PATAS - why people lost

 

Although 62% of appeals were won this week (43 out of 69) I thought it would make a change to look at reasons why people lost their appeal to the independent adjudicator followed by proposed preventative actions for the future in some cases.

 

Having made 4 attempts to pay-by-phone the driver simply gave up whereas he should have found a paypoint shop or a shop selling vouchers however inconvenient this might be. It sometimes takes longer to pay than what you wanted to do in the first place.

 

A taxi driver claimed to be loading but didn't provide any evidence. If he had done so he might have won his appeal.

 

An error in the registration number for pay-by-phone was the motorist's fault. I would think this should only exceptionally be the case.

 

A breakdown was claimed. No proof was provided. If it had been the appeal might have been won.

 

The wrong vehicle was chosen on the pay-by-phone system. A silly mistake should not cost someone £60 but it does.

 

There was not any proof of the alleged sale of the vehicle (do you see a pattern here about proving your case?).

 

A permit was not visible.

 

The adjudicator accepted a printout from google streetmap that a yellow line was in place. This is quite simply the wrong decision as it is not evidence from the day of the alleged contravention.

 

Parked on a bus stop. Stay out of them unless you have a bus.

 

The blue badge had become dislodged. Make sure you stick it in the corner of the windscreen where it cannot fall.

 

Parked across a dropped kerb. Don't do it.

 

Parked on a single yellow line instead of the residents bay they thought they were in. Check around your vehicle before you leave it.

 

Someone presented no real argument. Do some research!

 

Showing a blue badge but there were "no loading" kerb flashes. Don't park there.

 

Not realising that there were restrictions on a Sunday. Be alert to CPZ zone entry signs or ask a local.

 

Unloading whilst parked on the pavement. Only an option for builders when unloading is continuous and there is no other choice.

 

The cones for the 11 November parade were not out when the car was parked late the previous night. This is rough justice in my view. How would anyone know where the nearest British Legion is and the route a march would take if no signs are out.

 

Bus lane. Stay out of it during the hours of operation as there are the hardest tickets to fight.

 

In a residents bay at the wrong time. The times are usually on a nearby time plate so read it.

 

No proof of loading on1 January. These may not have been the truth? Who was delivering on New Year's Day. Stay off single yellows on Bank Holidays (except for Christmas Day) unless it is a day of the week on which they are not enforced.

 

Only 3 minutes was allowed to buy a voucher. This is a ridiculous decision. To argue better you would need to measure the time taken to get to the shop and to queue and return and then show that was reasonable.

 

The one appeal which was won which I want to mention is PATAS case 2130157049 where it was held that you don't have to wait the up to 5 minutes it takes for the confirmation text that you have paid. you are allowed to go about your business.

 

Keep those appeals coming.

 

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

PATAS - end September: 21-7 to public

Serbia beat GB 21-7 at water polo in London 2012 Olympics

So here we are at the end of of the fith month of the contract with NSL and you would really expect the contract to be running sweetly by now. If it was the score out of 28 appeals would be about 14 each but the public are stll giving Barnet Council / NSL a good seeing to.

 

Let us run through the week as usual and highlight any useful cases.

 

Monday 24. The first 3 cases were allowed by Order of the Adjudicator. This is for lack of evidence.

 

The next case was allowed because the signage was inadequate - plenty of that in Barnet.

 

Another case was refused as the motorist had put the wrong registration number into the system. A genuine error like that should not cost £60. You don't even get your parking charge back but I think people should write and ask for it. Once the council have extra work to do they might start to make less miserable and mean decisions. Imagine if senior management had to pay £60 for every mistake they made; even their excessive salaries wouldn't cope.

 

Another case was quite interesting as it centred on whether the 2012 or 2013 permit was showing in the car windscreen. Now let's think about this, there is no doubt that the resident had renewed their permit and all we are arguing about is whether it arrived on time and/or was displayed on time. Now that its what I would call a minor technical point (sounds like pettifogging bureaucracy) , the resident has done what is required of him/her and paid for their permit. They should not then have to go through a 3 stage appeal process to avoid payment of a fine that should have been cancelled as soon as it was seen that the permit had been renewed.

