PATAS - w/c 18 May 15 - Gervase Rd again

Gervase Road & one of its notorious pavement parking bays

Here are the statistics for this short week due to the end of May bank holiday.

There were 4 PCN cancelled which are worth a mention.

The pavement parking bays are badly laid out in Gervase Rd. Scooter based traffic wardens know that and often pop there as they are certain to be able to issue to some poor soul who has parked in the "wrong" place. Your defence is to attack lines and signs as being inadequate and then the council have to prove them and the staff who make up the Evidence Packs will struggle to do so.

The loading bay in High Rd N12 (outside HSBC) was not well enough signed as the sign for it was hidden behind a tree whilst the one for the paybyphone bay was much more visible.

It was uncertain that a car was over 50cm from the edge of the carriageway. Make sure that at least one piece of your car is within that reasonable tolerance.

The notes of the traffic warden were unsatisfactory. You don't normally see them until the Evidence Pack stage (i.e. you have made an Appeal to PATAS) but they are worth taking a look at. If you can't make sense of the abbreviations tell the Adjudicator that at the personal hearing (you should always request a personal hearing and treat the day as a day out in London, have your hearing and then lunch or a visit to the Tate Modern or something like that so that win or lose you have a nice day out).

So in this particular week the number of Appeals stayed high (the parking manager must wonder when they are going to settle down and that will be when PCN are no longer used to fill budget shortfalls) and the success rate was higher than the usual 50%. Well done everyone.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

PATAS - w/c 16 June 14 - Which flat?

a random block of flats in Finchley

In this week at PATAS there were 1,191 new Appeals lodged of which 61 or 5% came from Barnet so numbers are up slightly again. Of the 60 Barnet cases that were heard 37 were won which is 62% so keep them coming.

Five cases worth a mention:

- Gervase Road again so be careful where you park there. The PCN was upheld so has to be paid.

- The council in the case summary said that the traffic warden did not refer to the Blue Badge. The adjudicator, always a lawyer and very sharp, said that did not mean that the traffic warden had looked for one. PCN cancelled.

- A motorist denied swearing or spitting at the traffic warden and their PCN was cancelled. Please do not behave in this way to traffic wardens who get the miserable pay rate of £8.20 an hour and are probably put upon by management.

- A motorist was in the process of complying with the payment instructions (whether by voucher, paypoint, meter or PayByPhone is not relevant) and must be given adequate time to comply. PCN cancelled.

- Paperwork sent without a flat number to an address in a block of 40 flats is clearly not good service. What numptie at NSL thought that they should bother PATAS and waste £40 in fees on this case?

Keep those appeals coming. You are all (well lots of you) doing very well and learning stuff.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS w/c 9 June 2014 - 78% win rate

In this particular week at PATAS there were 1,201 new Appeals registered of which 50, that is 4%, came from Barnet which was, for once, the percentage that you would expect. The peak in Appeals looks to have abated for now.

There were 4 PCN worth a mention.

In Bells Hill the signage on a single yellow line, which for some bizarre reason, operates until late at night and is a favourite trap spot of scooterised traffic wardens, was found to be "not very effective". That is because the sign is around the bend in a side turning and cannot be seen from your car.

A person who displayed their blue badge got a PCN notwithstanding. This was because the traffic warden managed to only photograph part of the windscreen which did not contain the Blue Badge. Don't get a traffic warden to take your wedding photographs as the bride or the groom will be missing from shot. This was, of course, a genuine accident which I have seen happen several times before.

Yew Grove was found to be not clearly marked. I see to recall having seen that location in this blog recently. You know what to do, appeal.

Gervase Rd is a regular feature at PATAS as the road is marked out for pavement parking but all of the necessary signs are not in place and people go astray and park, perfectly safely, with 2 wheels on the kerb where markings are not provided. Usually  the PCN gets cancelled due to lack of clarity but in a very unusual move a Review was requested of a decision lost at that location and the PCN now has to be paid. Just remember that within 14 days of an Appeal decision either party can ask for a Review and although there are usually only about 50 such requests a year your winning case could suddenly be a losing case. I wonder if this motorist had been especially upsetting in some way to NSL or the council?

Keep those appeals coming. the odds are certainly in your favour.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance