant was parked in contravention and that the penalty charge notices were properly issued.

However I am not satisfied that the local authority have properly dealt with the appellant's representations.

The local authority apologise for the typographical error in their response to the informal representations. However their response is more than a typographical error. It confirms that the appellant was parked in a CPZ outside the hours of restriction and therefore misleads the appellant in believing he has a genuine ground of appeal.

I therefore find that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the local authority and allow this appeal.

 

If you make an error it costs you £110, if the council blunder that is simply a typo even when it isn't. Double standards apply in the world of parking.

 

Double yellow lines across a dropped kerb could mislead.

 

They argued that the photograph that the local authority has produced is old, taken from an elevated angle and is therefore misleading.

The photograph that the appellant has produced certainly shows that the stretch of pavement there has been lowered but it most certainly does not meet the level of the carriageway. There is a ridge.

The contemporaneous photographic evidence taken by the officer does not show that it does meet the carriageway.

There are also double yellow lines there. Mr. Perry parked his vehicle on those double yellow lines and displayed his disability badge and clock.

Whilst I accept that the two contraventions - dropped footway and double yellow lines - are mutually exclusive, it is clear that there must be absolute certainty so that the motorist is not misled.

A disabled motorist is permitted to park on double yellow lines as long as the badge and clock are displayed but a disabled motorist displaying the badge and clock is not permitted to park adjacent to a dropped footway, all the more reason for making the dropped footway clear and unequivocal.

I find as a fact that the dropped footway does not meet the carriageway and with the presence of the double yellow lines this is capable of misleading a reasonable, disabled motorist.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

Barnet Council / NSL have an unreasonable expectation that everyone should carry a stock of visitor vouchers in their car for a zone they have not previously visited so that you don't need to go to the house you are visiting to collect a permit - not how life works.

 

The Enforcement Authority has provided brief notes and photographs. The photographs are not timed. The penalty charge notice (pcn) shows an observation period from 14:31 to 14:32.

The appellant claims that the driver went to collect a visitor's voucher from his home nearby. She claims when he returned to the vehicle with the vehicle with the voucher the pcn had been issued. She complains that the vehicle was observed for only one minute. There is a letter from the driver and a copy of the permit.

On balance, I accept the appellant's account which appears genuine. A motorist should be given sufficient time to obtain and display a visitor's voucher. The observation time in this case was brief. I allow the appeal.
 

Sometimes the traffic warden walks off when the motorist appears and they think phew but a PCN arrives in the post. It shouldn't.

 

Mr X stated that she (the traffic warden) then walked off and he assumed that it was the end of the matter and drove away. He explained that at no time did the officer state that she was trying to issue a penalty charge notice or did she ask him to wait. At no stage did he prevent her from issuing a penalty charge notice. Mr Z confirmed his account.

The authority have sought to serve the penalty charge notice by post because, they assert, that their officer attempted to serve the penalty charge notice by fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person who appeared to be in charge of it, "but was prevented from doing so by some person". Her notes do not support this.

I have no hesitation in accepting Mr X and Mr Z's accounts as true as I found them to be credible witnesses. I do not accept that the officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice under regulation 9 or that she was prevented in any way from so doing.

In the circumstances, the authority have not established entitlement to serve this penalty charge notice by post and the appeal must be allowed.

 

A PCN fixed to your car is a Regulation 9 PCN and one sent by post is a Regulation 10 PCN. You get one fewer appeals with a regulation 10 PCN as it acts like a Notice to Owner.

 

Finally, in what was a good week for the adjudicators, another Saracens Event Day case:

 

The Appellant's representations make a number of points, namely:

1 The Penalty Charge Notice was not affixed to his vehicle, but merely tucked under the windscreen wiper;
2 The Penalty Charge Notice did not state the Zone and thus did not accurately make out the contravention;
3 The Appellant formed the view, based on the Enforcement Authority's correspondence, that his Zone E permit would be valid;
4 The date of the alleged contravention was after the last of the event days notified; and
5 The bay lines were worn and thus not substantially compliant

but these were rejected by the Enforcement Authority.

In his appeal, the Appellant repeated the same issues and claimed that the Enforcement Authority had failed to consider his representations and that such failure amounted to a procedural impropriety. He also raised the following:

(i) the sign next to the bay where he had parked was not a standard sign and the Enforcement Authority was required to provide a copy of the special authorisation of the Department for Transport;
(ii) the Event Day Controlled Parking Zone was not properly signed and proof was sought that the event for 12 May 2013 was shown on signs at the necessary locations; and
(iii) the Enforcement Authority was asked to demonstrate the Traffic Management Order authority for setting 12 May as a restricted Event Day
Further observations were raised by the Appellant upon receipt of the Enforcement Authority's evidence, in particular that the Enforcement Authority had failed to show that they had properly communicated the restrictions to show that 12 May was an Event Day.