 

Two more cases of allowed by the Adjudicator.

 

The final case concerned pavement parking. It is allowed in part of the street that not the section that the motorist chose. Fair enough, your appeal failed.

 

Tuesday 25. Another appeal allowed by Order.

 

The rejected appeal is an interesting one. It concerned an out of date permit and was lost because there is no legal requirement to send a reminder, per Barnet Council (or NSL on heir behalf). That looks like it was due around the end of April a time when it is known that something went wrong with the reminder system and they were not issued. It is also custom and practice that the council send reminders and PATAS should have also been told this by the council. It is normal in court cases to have to disclose all material in favour of and against your argument. In my view the council / NSL have been less than honest in continuing with this case. If you get a ticket like this refer to custom and practice and that you were relying on the council.

 

What the council have done is profit from their own incompetence which is somewhat unsatisfactory.

 

Wednesday 26. Five appeals were allowed because the documentation pack was not produced by Barnet Council / NSL. On the sixth case the authority ( i.e. Barnet Council / NSL ) submitted a Do not Contest form on the day of the hearing. The applicant arrived for the hearing and this can only be because no-one from Barnet Council / NSl had the good manners to tell the motorist. What excuse can there possibly be for a public body to treat a citizen so badly (this is not the first time that this has happened and is contemptible behaviour. The motorist has lost half a day of their life and been put to expense.

 

Thursday 27. Eight cases. Four won / four lost.

 

The first case was allowed by Order.

The second concerns a civic minded person delivering donations to Barnados and as he has more readers than me I am telling Mr Mustard about this case and I hope he will blog about it this week.

The third concerned a person who tried to pay by phone and it didn't work and they were unable to speak to a real person. The photograph supplied by Barnet Council / NSL was after the event and you couldn't read the dign in it. There were no contemporaneous photographs. The appeal was allowed (must have been an easy decision).

In the next case and old gentleman working in his fruiterers was bit slow to unload his fruit and the traffic warden says he observed the vehicle for 6 minutes but the Adjudicator said he should have been given more leeway in view of his age. Older people everywhere note this for your appeal. The adjudicator is more human than the council.

The next case was a ticket issued on a single yellow line opposite Angelo's in the High Rd at Whetstone (just south of B&Q - I have eaten there, it is really good). Why does the council enforce on Bank Holidays? not just for the money surely?

The next appeal was lost as the motorist thought they were on private land and they were on the road. OK.

Case 7 was a motorist who said they were not on a yellow line but there are photographs. He lost. He was unlucky that he was one of the appeals that the council / NSL did manage to get their act together for. You did cost the council the £46 cost of the appeal though thus reducing their profit.

The final case was for being parked on the crossover section of the highway and although if the grass verge is wide enough for a car to park and not block the pavement or the road the council are still precious about it even though that piece of land is effectively yours to use alone.

 

On Friday 28 two appeals were allowed, one by Order. The second case related to an expired permit and the motorist had been told of the software failure by Barnet Council so why, when they knew of this failing, did they not simply cancel the parking ticket. The motorist attended the hearing and Barnet Council / NSL had failed to produce all of the appeal documents and that is why the appeal was allowed.

 

Saturday 29 was a lovely case. The motorist had paid by phone. They had been at a medical appointment. They came back to their car and felt a bit wobbly. They ran 2 minutes over on the time paid for. A warden wandered up, had a chat and said not to worry. Later, a parking ticket arrived in the post! I can feel the burning injustice from here. How mad would you be. Next time a traffic warden offers you something, get them to write it down or tape them on your camera phone.

 

Overall a good week for motorists and a bad one for Barnet Council / NSL.

 

Keep banging those appeals in.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance