PATAS w/c 8 April 13

More than 3 points required to turn this beast

Another good week at PATAS, the home of the independent adjudicator, where 37 parking tickets were cancelled, 212 were upheld and 2 were sent back to Barnet Council to think about offering some clemency. So that was a 75% win rate for the motorist.

Interesting cases include:

A vehicle had broken down. The PCN was cancelled. Why couldn't NSL or Barnet Council have cancelled the parking ticket? There was another case like this later in the week.

In Fredericks Place a vehicle was parked on the pavement which is normal for that location. The PCN was cancelled.

In an argument about pay-by-phone the records of Verrus were described as being of limited evidential value so it is worth arguing if you have paid.

A motorist doing a 3 point turn, which included going onto a crossover, received a PCN except that he was never served with it so the PCN was cancelled.

A suspension sign was poorly sited so that PCN was cancelled.

One of my favourites. A PCN was issued at 10:18 and payment was made at 10:19 so they evidently were both taking place at the same time as both the act of paying and the act of issuing a PCN each take more than 60 seconds to process. Trying to carry on and collect a penalty charge in such a situation is ridiculously mean. The joke is that the motorist only wanted 10 minutes of parking which they had paid for. If Eric Pickles gets his way they would be allowed 10 minutes grace and the lives of everyone would be improved.

 

Another case of delayed payment which took 7 minutes which I would say is not that unusual for pay-by-phone. The adjudicator felt bound to refuse as the PCN is legally correct but recommended to the council that they cancel the ticket all the same. The spirit of the parking rules had been complied with.

 

Inside a CPZ a parking ticket was given to a motorist on a single yellow line who had looked at the bay times and they were over. Thus the assumption was made that the single yellow lines were also OK to park on. It is not always the case. Often at junctions a single yellow may be for longer than the CPZ bays. In Woodside Close for example there is a single yellow line which is from 7am to 7pm and yet the zone is 8am to 6.30pm (I think, but is certainly of shorter duation). Keep an eye out when driving.

 

A parking ticket was cancelled as the motorist wasn't given enough time to collect a voucher.

 

The final case shows you the level to which NSL & Barnet council will stoop. It relates to a case of parking with 2 wheels on the pavement. Here is part of the adjudicator's comment:

 

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of the vehicle at the time, on the material date. The Enforcement Authority assert the said vehicle to have been parked otherwise than wholly on the carriageway; the Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as set out in his written representations.

The Enforcement Authority's adduced evidence of the location bears out the Appellant's explanation that he had adopted the parking position so as to be parallel to other vehicles parked at the rear of the bank. The photographic capture endorses the fact that there is provision for legitimate parking at the rear of the premises.

In light of my foregoing observation on the evidence, and by virtue of the fact that I had the opportunity of meeting and assessing the 88 year old Appellant, whose oral evidence I found to be cogent and credible and I accepted it in its entirety, I make a recommendation to the Enforcement Authority. (to cancel the parking ticket)

 

Those stroppy eighty eight year olds have got to be kept in line.

 

Please keep submitting your appeals to PATAS. It is worth the slight effort.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

 

Motorists drive the council back once again (times 47)

Mustang 67

There were 67 cases at PATAS in the week starting 11 March 2013. Of those 47 went the way of the motorist. The interesting cases, all of which resulted in a cancelled parking ticket, were:

 

A dropped kerb case where the council did not take sharp photographs at right angles to the kerb. If you come back to a parking ticket take your own photos of this kind before you move the car; the warden might take a picture at an angle to make the situation seem worse than it was.

 

A builder who went to load stuff that wasn't ready was still found to be loading. If councils have to follow that idea of Eric Pickles MP to give 10 minutes grace all those rapidly issued tickets will have to stop and the world will be a better place.

 

A man who collects donations for the British Heart Foundation found that NSL and/or Barnet Council didn't have a heart but the independent adjudicator did.

 

A lady sent a cheque in for 50% but forgot to date it. NSL sent it back, the lady was on holiday. By the time she returned it NSL insisted on 100%. The adjudicator felt, in essence, that was not fair and order that the cheque now be accepted in full settlement. Mr Mustard would have simply date stamped the cheque and banked it if there was no indication that it was not intended to be a current dated cheque. Possibly not strictly the letter of the law but a pragmatic solution.

 

A motorist who actually had proof of payment by phone had to go through all 3 appeal stages to get their parking ticket cancelled. Why? is the question that will never be answered.

 

Another dropped kerb which cannot be made out in the photos so the parking ticket cannot be upheld.

 

The note book kept by the traffic warden did not correspond with the times of the parking ticket. Notes have to be made at the time by the warden. You can ask for a copy of the notebook from the council to help with your appeal.

 

The London Ambulance Service had a ticket cancelled. Sadly no details are given as to whether it was on a 999 call or not at the time.

 

Another case had uncertain and vague evidence from the council. Result? parking ticket cancelled.

 

If you receive a letter of rejection of your argument that appears to be a template i.e. it doesn't answer your argument, that is a procedural impropriety so worth appealing against.

 

This is what the independent adjudicator had to say:

The council is under a duty to properly consider representations made to it in response to the notice to owner. On the appellant raising the issue I have read the council's rejection notice it appearing to be based on a template letter no reference at all being made therein to any of the points made by the appellant in her representations and I am not satisfied for that reason that the council properly considered those representations. I accordingly find that a procedural impropriety has occurred.

 

There were 14 cases in which no argument at all was presented. That could happen to you and is an easy win so keep on appealing.

 

Appeal informally after the parking ticket.

Appeal formally after the Notice to owner (use the same argument plus and new ones you think of).

Appeal to PATAS the home of the independent adjudicator.

 

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance