Appeal that parking ticket if you think your PCN is unfair. Don't just pay. Appealing is free. Monthly reports are about Barnet Council PCN. (email: barnetpcns@gmail.com )
Showing posts with label human rights delay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights delay. Show all posts
It was a slow week at PATAS and I think that has been caused by the changeover of parking enforcement software by NSL on behalf of Barnet Council. So slow that only 28 news cases lodged at PATAS in the week out of 926 related to Barnet. So slow that I am not even going to illustrate the story with a picture this week; please simply imagine "slow" painted on the road in big white capitals.
For a while the number of appeal hearings at PATAS was running at about 100. Last week it was 55 of which 32 led to the PCN being cancelled so that was a 58% success rate.
There were 6 cases which you need to know about.
A gas fitter attending an emergency had his PCN cancelled for obvious reasons. Whilst trying to make a property safe you haven't got time to stop and do anything else.
NSL, on behalf of the council, were unable to produce a copy of the PCN even after an adjournment of 2 weeks. Bye bye PCN.
A person is allowed to alight (get out of) a car that is stopped on double yellow lines. Stopping for up to 2 minutes for the able bodied would be perfectly permissible and longer for your children, the elderly and disabled.
The council produced their evidence at the last minute. it should be with you 4 days (excluding Sundays) before the hearing. If not, your Human Right to a fair trial has been breached as the Evidence pack may contain some evidence that you then don't have the time to investigate. The PCN was duly cancelled.
There were two cases of alleged prevention of service of PCN. Unless you have physically restrained the traffic warden by force there has not been any prevention.
Some kerb flashes (blips or marks, call them what you will) which are painted across the kerb and are about 300cm long were not sufficiently clear so the PCN was cancelled. these flashes mean both no loading / unloading and no parking for blue badge holders. Please take care.
Now the software is up and running again I expect the appeal numbers will rapidly go back up to the usual levels.
Last week at PATAS there were 87 hearings. There were 11 instances of witness statements TE9 which I will ignore. There were 3 cases where the adjudicator couldn't find a legal reason but asked the council to cancel the PCN all the same. That left 73 standard cases of which 47 were won, that is 64%
Time spent completing a PATAS form is never wasted.
Cases of note, in which the PCN was cancelled unless I tell you otherwise, were:
- one where the photos were too dark to make anything out (you should also deny that the contravention took place as then the only other evidence is the traffic warden's scant notes)
- a time plate that is mounted too low and is filthy in Highwood Hill
- a dropped kerb that was much wider than the entrance (presumably because the part of the drop that leads to a hedge, fence or wall can't be said to be dropped for the purpose of entering a drive)
- 5 cases where the vehicle had been taking without consent
- 2 stolen vehicle PCNs where a crime number was held (why oh why do these ever get to PATAS?)
- a sign too low in Hermitage Lane (realistically it should be visible above the bonnet of a car but it will be a question of judgment by the adjudicator as to whether low is too low or not)
- in their response to representations the council wrote about the wrong hour of restriction so were held to have not properly considered the representations which is a procedural impropriety
- we don't see many now, as they must largely have gone through the system, but there as a PCN from the distant days of 21 July 12. There was a process delay of 6 months 3 days which is just enough to breach your Human Right to a fair trial, when taken with the alleged bus lane contravention being 2 years ago.
- no photo, no tax disc number
- the adjudicator found it unacceptable that any photographs taken more than 5 minutes after the PCN could not be uploaded to the system. this is effect the suppression of evidence to the adjudicator.
- an unclear suspension (they often are)
- PCN not handed to driver as alleged.
- a medical emergency caused an urgent need to use the toilet (you will need proof of your medical condition)
- A traffic warden said it was OK to park there (this sort of claim is hard to prove)
- Saracens zone not proven
Excellent work everyone. Keep those appeals flowing.
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.
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.
If you have ever wondered how you get caught when you are tucked away somewhere taking a chance this video showing traffic wardens going about their business in Wandsworth should give you a good idea of how much ground they can cover in a very short time. How the wardens don't all get into crashes given the careless way in which they are riding is very hard to comprehend.
Now back to PATAS. There were 86 appeals in this week and 46 of them resulted in cancelled PCN (parking tickets) which is 53%.
A lady paid to park in the Lodge Lane Car park using the credit/debit card meter (wise lady) but it did not issue her with a little ticket to put in her windscreen. The paper must have run out. She made a note of how long she had and came back in time. She had a PCN. She appealed on the grounds that she had paid and produced her bank statement and a letter from the bank. The council rejected her bank statement as it didn't show the time of payment (well they aren't meant to) but failed to notice that the time of payment was in a letter from the bank which the adjudicator read more carefully than the council or NSL did. Anyone would think they read things just looking for grounds to deny an appeal. The PCN is now cancelled.
The signage for the Saracens zone was again found to be inadequate so another PCN bit the dust.
In a very interesting case, where the PCN was served by post because the driver left the scene the council failed to put into evidence the original PCN that they were supposedly prevented from affixing to the vehicle. That failure to produce the original Regulation 9 PCN (one produced at the scene) meant that the Regulation 10 PCN (sent in the post) was cancelled. A friend is about to use this defence.
The council said parking restrictions operated from 8 until 6.30 but the motorist proved it was only from 11 -12 so the PCN was cancelled. I'm not sure that all traffic wardens know the rules about CPZs.
In respect of a PCN from 13 September 2011 the adjudicator said that proceedings were so stale that a fair hearing wasn't possible and cancelled the PCN. If the adjudicator's attention is drawn to delays of 6 months or more they always cancel the PCN.
An even older PCN from 2 June 2011 led the adjudicator to say that the motorist's Human Rights came first and due to the delay he cancelled the PCN.
A PCN from 13 June 2011 was held not to have been served. The delay was not explicitly mentioned but the adjudicator may well have had it in mind. I suppose that they have internal circulars of what problems are coming up in appeals and Barnet must have had a mention for Saracens Zone and 2011 PCN.
The actions of the council in not promptly issuing a resident's permit counted against them, it not being fair to thus issue a PCN.
A van on the pavement so as to more easily clear a blocked drain had its ticket cancelled.
Two PCN from July 2011 became history and were cancelled.
Someone paid for 90 minutes but didn't get it. I have seen this problem before.
A PCN being chased from July 2011 was held to be an abuse of process.
Something odd happened to a case which Barnet asked to withdraw and permission was refused. There was some doubt about the legitimacy of the appeal form but the PCN got cancelled all the same.
Someone in a bus stop wasn't served. They were lucky to get away with that one.
Someone dropping off a cat, which has since been put down, had their PCN cancelled due to the loading and unloading exemption.
Another busy week for NSL and Barnet Council. Why not make them busier? Remember for a PCN on your car you can appeal 3 times
firstly - within 28 days of the PCN being put on your car
secondly - after you receiver the Notice to Owner (again within 28 days)
thirdly - to the independent adjudicator at PATAS within 28 days of having your last argument rejected for which you receive a notice of rejection.
It is at the third stage that you have the best chance of winning so it is worth it to flog through the other 2 stages. You don't have to respond at the first stage but you must respond to the Notice to Owner.
The third stage costs the council £40 so they probably hate it but they should allow more second stage appeals if they want fewer third stage ones.
Another week, another good set of appeals, 81 in all of which 46, or 57% were allowed. It is very pleasing to see so many people exercising their right to appeal to the independent adjudicator and succeeding.
There were the now regular cases with an unexplained processing delay which is a breach of your Human Right to a fair trial. Squashed PCN were from 10 August 2011 and 26 September 2011.
A suspension sign that was not visible was not enforceable.
The council tried to claim a penalty for parking across a dropped kerb by quoting the wrong legislation. They were not allowed to proceed.
A Saracens zone PCN hit the buffers as they do every time.
In a most interesting case to do with a vehicle being driven away before the PCN could be served the adjudicator wanted to see the original PCN. Oh dear, it wasn't put in evidence so it was cancelled. This case may be of use to others as it is easy for the council to claim they had started to issue a PCN and as they can't be cancelled, supposedly, then they must have finished it off and retained it as evidence? PATAS case 213046058A.
A sign that was mounted very low in Huntingdon Rd and obscured was found not to be adequate to uphold the PCN.
Due to many years of parking in that way there was a legitimate expectation that pavement parking was OK in Chapel Court. The PCN was cancelled.
A bus lane sign was missing. We only have bus lanes on one road so you might wish to refer to PATAS case 2130460411 in case you are in the same boat (or bus lane).
There is some sort of school concession in East End Road but I don't have the details. It sounds like one of those arrangements that councillors make and the traffic wardens don't know about. Check with your school to see if there are any concessions for your school.
The suspension of a PayByPhone bay was assumed to finish at 6.30pm as that is the time that the bay itself finished.
