London Tribunals - February 2020

In February 2020 adjudicators at London Tribunals made decisions on 111 Barnet PCNs. They cancelled 47 of them, which is 43% and slightly lower than the 50% which I regard as the norm.

There were some decisions of note.

Congested road outside a school (2190528488)

If anyone had got out of the car the outcome would probably have been different.

Children crossing the road outside a school (22008852)

It is unimpressive that the council go mud slinging when there is no proof.

Putting the wrong words isn't a typographical error (2190541078)

Had to stop due to a moving vehicle, not a stationary one (220023255)

Council sign out of date but still want a penalty (2200332471)

The behaviour of the council in rejecting perfect representations and then resisting the Appeal was an outrage.

At least you know what sort of dishonest organisation you are dealing with.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - May 2018

In the month of May 2018 there were 226 Appeals decided upon at the tribunal. Of those, 110 went the way of the motorist, an about average 48.7%

Extracts of the interesting decisions follow.

Council hide behind data protection but the same owner! (218013972A)



You don't need to consult the atomic clock (218015398A)


Time allowed for loading and boarding (2180107075)

Boarding an injured passenger (2180117578)

Reason to serve by post did not exist (2180137611)



School coach on school keep clear marking (2180176227) 

If the school is council funded the coach company could simply add on an amount to its fee to cover the cost of the PCN and then the council pays the coach company to pay back to the council. The kids will be safer if the coach is next to the school entrance.

Keep those appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - April 2018

April 18 was a while back but there are lessons to be learnt from previous cases as the same old arguments can occur again and again. In April 18 there were 279 tribunal decisions of which 158, that is 56%, went the way of the motorist, so your chances of winning are better than 50/50 so why pay at a 50% discount as in the long run you will save money if you fight every PCN.

There were four decisions worth telling you about.

Setting down and loading are different exemptions (2180122330)

Whilst 2 minutes would be the maximum allowed for setting down a young able passenger you are allowed longer for the elderly and the young, persons not safe on their own, and you are allowed to leave the vehicle as the driver.

Zero not letter 'O' (2180117363)

A council refusing representations and fighting an Appeal in such a case is pretty miserable. To win in this sort of case you need to show the error was the council's (acting by their payment system supplier) and clearly if the numberplate provided to them isn't in the format AB12CDE the registration number provided should be checked, this would be a good use of technology but failure equals profit so councils won't make their supplier do this.

Regulation 10 - drove away (2180120109)

I wouldn't hang around waiting for a PCN as the notes of the traffic warden may be inadequate. In addition, they may not bother doing a postal PCN. If a traffic warden tells you to wait for the PCN, they can't, just smile and leave.

No charge for not charging (2180052086)

If the vehicle is electric and if it isn't holding up another motorist who needs to obtain some charge, traffic wardens should just walk on by.

Keep those appeals coming especially if the discount has gone as you have nothing to lose.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - October 2017

A council can't give this vehicle a PCN

In the month of October 2017 there were 213 Appeal decisions.

Of those 133 were found in favour of the motorist so that is a whopping 62% win rate.

There were 5 cases worthy of note.

Yellow box junction - turning right - 2170423341

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred in Cricklewood Lane at 3.49pm on 13 May 2017.

Paragraph 7(1) of Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 states that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.

Paragraph 7(2) states that this prohibition does not apply to any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn.

I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. I am allowing the appeal because the car stopped within the box to make a right turn out of the box and was prevented from completing the right turn by a stationary vehicle in front which had also made the right turn. Whilst I accept that the van in front had technically completed the right turn, it would make a nonsense of Paragraph 7(2) for the right turn exemption not to apply just because the next vehicle making the right turn manages to clear the box rather than having to stop within it.

The usual council argument is that it is only turning right out of a box, not into it, that forms the exemption. Another adjudicator is not bound by this decision.

Mixed up letters - very mean but the law - 2170419606

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Golders Green Road without payment of the parking charge on 16 May 2017. A penalty charge notice was issued at 1055.
　
The Appellant states that he paid for parking until 1111 and produced a text from paybyphone confirming this for location 5885. However, the Council's evidence shows that this was for vehicle registration mark LR05GMZ. However, the Appellant's vehicle was registration mark LR05GNZ.

It is clear, as the Appellant contends in his notice of appeal that he made a simple mistake when entering the vehicle registration mark. However, this is a matter of mitigation only and not a defence to the contravention. As the Adjudicator I have no power to cancel penalties on the basis of mitigation. The Council did reoffer the discounted penalty of £30, but this was not taken up by the Appellant and the Council now seeks the full penalty of £60. I have no power to direct them to accept the discounted penalty.

Although I accept that the Appellant made a simple error, as I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and the penalty charge notice was lawfully issued, I must refuse the appeal.

If the car registration had been provided over the telephone it might have been possible to argue that it was the council's error.

Tilling Road - the wrong sign - 2170429199

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to perform a prohibited turn.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Tilling Road at its junction with Brentfield Gardens, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to turn left when the sign shown in the images clearly indicates ‘no left turn’.

However, in their Notice of Rejection the Enforcement Authority say the sign is a white arrow on a blue sign. This would be a different contravention.

Either the sign is incorrect or the Enforcement Authority have mistaken the location.

The Adjudicator is only able decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the contravention alleged did occur.

Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.

Both signs are at the location but if the evidence isn't clear the council can lose.

Late for a funeral - not an exemption

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a no entry restriction in Torrington Park at 5.11pm on 7 July 2017.

I have looked at the images submitted by the Council. These show that Mr L’s car was driven through two no entry signs in Torrington Park. There was a no entry sign attached to a post on either side of the traffic island which stated that there was a no entry restriction except for local buses. There was also a Bus Only marking on the road surface. It is clear from the evidence that the alleged contravention did occur.

Mr L appeals on compassionate grounds because he says that he was driving two sons to the funeral of their father and that time was very tight. An Adjudicator has no power to take account of mitigating circumstances when deciding whether to allow or to refuse an appeal. The Council has already considered, and decided not to accept, the mitigating circumstances explained by Mr L.

The adjudicator really had no choice in this case.

Moving traffic - how many days are 28? - 2170469036

The Appellant has not attended and the Authority is not represented.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Finchley Road/Bridge Lane on 27 June 2017 at 17.27.

The Appellant's case is that he had anticipated that the exit would be clear.

He also takes a point on the Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the time permitted time for representations to be considered and referred me to the case of Atlas - v Barnet case number 2170053479.

I have considered the evidence and I have allowed this appeal on the truncated period point that an Authority must consider representations. I have copied into this decision the relevant part of the Atlas case.

"Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. {effectively 28 days + 2 days}

Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made, an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.'

Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations.

I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued."

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

More adjudicators disagree with this decision than agree

Keep those Appeals flowing.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

London Tribunals - August 2017

Another good month for the motorists who were brave enough to take their case all the way to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

There were 187 decisions.
Of those, 122 led to a cancelled PCN when the Appeal was allowed.
That is a fantastic 65% win rate for the motorist.

Three cases were noteworthy

Bailiff fees ordered to be refunded (2160528070)


Unless the address of the parents was on the warrant the bailiff had no business in even being there. It is not uncommon however for bailiffs to lean on family members to pay a debt which is not theirs when the motorist in question cannot pay. Expert help in this situation is available by phoning the Bailiff Advice Online phoneline on 01643 841886 between 9am and 6pm Monday to Friday.

Not 'not paying' but not 'not displaying' (2170170199)


PayByPhone text errors (2170343209)


Why would you even realise that a sign facing the opposite way from you has to be searched for? The sign telling you the hours and payment methods doesn't even refer you to it whereas arrows pointing towards meters are common.

Please remember that any decision by an adjudicator is not binding on another adjudicator or even themselves. each case is dealt with one its own facts although other decisions may turn out to be persuasive.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Tribunal Appeals - school report 2016 - Barnet Council

The chart above shows the fluctuations in the number of Appeals being decided each month. Generally the Appeal is heard one month after it is lodged. Looking at the last 4 months alone is interesting. Since moving traffic contraventions started in earnest in the summer the number of Appeals has surged forward (January 17 sees a slight drop but probably as the tribunal was closed for 10 days for Xmas & New Year holidays).

Overall PCN issue figures are in the chart below, with comparatives for 2015.

Type	2015	2016
Bus lane	11,601	6,642
Moving traffic	-	39,150
Parking	141,114	149,168
Totals	154,730	196,976

It is very pleasing to see bus lane figures coming down despite the introduction of automatic cameras which miss almost nothing. Motorists have perhaps finally realised that they will be caught so had best stay out of the bus lane. Some people never enter a bus lane as a matter of policy and that may not be a bad policy. If the bus lane is not in operation there probably won't be a queue in the all traffic lane in any event so there is nothing to gain by using the bus lane.

 

Moving traffic (yellow box junctions, banned turns, school zig-zags etc) are the new real money spinner for Barnet Council. The figures are for less than a full year.

It will take a while for the penny to drop that a banned turn, like at Tilling Rd near Brent Cross, which you have been wrongly doing for 20 years, will now cost you £130 a time. Once people realise the numbers will fall a little. New cameras are springing up at every possible location though, as this cash cow is one to be milked, so the numbers may rise before they fall.

 

The biggest problem (success in the eyes of the council) is with yellow box junctions.

 

There needs to be a wholesale change with the way that people drive, so as to avoid PCN, and it will lead to slower journey times across the borough if everyone takes the cautious and correct approach of waiting until the box is clear before they enter it. How to do it is explained on the TfL page here. Note the sparse London traffic a la 1950.

 

School zig zag PCN's are remarkably low. 

 

 

 

24 locations are monitored, so ignoring August (one unlucky person when the school was closed and so Barnet choose not to enforce as no harm is being done) and April as that was when the scheme was just warming up, we have 7 month's data and this equates to a single contravention every 2 days per school. This is hardly a rate of contravention that calls for a six figure sum to be spent on cameras. Those stories of carmaggedon at school drop off and pick up time look likely to have been false news.

 

Remember that a PCN is not a personal attack on you, it is simply an attempt to open your wallet or purse. Officially these are all issued for traffic management purposes. Poppycock.

Appeal results

I nearly forgot.

Of the 2,202 Appeal heard in the year, the motorist won 1,193 of them which is 54% of them against a norm of 48% across London.

966 went the way of the council and 41 were the subject of a request by the adjudicator to just drop it even though the council was legally correct but there was compelling mitigation which an adjudicator cannot allow an Appeal on the basis of, only the council can.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - November 2016

The number of Appeals rocketed in November 2016. There were 253 in November for Barnet Council which exceeded the previous high figure of 210 for July with the lowest monthly total being in March when a mere 111 Appeals were considered.

 

In November motorists won their Appeal on 146 occasions. That is 58% and so a good month (50% is the pan-London norm) but amazingly 81 of those wins were by a walkover with the council not offering any evidence. That is, yes, 81 cases out of 253 or 32% or almost 1 in 3. Well worth filing your Appeal even if you think you will lose as the council may throw in the towel and it also costs them close to £30 each time in tribunal fees.

 

Yellow box junctions were bad news for the motorist with 19 of them being lost, nearly always because they were shown to have entered the box when their exit was not clear and then had to stop due to stationary vehicles. Best start stopping at the entrance to a yellow box Barnet drivers as otherwise you will be £130 (or £65 if you cough quickly) worse off.

 

Part of the reason for the jump in Appeals is the commencement of moving traffic enforcement by cctv and so we will have to see if the number of Appeals tails off soon.

 

Here are some of the interesting decisions of the month in the words of the adjudicators (save that I anonymise the names even though they are on a public register)

 

Pay by phone text delay

 

Mr G was driver of the PHV at the time. When attending on l2 November he explained to me that he was an experienced pay-by-phone user. He explained that his proper details were long registered.

 

The Council has produced a record of relevant transactions for the day from the driver's telephone. Mr G has provided a print of a text message timed 1426.

 

Mr G explained to me that he did not see the officer responsible for the penalty charge notice. I do not believe that officer was at fault as he checked the system correctly when dealing with the vehicle here concerned.

 

Mr G explained that he was not dealing with a PHV customer at the time but doing personal shopping in the Tesco supermarket. The Council no doubt correctly claims that the relevant plate with the location number was close to his car (4 metres).

 

So far as I could identify criticism of the driver in this case this was principally that he failed to remain with the car until the pay-by-phone transaction was confirmed which is certainly the prudently required course.

He explained to me however that he had not previously encountered transaction issues as he did on this occasion despite proceeding earlier as had on the day the disputed penalty charge was imposed

 

He showed me the print of his phone screen which although not bearing the relevant date nonetheless records a message timed at "Today 14:26" which advised that the transaction had not been confirmed and encouraging the recipient to call back and ensure confirmation if wishing to park. I have accepted that that print relates to a message from the material date and time concerned.

 

Mr G repeatedly assured me that he had not previously encountered similar difficulties in transacting effectively either at this location (one that he had previously used) or indeed others and I have accepted that as true.

 

His explanation given for delay in transacting was essentially him having to start the phone transaction again and needing to refresh himself as to the location number as he said he had to check on this as he had not remembered it. I viewed that explanation as sufficiently plausible for acceptance in this particular case.

 

It seems to me that the outcome of this adjudication hinges chiefly upon whether the failure to complete the transaction effectively with valid confirmation was a result of system difficulties over equipment including software that the operator was using, or whether it was a motorist based fault as would generally be the case where any delay over a successfully completed transaction had arisen because the motorist had for example dropped mobile reception because of entering a shop. That latter situation would generally incline me to view delay over payment as lying with the motorist and doing so in a manner justifying the penalty charge being upheld.

Taking the evidence overall I have however decided to decide this case in the appellant's favour. I have been prepared to accept on this occasion that the delay more probably arose essentially from temporary glitching over pay by phone software or equipment rather than any other cause.

I have decided on that basis there is insufficient evidence to uphold this particular penalty charge.

 

I have recorded the appeal as allowed.

 

Council duplicitous in their production of evidence

 

The appellant attended.

 

There are two allegations: one on 2nd May 2016, AG04****** and the other on 30th May 2016, AG 03******.

the allegations are at the same place but the allegations are different because different restrictions applied at the different times.

The issue is that the appellant was compelled to park there on both days because on both occasions his inhaler had run out. He had to return home to obtain his spare inhaler. He had an asthma attack; he struggled to control his breathing; his hands were hurting. He kkeps one inhaler in his car and the other in his flat.

He said that he was unable to park elsewhere because there were no other spaces available nearby.

He told me that the stress this brings on, causes him to become confused about the signage.

In the proceedings for the first allegation of 2nd May 2016, the appellant made representations on 4th May, 20th May and 28th July 2016.

The thrust of the appellant's representations were that he was ill and that he parked in order to got to his flat.

The local authority's notice of rejection stated that it was unclear from the representations whether this was a routine stop or an emergency stop; the appellant had not provided any evidence.
With regard to the allegation of 30th May 2016, the appellant made representations on 2nd June 2016, in which he only mentioned signage.

The local authority has included evidence of two different, separate representations by the appellant in this case, one for AG04666120 and the other for AG0345695A, both dated 28th July 2016 but both separate. This is confusing. I find it duplicitous and will allow the appeal for case, 2160416940 (AG0345695A).

 

(Funny this one as councils always say each case is dealt with on its own merits and yet they wanted the adjudicator to know there were two PCN thus implying the motorist was a habitual defaulter).

 

Evidence not forthcoming

 

The appellant attended the hearing.

The appellant told me and I believed him that he had tried 20 times to access the on-line footage expressed on the penalty notice and was unable to do so.

I also accept that he telephoned on 3 or 4 occasions and was told that if he wrote in he would be sent a hard copy of the alleged contravention.

I accept that he did so but nothing was ever sent to him.

The only time he received the evidence was when he received the evidence bundle.

The issue of this appeal is whether the appellant was given authority to do so by way of a positive assertion from the civil enforcement officer acting on behalf of the local authority.

I have to make a decision based upon the evidence available to me and that decision must be on a balance of probabilities. The test is whether the public body has issued a promise or adopted a practice, which represents how it proposes to act. The law requires it to be honoured. It takes its place alongside a fair trial. In the High Court case of Fivepounds.co.uk Mr. Justice Bean stated that a legitimate expectation must be a representation, which may include a regular practice and a course of dealing, whereby a public body may create an expectation from which it would be an abuse of power to resile. The representation must be clear, unambiguous and unqualified.

I am just sufficiently persuaded that the appellant was given a legitimate expectation that he would be able to view this evidence and was not able to through no fault of his own.

I am also persuaded that he was given a legitimate expectation that he would receive the evidence if he wrote in, which he did but nothing was sent to him.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

 

Markings, what markings do you mean?

 

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention 24 not parked correctly within the markings.

 

The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 sets out the contents required by the Regulations for a valid PCN served under Regulation 9.

 

Among other things, the PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.

 

The alleged contravention cited on the PCN was not the correct wording for a code 24 contravention which is not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.

 

This wording is critical as it conveys to the motorist precisely the nature of the alleged contravention. The wording on the PCN in this case failed to identify what markings it was alleged that the vehicle was not parked within. The PCN was defective for failing to cite correctly the alleged contravention and the appeal is allowed for that reason.

 

What car!

 

Having heard the Appellant at length and in detail the position in this case in bare summary is as follows. The vehicle parked was B15ABC, the Appellant’s own vehicle and the vehicle for which he intended to pay. The vehicle for which payment was recorded was LJ54XYZ – a vehicle which was not and never had been the Appellant’s, but for which he had on the 11th March paid for parking by phone on a one-off basis. The Council’s position is that during that phone conversation the Appellant changed the number of the registered vehicle to LJ54XYZ - something the Appellant had no intention of doing.

 

I have listened to the recording of that conversation. Communication was clearly rather difficult and fractured. The Appellant does ask that the other vehicle be taken off and cancelled; however he understood this to mean that whatever the vehicle his friend for whom he was paying might be recorded should be changed to LJ54XYZ the vehicle now being paid for. Whist one can understand how the Council thought that LJ54 XYZ was now to be the registered vehicle it does seem to me that it was not made clear to the Appellant that his own vehicle was being removed – BY15ABC does not appear to be mentioned during that conversation.

 

This seem to me to be something of a classic communication failure, and is the sort of thing that unless great care is taken can easily occur in the operation of any pay by phone system. However it is ultimately the responsibility of the Council to ensure that these misunderstandings are avoided. The Appellant, who continued to park BY15ABC on many subsequent occasions without receiving a PCN could in my view reasonably believe that on parking BY15ABC on the 1st April he had paid for that vehicle.

 

I am therefore allowing the Appeal.

 

Type of bay should be specified

 

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in Station Road at 3.03pm on 25 July 2016 in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle.

 

The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 sets out the contents required by the Regulations for a valid PCN served under Regulation 9.

 

Among other things, the PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.

 

The Council say that the place in which vehicle registration EF16*** was parked was a goods vehicle only loading bay. In other words, the bay was designated for goods vehicles only. This is not, however, clear on the face of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle was parked in a place not designated for that class of vehicle.

 

A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain the class of vehicle for which the parking place was designated. The PCN needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.

 

I therefore find that the PCN was invalid and the appeal is allowed for that reason.

 

I am also not satisfied that there was adequate signage of a goods vehicle loading only restriction. I can see no signage of this restriction in the CEO's images and the Council submits no library images of any restriction signs at this location.

 

I make no finding in relation to Mrs J's submission that this vehicle registration plate EF16ASX is cloned and that the car in the CEO's images is not her vehicle. Mrs J submits an image of the rear plate of her vehicle with the distinctive word Elms beneath the registration. She says that she doubts that this word is on the plate in the CEO's images. Unfortunately, there is no close up view of the plate in the CEO's images. There is also no correspondence from the police to confirm the crime report details given by Mrs J.

 

(In this case as the car is cloned Mrs J did not know by signage which type of bay the cloned car had been parked within hence why the PCN was issued. If you get the PCN on your car some adjudicators will refuse as you knew, even though the PCN does not say what sort of bay).

 

Usually I end my blog posts by exhorting you to file more Appeals. You have been listening, thank you. Will the short (for the tribunal) month of December be even busier. You will find out once I have found the time to read every single December decision. I will need lots of tea and the odd biscuit. Some of the decisions take those, mind.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

London Tribunals - September 2015

The month of September at London Tribunals (formerly PATAS) was quiet with 105 Barnet cases considered. Two were the subject of recommendations by the adjudicator to the council to cancel but we don't know the outcome as the on-line register isn't telling us.

On 50 occasions the motorist won and on 53 they lost. This is a fairly typical outcome.

The notable cases are these, all of which led to the PCN being cancelled with the decision of adjudicators in blue type:

Bus Lane PCN not received.

The appellant has claimed from the outset of these proceedings that the PCN was not received.

Although the council states in its case summary that its records confirm that the PCN was posted (on 12 May 2015) it provides no proof of posting: although its Ticket History document states 'PCN produced' on 12 May that is not evidence that it was posted.

I am not satisfied having regard to the tone, content and consistency of the appellant's submissions on the point that the PCN was received and thus served and find that the presumption as to service of that document has been rebutted in this case. A failure to serve a PCN means that no power then arises to issue an Enforcement Notice.

Regulation 10 PCN - one sent by post.

The notes made by the traffic warden were not good enough to justify the reason for a postal PCN i.e. why didn't they stick it to the windscreen or put it in the hand of the person in charge of the vehicle?

Pavement parking in St Margarets Avenue (pavement parking is changing so be careful, try and be in a marked by if you can)

The appellant appeared before me today accompanied by the driver.

I found them both to be credible witnesses.

They did not deny that this vehicle had been parked otherwise than on the carriageway but stated that they were visiting a friend who lived on this road they doing so on a regular basis they usually parking off the carriageway when doing so without incident this being what all other motorists did when parking on this road given its narrow width they accepting that the vehicle had not been parked within a footway parking bay marked by signage and lines they however pointing out that the section of footway within which the vehicle had been parked was paved differently to the rest of the footway suggesting that motorists could park on it.

I was satisfied on the appellant's case she and the driver confirming that when parking as they did on this occasion on numerous previous occasions the vehicle had not been ticketed that the appellant and the driver had due I found to a lack of enforcement on this street a legitimate expectation that if this vehicle was parked as it was it would not incur a penalty charge and I found for that reason that the contravention had not been proved.

Moxon St Car Park - One Hour free

Mr X submitted that the contravention as alleged in the PCN for "parking without payment of a charge " did not occur as the location permitted one hours free parking subject to displaying a free ticket. Unfortunately the Appellant only read that free parking was permitted for an hour and did not read the fine print requiring the display of a ticket. Mr X therefore submits that the correct contravention would have been for failing to display a valid ticket.

I agree with Mr X and am not satisfied that the contravention as alleged in the PCN did occur. I therefore allow this appeal.

Regulation 10 PCN - one sent by post

In this case the driver walked away and left his vehicle parked. Therefore, the traffic warden could have served the PCN on the car but didn't, it was sent by post instead. the right to do so has not arisen as there was no prevention of service by force or by driving away.

Regulation 10 PCN - one sent by post

In this case the PCN was sent more than 28 days after the alleged contravention date. This is not permitted (if a lease car is involved the time period will be extended).

You may have resprayed your car to avoid a PCN!

The Appellant denies that it his vehicle that that is the subject matter of the contravention but believes it to be a different vehicle with the same licence plate. His vehicle was a deep shade of blue in colour. The vehicle seen in the photograph taken by the CEO and recorded in his notes is white in colour.

The Appellant had previously submitted a copy of his log book and two police receipts where the police had actually seen and checked his vehicle, as well as a copy of his MOT all of which record his vehicle as being blue.

He has received several PCNs all of which were cancelled on the same grounds and the same evidence submitted by the Appellant so the appellant was rather dismayed to see that the local authority refused to cancel this PCN as they stated that the colour of the vehicle may have been subsequently changed.

I have looked at the photographic evidence taken by the CEO which clearly shows a white vehicle. I am satisfied from the Appellants evidence that his vehicle was blue. The Appellant has since sold the vehicle because of the difficulties he was having with the other vehicle.

I note that the CEO has recorded the tax details and the local authority could clearly have simply asked the Appellant to have produced his tax disc at the time to establish whether or not it was the Appellant's vehicle if they had any doubts about the recording of the colour. However now that the vehicle has been sold the appellant can no longer produce his tax disc in place on the date of the contravention.

I am nevertheless satisfied from the Appellants evidence that it was not his vehicle that has been recorded by the CEO and the subject matter of the contravention and therefore allow this appeal.

This last case evidences an inbuilt lack of trust by the parking department (and NSL) of motorists. The notion that you would respray your car at a cost of several hundred pounds in order to avoid a PCN for £60 or £110 is risible.

Keep those Appeals coming. You can see that it is worth it a lot of the time and ocne you have missed the discount period it is a no-brainer to fight to the end.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

London Tribunals - August 15

Chancery Lane tube; the nearest to the tribunal (do not go to Angel)

This is the first report on the decisions of London Tribunals, formerly PATAS.

Since the previous month the tribunal has moved premises, changed its name and started to use new computer software. Inevitably things did not go smoothly as ideally those 3 changes would each have been implemented separately. The adjudicators are largely the same people and they are starting to find their way around the two screen computer system.

My perception is that the playing field has slightly tilted in favour of the council, this may be a function of attempts to knock cases out more quickly or it could be that Barnet Council (NSL) are starting to get their act together or it could simply be that the motorists concerned weren't very good at doing Appeals or that the fewer the Appeals the easier the system is to manage.

The end result for the month was 47 cases won by motorists and 54 by the council. Doubtless the parking manager is breathing a sign of relief that the number of cases has dropped form its peak and that he has fewer tribunal fees to pay out. Each hearing costs the council the thick end of £40, win or lose, and the motorist nothing except some time. My advice to motorists is to have a personal hearing every time (make a day out of it and go for a nice meal afterwards to either celebrate or drown your sorrows) and to avoid Saturdays when results tend to be worse.

The cases of note are these:

Ingram Road had a footway parking amnesty, the nearby Wildwood Rd did not. The case was lost.

A vehicle broke down and was scrapped. The value received was £80. The adjudicator found for the council but recommended they do not collect the £110 penalty. Why he didn't allow the appeal for circumstances beyond the control of the motorist is not known but it may be that the car was on its last legs anyway (it was worth £300) and so a lack of maintenance was the reason.

The parking meter (credit/debit card machine) refuses to let you pay early (before operational hours) for your parking (a bit inconvenient if you want to get on a train) but it only does this on the days which follow a bank holiday. This is an anomaly which must be easily fixed.

A PCN was given out 6 months after a car was scrapped by an insurance company. The old owner ended up with the paperwork to deal with and the PCN was cancelled. In a second case there had been an insurance payout. If you prove these things to the council they really shouldn't be making you go to PATAS.

A motorist presented the same witness evidence as in a case from May 2014. Adjudicators are sharp as tacks, do not lie to them.

Knowing that a disabled bay was redundant and due to be removed someone decided to start parking in it. That was an expensive decision as they lost, the bay was still legally in force. On a different day another adjudicator might somehow find for you.

The Met police said a car had been cloned. The council still contested the Appeal. The adjudicator cancelled the PCN. Anyone would think it was all about getting money from you, this PCN lark. The council are now out of pocket as they had to pay the tribunal fee.

Please make some efforts to get the number of Appeals back up. Fight every PCN you receive to the end if you have any sort of argument.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.