The Enforcement Authority is in difficulty in this case for the following reasons:

1) There is no evidence that the day in question was an event day.
2) Article 5 of the relevant traffic Management Oder provided by the Council requires a vehicle left in a parking place referred to in Schedule 1 and 2 and in permit area streets during the permitted hours to obtain or display a permit. A "permit area street" is defined in Article 2(1) as a "street or any part of a street described in Schedule 3". Schedule 3, or adequate extracts from it, have not been supplied, and the inclusion of item 347 on a page appearing to form part of Schedule 1 does not provide conclusive evidence that the street in question is a permit area street
3) The sign shown in the Enforcement Authority's photograph is not a permitted sign under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (as amended), and requires authorisation. No evidence of this has been provided or of the zone entry signs and authorisation for them.
4) Direction 25(3) TSRGD as amended prohibits the use of most types of bay markings within a permit parking area (PPA). It would appear from the photographs that such bay markings are present. Authorisation for their continued presence within a PPA is required. (If it were to be argued that a permit area street is not a Permit Parking area authorisation for the signage would be required in any event).
5) The single sign shown in the photographs is in my view inadequate on its own to indicate give a sufficient indication to a motorist parking there as to the event day restrictions that required a permit to park there.

As I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle was in breach of the requirement to display a permit or that the requirement to do so was clearly indicated by clear and correct signage, I cannot be satisfied that a contravention occurred and must allow the appeal.

 

The next Saracens Event Day is coming up this Saturday 31 August 2013. If you are one of the motorists unlucky enough to be targeted for a parking ticket then make all of the same appeal points as were successful in the above appeal, particularly (i), (ii) & (iii).

 

Quite a long report this week but if you are in a similar situation you can crib ideas and save yourself £60, 3110 or £130. Remember once the 50% discount offer has expired i.e. you have received the Notice to Owner, you have absolutely nothing to lose by appealing again to the council and then again to PATAS as it is only 28 days after losing a PATAS appeal that the council can increase the amount to pay (or they can increase it 28 days after the Notice to Owner if you don't appeal to PATAS) so you can delay the inevitable and you also have a 72% chance of winning if you put together a half decent argument.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 17 June

In the week commencing Monday, 17 June there were 67 appeals. Of those, 44 resulted in a cancelled parking ticket. That is 66% for number lovers.

The reasons include

- liabilty transferred to hirer. I don't understand why such a simple decision about who is liable has to be fought all the way to PATAS by a car hire company who will have a signed hire agreement. Why don't NSL / council employees look at who the hire company is and the agreement and then simply transfer liability to the driver without wasting 3 hours preparing an evidence pack with the inevitable result. The only cases lost are by smaller operators who maybe didn't have a properly drafter hire agreement, or even a hire situation at all, the big boys have used their lawyers to good effect and got it right.

- a dispensation ran out. How would you know as it is all done over the phone and generally you aren't told the start date or end date of the dispensation by the council.

- the traffic warden allowed precisely zero minutes for a permit to be obtained from the address being visited.

- ticketed across your very own (not shared with the neighbours) dropped kerb? Read this.

I allowed the appellants appeal as follows:-

"The appellant denies the contravention. She states that she parked alongside the dropped kerb in front of her own driveway for the purposes of loading and unloading and therefore falls within the exceptions provided by the Traffic Management Act 2004 S.86(3) and S.86(5). The local authority have not addressed these representations but incorrectly state that it is still a contravention to park outside their own driveway in direct contradiction to the legislation which require a complaint to be made by the owner of the residential premises. I am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur and allow this appeal. If the appellant wishes to pursue a claim for costs she should send in an itemised note of the time and disbursements incurred in defending this appeal."

The appellant has now applied for an order for costs and expenses to be made against the local authority on the basis that their conduct in failing to address her representations or the legislation to be "extremely unreasonable"

Under Regulation 12 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 it is provided that an Adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses but may, subject to hearing representations from the party, make such an order against that party if he is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that his conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable. Additionally, an order may be made against the local authority where the Adjudicator considers that the disputed decision, (the decision by the local authority to reject the appellant's representations), was wholly unreasonable.

I find the local authority complete lack of even an attempt at addressing the appellant's representations or checking the legislation despite being placed on Notice by the appellant, and in clear breach of their statutory duty, makes the disputed decision wholly unreasonable.

 The local authority have not made any representation as to why a costs award should not be made.

I therefore award the appellant costs in the sum of £62.15 made up as follows:

1) £60.00 for time spent in excess of 5 hours which would be the maximum amount a litigant in person would be able to recover in the Small Claims Court under the Civil Procedure Rules.

 2) £2.15 disbursements for the cost of a stamp and recorded delivery.

- there were kerb flashes (those short marks that are marked on the kerb at right angles to the road) but no "No loading sign". Both are required.

- he council told a motorist that they couldn't drop a passenger off on a single yellow. This was simply wrong. You can, and on a double yellow.

- another set of notes from the independent adjudicator for your delight:

The photographs show the vehicle parked with its rear within a designated parking place and its front outside the designated parking place on the adjacent yellow line. It displayed a disabled badge and clock. It follows that the rear of the vehicle was lawfully parked, and the front of the vehicle was lawfully parked. In these circumstances I would take some persuading that the relevant Traffic Management Order, which has not been supplied, nevertheless flies in the face of common sense and puts the vehicle into contravention

The Council's submission that parking in this way reduces the space available in the bay for other vehicles (whilst sensible enough in other types of instance of this contravention) is clearly irrational in the case of a vehicle which is partly outside the bay entirely. Had it been parked entirely within the bay, the space available for other vehicles within the bay would be reduced not increased.

I am not satisfied that this was a contravening vehicle; and even if it had been the traffic management purpose to be served by issuing a PCN in these circumstance is quite impossible to fathom. The Appeal is allowed.

- the council claimed there were yellow kerb flashes when they weren't.

- it's no joke

Although I note that in the enforcement officer's photographs the yellow line on which this vehicle was parked is just about visible I accept the driver's evidence that at the time at which he parked earlier that morning it was covered by snow and not visible. I accept that the driver was not fully familiar with this surbanan area and that he would have had no reason to believe in the absence of a clear yellow line that waiting restrictions were in place. It seems to me that the council should first have cleared snow from the road if it wanted to enforce waiting restrictions on it. I am satisfied that this yellow line was visible to the driver at the relevant time and find that the contravention has not been proved.

 

- some bay markings were described as "vestigial" and as as "less than adequate" and the test is that they have to be "substantially compliant".

 

- a driver thanked the traffic warden for not issuing a ticket. He wrote "handed to driver" in his notes!

 

Keep those appeals coming. The average personal appeal in front of an independent adjudicator is a calm and considerate matter lasting about 25 minutes (an adjudicator will spend an average of 20 minutes on a postal appeal) which leaves you plenty of time to try the bars and restaurants of Islington and the Chapel St market as you are adjacent to Angel tube station.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance.

 

70 parking tickets cancelled by PATAS in a week

Not a parking ticket

The week of 25 February was a good one for the motorist and a pretty bad for the council which we also have to pay for. There were 97 appeals which cost £42 each so around £4,000 was paid out and 27 tickets worth either £60, £110 or £130 a time will be payable (although not necessarily paid) so using £110 that would be about £3,000 coming in. The council need to look at the way in which NSL are careering about the borough looking for vehicles to ticket. More and more people are starting to appeal.

 

In the year ended 31 March 12 there were 1,409 parking appeals to Patas, and 79 for bus lanes, out of 150,000 PCN issued so approximately 1% of parking and bus lane tickets end up with an appeal at the PATAS stage. The week of 25 February saw 3.36% of an average week's parking tickets appealed which is an indication to me that all is not well with the issue of parking tickets. As the number of appeals rises the pressure will mount on the parking budget and more and more desperate parking tickets will probably be issued to get the numbers up.

 

23 of the appeals did not result in a hearing either because the evidence pack was not provided or because the council threw in the towel at the last minute. If you have a good case don't be put off by the council and/or NSL bluffing and blustering, hand on to the end and you might get a pleasant surprise.

 

Some notable cases:

 

Case 2130035540 ( you can look at PATAS cases here ):

The Appellant thought he had paid for parking his car, but it turned out that he had paid for his wife 's scooter (not me in case you were wondering) which had been parked and paid for in Westminster previously. It would appear that the same company operate the pay by phone parking for this Enforcement Authority and Westminster. As far as I am aware payment for parking in motor cycle bays is only required in Westminster.

The Appellant's complaint is that he had no reason to believe that the two Enforcement Authorities had a connected payment system (combined account) . I am aware that in Westminster the default system is that where there is more than one vehicle registered the last one paid for is the default vehicle when the next payment is made. So I assume that here as the last payment on this combined account was for the scooter in the area of the other authority, then that was the default vehicle.

However, unless clearly warned to the contrary, a person registered to pay by phone in this Authority would not expect transactions in other authorities to have any bearing. To this extent I agree with the Appellant. The Enforcement Authority have not produced any warnings or information given to users about the combined accounts. Whilst I imagine any automatic system may have announced the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle being paid for, that would not be sufficient given the assumptions against a combined account the motorist would have. To that extent the payment for the wrong vehicle was a systematic fault rather than the Appellant's.

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.

 

So you use the hated pay-by-phone system in other places, be careful.

 

Blue badge holders seem to have more than their fair share of trouble given to them:

She does not dispute where and when her vehicle was parked. She says she was displaying a disabled person's badge. It is common ground that if she was the contravention cannot be said to have occurred. The Authority has not provided me with any notes from the Enforcement Officer on that point but asserts that a note was made that no badge was seen. Four photographs have been produced but they are of such very poor quality as to be wholly uninformative. 

On the other hand Mrs. G has maintained the same account from the outset. She is a Barnet resident and the Authority does not dispute she holds a Blue Badge. This was an incident at about 17:22 on a late November evening. The natural light must have been poor or non-existent. On balance I accept the Appellant's account and find the contravention did not occur. Accordingly, I allow the Appeal.

 

Parking tickets without photographs or with blurred photos and vague notes were cancelled.

 

There is a redundant dropped kerb in Hamilton Rd and so the parking ticket was cancelled. If you get ticketed for parking across a dropped kerb which seems to have no good purpose then appeal it.

 

A redundant disabled bay which had been painted over and a proper CPZ bay not put there to replace it led to a cancelled parking ticket. Is there a redundant disabled bay put in for a particular resident who no longer lives there? if so, you can ask the council to remove it.

 

Don't panic, a nice traffic warden will help you?

 

The appellant appeared before me. She was in a very emotional state. She said that she had just come from a very difficult appointment at the Paediatric department from Barnet hospital and there were serious issues with her baby and she was she was so overwrought and having a panic attack that she stopped for a few minutes on the yellow line and got out of her vehicle to get some fresh air and calm down.

 

She had seen as sign on an earlier part of the road showing parking restrictions ending at 6.30 and did not expect that there were different restrictions in force at the location where she came to a stop. She stated that the sign shown in the photographs were a considerable distance from her vehicle and you could not see it as it was camouflaged by trees. She further stated that the CEO even saw the appellant and how distressed she was standing near the vehicle and yet still proceeded to issue a penalty charge notice.

 

I accept what the appellant says and believe that appellant stopped as a result of having a panic attack and am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur.

I have therefore allowed this appeal. (The sensible and human decision).

 

Another dropped kerb non-problem:

There is no dispute that this vehicle was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb outside the appellant's address she stating that she shares that address with a Mr D. Parking adjacent to a dropped kerb is prohibited but an exemption is available where a vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the constant of the occupier of those premises - other than where a driveway is shared (which I am satisfied on the appellant's photograph of it this driveway is not). The appellant seeks to rely upon this exemption.   She submits that she had the permission of her joint occupier, Mr D, to park her vehicle as she did. Mr Dredge has written in support. I acknowledge the council's point that no evidence has been supplied to show that Mr D lives at this property but I am prepared to accept that he does and that he consented to the vehicle being parked as it was and am satisfied on the appellant's case that she may claim the benefit of the exemption claimed.   Well done everyone. remember keep appealing, 3 times for every ticket.   Yours appealingly   Miss Feezance

4 out 5 of is pretty good (for you!)

In the week commencing Monday 28th January of the 48 appeals heard by PATAS, the office of the independent adjudicators, 39 were decided in favour of the motorist i.e. their parking tickets were cancelled. Now those are good odds. Filling a form in has never looked such good value - it is free to go to PATAS and there is no downside if you lose, you simply pay your ticket at the £60/£110/£130 level at which it was issued.

 

East Barnet School put in an appeal against one ticket. Barnet (NSL) failed to produce the evidence as they also did on 8 occasions, fail, that is.

 

I see a lot of dropped kerb cases where there are not any photographs. Given the scope for argument about whether a car is adjacent to a dropped kerb or not one would expect to see photos every time. Without some other compelling evidence the council loses.

 

There are lots of examples of motorists who make a one digit error in the location code and so their payment does not show up on the traffic warden's hand held equipment. The adjudicator said "One might have thought that discretion might have been exercised" but it wasn't and so the adjudicator noticed that the council said "payment had not been made for the vehicle" which was not true, payment had been made but for the wrong place. The adjudicator found that to be sufficient reason to cancel the parking ticket.

 

Another pay-by-phone fiasco. The motorist made 20 attempts to pay. The adjudicator cancelled the parking ticket. Why commonsense didn't prevail before that point is hard to say.

 

Another motorist was well represented and knew that the wording on the parking ticket was incorrect, as it has been for 4 years (now corrected). The adjudicator said that was a persuasive argument.

 

The old dropped kerb, a favourite of traffic wardens, came into question. It wasn't for a vehicle and it wasn't for pedestrians, the absence of tactile pavement was noted, and the parking ticket was cancelled.

 

Another dropped kerb, this time the car was there in order to collect the disabled father of the driver. S86 (Traffic Management Act) allows for the boarding of passengers so this parking ticket was cancelled. More lack of commonsense and reasonableness from NSL and/or Barnet Council.

 

A sign was facing the wrong way in Talbot Crescent, Hendon was enough for a parking ticket to be cancelled. The lines look pretty faded in that road and are a possible extra grounds of appeal.

 

Another bash at the disabled. A motorist was setting down a disabled passenger which by the nature of the disability can take longer than for an able-bodied person. The adjudicator cancelled the parking ticket. No quarter given by NSL and/or Barnet Council whose decision makers all need to spend some time pushing someone round in a wheelchair to get in tune with society.

 

A parking ticket was given to someone who drove away as they were trying to pay and the traffic warden was the final straw. This motorist was a lawyer and so was believed. The parking ticket was cancelled.

 

A disabled badge was on the driver's of the windscreen, which is only natural as it is closer to hand. The traffic warden only managed to photograph the passenger side of the windscreen and this left the necessary room for doubt in favour of the motorist. Parking ticket cancelled.

 

NSL failed to deal with informal representations. This led to the parking ticket being cancelled.

 

This next case is a beauty:

There seems to me no reason at all to doubt the Appellant's evidence, amply supported by documentation , that he was unloading gardening tools as he describes. The very brief observation period does nothing to suggest that some other activity was in progress.

The Council does not appear to doubt that this was so. Its case is, as stated in its case summary , that "loading and unloading is not permitted in a residents bay at any time." It maintains this position having complied with my direction to produce the Traffic Management Order.

This is simply wrong. It is permitted. The Traffic Management Order produced by the Council shows that it does indeed contain such an exemption, as these Orders invariably do - see Article 22(1)(h). I am satisfied the vehicle was within the exemption and that the PCN was incorrectly issued.

The Council's persistent failure to read its own TMO and apply its mind to the law correctly is  not only a procedural impropriety ( and the Appeal could have been allowed on this  ground alone) but conduct which is  wholly unreasonable. The Council has been put on notice of the Appellant's application for costs and given the specific invitation to respond to it over the adjournment. In the absence of any representations this seems to me one of the clearest cases I have seen for the making of such an Order. I order the Council to pay the £10 costs asked for by the Appellant. The Council may consider itself a little fortunate that the Appellant is claiming such a modest amount.

 

So the council give a motorist incorrect information and anyone less robust than this very reasonable person (£10 for being messed about is very little) might have given in and paid.

 

Finally another dropped kerb in Mays Lane and the council were unable to say why it was dropped, and it is in the slip road near the width restriction at the bottom of Manor Rd, and it does not have any purpose that I can see either, so this led to the cancellation of the parking ticket.

 

What you can see from the above is that Barnet Council & NSL acting together are a long way short of a dream team. They score own goals and need to be looked over regularly by the third umpire (the independent adjudicator). Do keep putting those appeals in.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

Crossover / dropped kerb parking - help needed

Here is a picture of a car, the black one, which was given a parking ticket for obstructing a crossover ( lowered kerb ). This car is outside the CPZ but just so you know the whole of Barnet is what is called a Special Enforcement Area and so you should never park across a dropped kerb ( except outside a CPZ and with the permission of the householder ).

It is clear that the car is not obstructing the crossover as a crossover is defined as starting where the level of the footway is lowered to meet the level of the road. That means that if your car ends alongside the sloping stone which takes the path down to meet the road then no contravention has occurred.

What I want like to have, to help my friend with his appeal, is photographs of cars which were similarly parked and where the PCN ticket ( Penalty Charge Notice ) was cancelled upon appeal. I would also need to have the PCN reference number if you are happy for your case to be used in support of my friend.

Even better if you have taken your case all the way to Patas as that will have set out the guidelines.

I do hope that you can help.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance