London Tribunals - October 15: extraordinary

October 15 was a bad month for motorists. They won 34 out of 80 Appeals which is only 42% and below the norm of 50%. Must try harder.

Some of the cases the council lost were extra-ordinary. I repeat some of the text of the decisions here.

Never under-estimate the ability of the council to be truly horrible to you in your hour of need.

This is one of sixteen cases before me today which raise identical issues and this decision therefore covers all of them. I have heard the Appellant Mr R (on his own and his wife’s behalf) in considerable detail over two hearings; and at today’s hearing the Council was represented by its officer Mr Stone.

The essential facts are as follows. Mr R and family were rehoused by the Council at 24 hours’ notice. Mr R realised immediately that he would need a permit in order to park his vehicle and made considerable efforts to do what was necessary to obtain one; however before a permit was issued the vehicle was regularly parked in a permit bay with no permit on display. As a result a series of PCNs were issued over the end of December and in January of which the present group is only a selection.

Mr R’s case is, in summary, that he did everything he possibly could to obtain a permit and that there was nowhere else at all to park his vehicle in the meantime, bearing in mind he was at the time suffering from a disability which prevented him from walking any great distance. He states that he called the permit department Council on a number of occasions but was told that without the logbook to show the vehicle registered to the new address no permit could be issued. Mr R sent off the log book for change without delay. He also provided a copy of the tenancy agreement as proof of residence, though this should hardly have been necessary as the Council, having moved him, was well aware of his address. During the time he was awaiting the return of the logbook, PCNs were issued.

I had initially considered whether this was not a case of a Council seeking to enforce penalties for a failure to display a document which it had itself unreasonably failed to provide - a situation which might well be said to be the equivalent of an abuse of process and therefore one of those rare cases where an appeal can fall to be allowed on the basis of what is known as a collateral challenge. However having considered the matter carefully in the light of the evidence provided by Mr Stone and his submissions I am not persuaded that this exceptional stage has quite been reached. The position is that all that was required to be provided in order to obtain a temporary permit was a copy of the tenancy agreement (to prove residence) and a copy of the insurance document (to show the vehicle lived at that address) – in the absence of the log book showing the vehicle registered there. I am satisfied that this was not made sufficiently clear to the Appellant over the telephone; however it is made perfectly clear on the Council’s website which the Appeal, who I note has a smartphone, could easily have checked. It has to be said that one would naturally expect some delay in changing the details on the insurance and receiving confirmation of that, especially over the Christmas period. Nevertheless it seems to me the Appellant could have contacted his insurers and pushed them a little harder to provide the documentation he so urgently needed.

It follows that the vehicle was in contravention on each of these occasions and that it cannot be said the PCNs were issued anything other than lawfully. This is a case of mitigation rather than exemption and I am satisfied the circumstances taken as a whole amount to compelling reasons for the exercise of discretion by the Council (as I understand it has done in a number of other cases). This is a case of a resident who was, in general terms, allowed to park there as the eventual issue of the permit shows. This is not a case of a “foreign” vehicle intruding into valuable parking space intended for the residents. The Appellant was not in a position to provide the required documentation immediately and clearly went to a great deal of effort to try to obtain the permit. In doing so he was not greatly assisted by the Council (or its representatives). I am pleased to note that Mr Stone, having now heard the full story from Mr R for the first time, has very sensibly indicated that the Council would follow a recommendation for the exercise of discretion, which I now make in each of these cases. (For the avoidance of doubt a formal response to the recommendation within the statutory time limit is required, though I see no reason why a single response covering in terms all the cases would not suffice).

3 almost simultaneous Bus Lane PCN

The Appellant attended before me today to explain his contention personally.

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of the vehicle, at the relevant time, on the material date.

The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, not being of the specified class, was driven at a location restricted for use by vehicles of a specific class only.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenges as stated in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so parked/driven contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely to substantiate the assertion comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, and extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, together with photographic evidence: still frames taken from CCTV footage showing the said vehicle in situ.

No evidence is adduced of the applicable signage implementing the restriction and notifying motorists of its times of operation.

The Enforcement Authority also adduce a map/plan dated 'Dec2009'; this is of limited evidential value since it sets out the proposed 'final layout' of signs, camera positions and carriageway markings only and does not provide an evidential record of what was present and visible to the motorist on the date in question.

Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that this contravention occurred.

I am concerned by the Enforcement Authority's reference to 'consecutive bus lanes' contraventions in the Case Summary for 2 reasons:-

Firstly, a break in a stretch of designated lane does not, of itself, create a different restriction if it is a continuous bus lane as per the Traffic Management Order.

Secondly, the Appellant drew my attention to the fact that he had paid a Penalty (within 14 days of receipt of the same) for an alleged Bus Lane transgression at on 9th May 2015 at 09:40 a.m., after which the current Enforcement Notice, issued on 1st June 2015, was received in respect of the exact same date at the exact same time as that which had been discharged.

Further the Appellant bought to the Hearing another Enforcement Notice, issued on 8th July 2015 relating to Penalty Charge Notice AG********, in respect of the exact same date at the exact same time.

I find it inconceivable that a vehicle can be in 3 separate bus lane locations at the same minute.

As regards the latter, despite endeavours to have both that and the present Penalty Charge Notice dealt with together, the Appellant informs that he has received no response to representations in the latter's regard yet Charge Certificates have been received for both. I note that the issue date of the Charge Certificate for this Penalty Charge Notice was after notification of this Appeal.

Evidentially I do not find that a contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

Do you suppose the council offices were open and full of workers on Easter Sunday?

This matter was listed as a personal hearing before me. Late notification was received that the appellant was unable to attend. However, by then I had already looked at the papers and as I was able to decide the case in the appellant's favour without hearing from her in person, there was no need to adjourn the case.

The appellant parked in pay by phone bay on an Easter Sunday. The instructions at the bay indicated that parking on bank holidays and public holidays is free. The authority's case is that Easter Sunday is not a public holiday.

Technically this may be true. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that almost any member of the public, if asked, would understand that Easter Day is a public holiday. If the authority is intent on penalising motorists on Easter Day then this should be made clear on the tariff notice. I have to say I find it quite extraordinary that the bays should be free on a Bank Holiday Monday but not on Easter Day. I imagine that the appellant believed likewise.

This appeal is thus allowed.

The reason this PCN was issued in the first place was because there restricted hours in bays in Golders  Green on Sundays.

Are you being served?

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

Mr C appeals because he says that his car was not parked where there was a dropped kerb that meets the level of the carriageway. I have looked at the images taken by the CEO. It is unclear to me from these images whether or not the vehicle was parked next to a dropped footway and I am therefore not satisfied that the alleged contravention occurred.

I am also allowing the appeal because I am not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued. The PCN was served by post under Regulation 10 (1)(c) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Regulations 2007 on the basis that the CEO had begun to prepare the PCN for service under Regulation 9 by handing it to the driver or affixing it to the vehicle but the vehicle was driven away before the CEO had finished preparing the notice or been able to serve it in accordance with Regulation 9.

The CEO's notes state that the CEO explained the contravention to the driver who then "refused the PCN". Mr C says that the CEO spoke to him and then scrunched up the PCN, placing it into his pocket. It seems to me clear from the evidence that the PCN had been completed and I can see no reason why the CEO could not have served the PCN by attaching it to the windscreen, especially bearing in mind that Mr C is an elderly and disabled gentleman.

My experience is that traffic wardens tell porkies about service all the time.

Taxi drivers - stop helping your passengers!

The Appellant says in his appeal form that he is a taxi driver and was assisting an elderly lady passenger with her belongings to his vehicle. In earlier representations he says he was helping the lady to where she was going and the civil enforcement officer recorded that: awc,nbbs,syl,pt,atv

ic2 male,glasses,long haired driver returned said he was dropping of mop taxi driver.

elderly lady needed help walking

The alighting exemption provides;

Nothing in Article 5 of this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit a vehicle to wait in any restricted street for so long as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling any person to board or alight from the vehicle or to load thereon or unload therefrom his personal luggage.

Provided that, except where the said person is suffering from any disability or injury which seriously impairs his ability to walk, or who is blind, no vehicle may so wait In the same place for a period of more then two minutes in any part of any street in the London Borough of Bamet specified in Schedule 5 which is a restricted street and is also a street specified in Schedule 2 during the restricted hours relating to that street in so far as the same fall between the hours of 7am and 10am and between the hours of 4pm and 7pm.

It is for the Appellant claiming the exemption to prove it and in the absence of any supporting written document ( confirmation of the fare/booking) he must provide details that are clear and consistent and here they are neither – e.g. was he picking up or dropping off a passenger?

The Enforcement Authority are wrong when they say that drivers must not leave their vehicles unattended at any point in order to qualify under the 'passengers alighting/boarding' exemption.

There is nothing in the wording of the exemption that states this and in certain circumstances a driver may leave his vehicle to assist passengers with luggage if they need or indeed escort children or disabled persons to and from premises.

One day the people who currently refuse perfectly valid challenges will be elderly and may need help with their luggage. I hope they will then be ashamed of their former behaviour.

Procedural impropriety

I heard at some length from the apellant on 26 October. My early view of the case was the the officer was not at fault in recording the vehicle where it was during the hour of restriction and issuing a penalty charge.

The appellant is principal carer for a son aged 22 who has a rare genetic condition which has been described in the medical report brought to the hearing.

On the day in question the appellant had been obliged to collect him and accompany him for an official interview near Finchley Central. It was important to arrive and arrive on time. The appellant described the sense of stress and frustration about not being able to park near his own house as he would normally have preferred.

The appellant is in what can only be an unfortunate position of living just beyond the edge of a boundary of a zone with an hourly restriction which is aimed at deterring commuters parking en route to the local station. The appellant's street becomes very congested and he is not entitled to a permit for the adjoining zone. He does not have off-street parking.

As I sought to explain at the hearing, the boundary is of necessity an arbitrary line and permit entitlement is a matter for the Council. Dissatisfaction as to where it lies and non-eligibility for a permit do not give grounds for a successful appeal.

Looked at broadly I was however sympathetic to the personal and family circumstances described to me, especially for the important day in question, and although the appellant made the wrong decision in parking where recorded, I could identify powerful mitigation rather than a legal defence.

I rejected the appellant complaint about the notice of rejection suggesting an appeal could be made electronically when in fact that facility had not yet come about.

When I scrutinised the timetable of events after the appeal being lodged with the Tribunal on 28 September and the Council being notified electronically on 29 September, I could see that the Council had been at fault in permitting the matter to proceed through to registration, and indeed the production for despatch of a TE (Order for Recovery) form on 2 October.

I could not identify special reasons why the case had progressed in this fashion when I believe it should not have done, and I have been prepared to record the appeal as allowed on that basis. In the particular circumstances of the case I have accepted that the documents sent out after lodging the appeal did cause actual distress to the appellant.

In any event I have now recorded this appeal as allowed.

Adjudicators have to apply the law but when they feel sympathy for the motorist they will themselves spend time looking for a loophole.

Burglary followed by attempted extortion?

I have seen the appellant letter of 5 October with a copy of the e-mail from Ringgo and examined the Tribunal dossier.

I have seen that the van was a hired one but it seems to me from the correspondence I have examined that the appellant previously had a Ringgo account and on that basis it seems to me inherently unlikely that the critical error of using Ringo instead of Verrus is fairly attributable to advice actually given by a patrolling officer seeking to be helpful. Patrolling officers may very well not be expert from personal experience in actually transacting the purchase of time and the identification of the correct operator is ultimately a motorist responsibility in my judgment.

It is consequently my conclusion that the contravention did occur. Although the appellant has I believe probably exaggerated her case about blaming any enforcement officer, I do consider having regard to the surrounding traumatic circumstances of domestic burglary and hiring the van, the error that occurred is the more readily explained and does have powerful mitigation.

I am on that basis urging the Council to be lenient in relation to this particular case and agree to a discretionary cancellation.

That's enough for this month.

Keep those Appeals coming as 80 is far too few for one month.

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.

PATAS - June 15

East Finchley High Road

I have moved on to monthly reports as the number of cases going to Appeal seems to be dropping. Barnet are still causing more than their fair share (of 4%) and losing more than the average 50%

Long may their win rate be so low.

All the following were circumstances in which the motorist had their PCN cancelled.

The Saracens Event Day zone. The council got a drubbing over writing that people should check the Internet before you drive to see if it is an event day. Signs weren't proven, the existence of the zone or it even being an Event Day so these are all good grounds on which to challenge. The council nearly always lose Saracens cases if they are put to proof. There were at least 10 cases in June but that is as to nothing compared to the number of PCN issued.

A motorcycle was moved. It is hard for a motorcyclist to stop this from happening unless the bike is chained to something but it does mean that there is a valid reason why the contravention did not occur.

Unloading to the third floor would easily lead to a PCN as the warden drops out of the sky (or so it seems) on a scooter, issues a PCN and then zooms away. As long as you have some documentary proof of your loading or unloading you are at least halfway to a cancellation.

The new Orange bays for permit holders in some North Finchley Car Parks have mostly led to cancellations on the grounds of the lack of clarity of the signs. At least 4 PCN were cancelled for this reason in June.

Cones in a suspended bay. They could easily be moved and are not a recognised way to delineate the suspended area.

Two cases of car cloning which ought to be obvious to the council before the tribunal stage.

If you breakdown and then get your car repaired you do not have to use a vat registered garage. The council's insistence on a vat invoice is misplaced. If you use a one man band, that is Ok as long as you have a bona fide invoice.

The council wrote that "they do no accommodate unusual or mitigating circumstances". How unusual something is is a matter of opinion but if it is relevant to your parking the council must consider it as also they must consider mitigation.

The traffic warden condoned the parking and then sent a parking ticket through the post. they can't.

The common error of paying for the wrong location usually leads to trouble. In this case both locations were in the East Finchley High Road and so the adjudicator allowed the Appeal and cancelled the PCN.

Keep those Appeals coming. I'll keep writing monthly reports with tips and hints.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

TAPAS - w/c 19 August 2013 (typo week)

In this week at PATAS there were 50 cancelled PCN, 36 upheld and 2 subject to a recommendation to cancel and a typo that cost the council a PCN.

On Monday two PCN were cancelled as the council had not proved that the Event Day zone was properly signed in Holders Hill Drive. If you get a match day PCN make sure you ask the council to prove that the signage is correct and in place.

This report was one of my favourites for this week, and includes the rarely seen word "concomitant":

The contravention alleged is that of having parked in a residents' bay without displaying a valid permit. The appellant says that she paid to renew her residents permit, in the sum of £100, on 11th March 2013. She produces evidence of this. This is not disputed by the authority.

The appellant says that having not received her new permit, and having been told by the operator who took the payment to do so while she waited for the replacement, she stuck a copy of the confirmation of payment, which carries all the permit ID details on the face of it, in the windscreen of her vehicle. The officer took a photo of the vehicle with the confirmation displayed.

On the day in question, some 3 weeks after she had paid for her permit, but not received it, this PCN was issued on the basis that she had not displayed a valid permit.

The authority's evidence in response to this is perplexing. In the first place it stated in the informal rejection of her representations that 'the number' she had been given on payment was a 'Dispensation Number' and that 'this number is only temporary until you have been given your residents' permit'. According to their records the 'dispensation' which she has displayed had expired on 26th March and that was why the PCN was issued. (except that it says the dispensation lasts until the permit arrives, it isn't merely for a fixed period)

In its Case Summary the authority says that 'a motorist who is awaiting a new permit must request a temporary dispensation for the vehicle, from the council to cover it until such time as they receive the said permit. The council checked their records and can confirm that there was no dispensation at the time of the contravention'. How would a motorist know to do this? You need a temporary permit to cover the period until you get a replacement permanent permit. Madness. You can print your own permit out at home if you want although it is a poor looking effort without the official hologram and this is probably why most people don't bother. The system should be set up so that every permit is issued on the day of payment.

In other words the council is relying on its own breach of duty of due and prompt administration (failure to issue the permit in a timely manner) in pursuing this PCN. It had accepted the appellant's money for a renewal of the permit, and she had done all she could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the restrictions, and the council has failed during a period of over 3 weeks to issue the permit to which she was entitled. The appellant says that following the issue of this PCN she rang the authority, understandably upset, and complained and the renewal permit arrived by first class post the following day.

It is clear to me that the authority, having received the appellant's representations and checked its records, should have exercised the discretion it alone has to cancel this PCN. That it has had the facts before it and failed to consider the exercise of its discretion on such clear facts strongly suggests that it has fettered its discretion inappropriately.

In the circumstances I allow the appeal on the basis that the authority has in this case been in breach of its concomitant duty to act fairly.

So if you park negligently you get a parking ticket and if the council acts negligently you get a parking ticket. Ain't life grand?, as they say in Private Eye.

The next case was even worse and it makes you wonder why NSL were chosen. Are they the best available? I don't fancy any company which is worse to enforce local parking tickets. This relates to a £110 PCN and of course 50% of that is £55 not £30.

 

I have heard from the Appellant about his mistake with the scratch card. I accept that it was a mistake, but the contravention has occurred.

It was common ground that the Appellant made informal representations within the discount period and the Authority rejected them and offered to accept a discount in settlement. What happened from that point onwards was remarkable.

The Authority had apparently offered settle the penalty at £30. The Authority had not supplied the letter of rejection and one might draw an inference from that (I think this refers to the evidence bundle and if so this was a little sneaky). The Authority's own correspondence log suggested that it accepted that such an error had been made, and I find that such an offer had been made.

It was therefore of no surprise that the Appellant paid over the £30. He then received a Notice to Owner. This stated that there is an outstanding balance of £80. The Authority's correspondence log then recorded a complaint from the Appellant. The Appellant was apparently told of the mistake and invited to pay a further £30 to clear the balance. The Appellant refused.

The Authority made an offer of settlement. The Appellant is entitled to hold the Authority to it. Instead of just calling it a day as apparently the Authority had tried to do, it issued a Notice to Owner demanding the balance. To compound the error, the Authority then asked for another £30 which would meant that the Appellant would be paying £5 more than what he would have need to pay if such an error had not occurred. When this became an issue at the appeal stage, the Authority chose not to provide a copy of the letter of rejection and it did not explain why there is a balance to pay.

There had been a procedural impropriety. I am allowing the appeal.

I would say that would be a suitable case on which to demand costs as the council/NSL has made a mistake and then tried to cover it up and bully its way out which is wholly unreasonable.

In another case the PCN was cancelled as the driver had left and not been served as the traffic warden had not begun to prepare the PCN.

Of course, back office staff in Croydon don't know where they are when it comes to Barnet:

The Appellant said that he had paid for parking at location no. 5938 which is on the High Road, North Finchley. The enforcement officer's notes indicated that the vehicle was outside Martyn Gerrard and there was a sign outside the confectioners Mr Simms, a few doors from Martyn Gerrard. The sign identifies the location as 5950.

The Authority said that the Appellant claimed that he had parked at location 5938 which was the incorrect location. The location was certainly incorrect but the Appellant said 5939, not 5938.

The Authority said that the Appellant should have paid for 5940, which is around Regents News, 323 Ballards Lane. Regent's News is in deed at 323 Ballards Lane but it is around a third of a mile from Martyn Gerrard who are at 773 High Road North Finchley. I can understand misreading 5939 as 5938, but I do not understand why the Authority had not thought that something was wrong when its PCN and photographic evidence suggested that a contravention occurred on the High Road at location 5940 yet its research show that 5940 was in Ballards Lane. It even went to the trouble of obtaining a Google image showing Martyn Gerrard in the background. I have repeated the exercise. William Hill and Cancer Research are on either side of Martyn Gerrard. There is no Regent's News on that parade of shops at all.

I have therefore no confidence that the vehicle was at location 5940 despite the CEO's photographic evidence of the sign. The CEO would have relied on the sign to do his check and of course the Appellant had not paid to park outside Regent's News.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

A parking ticket being pursued from 31 May 2011 was described as an "abuse of process" and it was therefore cancelled. If you get an old PCN come back to life on you, keep appealing until you reach PATAS.

A time plate for the bus lane in West Hendon Broadway (headed South, the ones going North belong to Brent) was missing and so the PCN was invalid. Bus lane tickets are hard to get off so check the signs if you get a PCN at that location.

There was an interesting PayByPhone observation:

 

The Appellant's case is that he had in fact paid; and he produces a bank statement and phone bill in support. The phone bill shows the date in question; and I do not regard it as at all improbable that the debit is shown on the statement the next day. Presumably if it did indeed represent a payment for parking on the 11th and not the 10th the Council would be in a position to produce evidence that there was such a payment for parking on that day and that it therefore cannot relate to the day before. On balance I am satisfied payment was made and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

 

Well done that motorist for fighting properly armed with his evidence.

 

Now, the typo error you have been waiting for:

 

The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today. He denied the contravention and said he thought he had parked within a CPZ which only applied Mon- Friday and which the local authority also stated was the case in their initial rejection letter, and the whole matter was therefore very confusing.

I have looked at the penalty charge notice and the photographic evidence. This clearly shows the appellant's vehicle parked on a single yellow line very close to a time - plate which restricts the hours of parking seven days a week and during the hours the appellant was parked.

I am therefore satisfied that the appellant was parked in contravention and that the penalty charge notices were properly issued.

However I am not satisfied that the local authority have properly dealt with the appellant's representations.

The local authority apologise for the typographical error in their response to the informal representations. However their response is more than a typographical error. It confirms that the appellant was parked in a CPZ outside the hours of restriction and therefore misleads the appellant in believing he has a genuine ground of appeal.

I therefore find that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the local authority and allow this appeal.

 

If you make an error it costs you £110, if the council blunder that is simply a typo even when it isn't. Double standards apply in the world of parking.

 

Double yellow lines across a dropped kerb could mislead.

 

They argued that the photograph that the local authority has produced is old, taken from an elevated angle and is therefore misleading.

The photograph that the appellant has produced certainly shows that the stretch of pavement there has been lowered but it most certainly does not meet the level of the carriageway. There is a ridge.

The contemporaneous photographic evidence taken by the officer does not show that it does meet the carriageway.

There are also double yellow lines there. Mr. Perry parked his vehicle on those double yellow lines and displayed his disability badge and clock.

Whilst I accept that the two contraventions - dropped footway and double yellow lines - are mutually exclusive, it is clear that there must be absolute certainty so that the motorist is not misled.

A disabled motorist is permitted to park on double yellow lines as long as the badge and clock are displayed but a disabled motorist displaying the badge and clock is not permitted to park adjacent to a dropped footway, all the more reason for making the dropped footway clear and unequivocal.

I find as a fact that the dropped footway does not meet the carriageway and with the presence of the double yellow lines this is capable of misleading a reasonable, disabled motorist.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

Barnet Council / NSL have an unreasonable expectation that everyone should carry a stock of visitor vouchers in their car for a zone they have not previously visited so that you don't need to go to the house you are visiting to collect a permit - not how life works.

 

The Enforcement Authority has provided brief notes and photographs. The photographs are not timed. The penalty charge notice (pcn) shows an observation period from 14:31 to 14:32.

The appellant claims that the driver went to collect a visitor's voucher from his home nearby. She claims when he returned to the vehicle with the vehicle with the voucher the pcn had been issued. She complains that the vehicle was observed for only one minute. There is a letter from the driver and a copy of the permit.

On balance, I accept the appellant's account which appears genuine. A motorist should be given sufficient time to obtain and display a visitor's voucher. The observation time in this case was brief. I allow the appeal.
 

Sometimes the traffic warden walks off when the motorist appears and they think phew but a PCN arrives in the post. It shouldn't.

 

Mr X stated that she (the traffic warden) then walked off and he assumed that it was the end of the matter and drove away. He explained that at no time did the officer state that she was trying to issue a penalty charge notice or did she ask him to wait. At no stage did he prevent her from issuing a penalty charge notice. Mr Z confirmed his account.

The authority have sought to serve the penalty charge notice by post because, they assert, that their officer attempted to serve the penalty charge notice by fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person who appeared to be in charge of it, "but was prevented from doing so by some person". Her notes do not support this.

I have no hesitation in accepting Mr X and Mr Z's accounts as true as I found them to be credible witnesses. I do not accept that the officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice under regulation 9 or that she was prevented in any way from so doing.

In the circumstances, the authority have not established entitlement to serve this penalty charge notice by post and the appeal must be allowed.

 

A PCN fixed to your car is a Regulation 9 PCN and one sent by post is a Regulation 10 PCN. You get one fewer appeals with a regulation 10 PCN as it acts like a Notice to Owner.

 

Finally, in what was a good week for the adjudicators, another Saracens Event Day case:

 

The Appellant's representations make a number of points, namely:

1 The Penalty Charge Notice was not affixed to his vehicle, but merely tucked under the windscreen wiper;
2 The Penalty Charge Notice did not state the Zone and thus did not accurately make out the contravention;
3 The Appellant formed the view, based on the Enforcement Authority's correspondence, that his Zone E permit would be valid;
4 The date of the alleged contravention was after the last of the event days notified; and
5 The bay lines were worn and thus not substantially compliant

but these were rejected by the Enforcement Authority.

In his appeal, the Appellant repeated the same issues and claimed that the Enforcement Authority had failed to consider his representations and that such failure amounted to a procedural impropriety. He also raised the following:

(i) the sign next to the bay where he had parked was not a standard sign and the Enforcement Authority was required to provide a copy of the special authorisation of the Department for Transport;
(ii) the Event Day Controlled Parking Zone was not properly signed and proof was sought that the event for 12 May 2013 was shown on signs at the necessary locations; and
(iii) the Enforcement Authority was asked to demonstrate the Traffic Management Order authority for setting 12 May as a restricted Event Day
Further observations were raised by the Appellant upon receipt of the Enforcement Authority's evidence, in particular that the Enforcement Authority had failed to show that they had properly communicated the restrictions to show that 12 May was an Event Day.

The Enforcement Authority is in difficulty in this case for the following reasons:

1) There is no evidence that the day in question was an event day.
2) Article 5 of the relevant traffic Management Oder provided by the Council requires a vehicle left in a parking place referred to in Schedule 1 and 2 and in permit area streets during the permitted hours to obtain or display a permit. A "permit area street" is defined in Article 2(1) as a "street or any part of a street described in Schedule 3". Schedule 3, or adequate extracts from it, have not been supplied, and the inclusion of item 347 on a page appearing to form part of Schedule 1 does not provide conclusive evidence that the street in question is a permit area street
3) The sign shown in the Enforcement Authority's photograph is not a permitted sign under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (as amended), and requires authorisation. No evidence of this has been provided or of the zone entry signs and authorisation for them.
4) Direction 25(3) TSRGD as amended prohibits the use of most types of bay markings within a permit parking area (PPA). It would appear from the photographs that such bay markings are present. Authorisation for their continued presence within a PPA is required. (If it were to be argued that a permit area street is not a Permit Parking area authorisation for the signage would be required in any event).
5) The single sign shown in the photographs is in my view inadequate on its own to indicate give a sufficient indication to a motorist parking there as to the event day restrictions that required a permit to park there.

As I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle was in breach of the requirement to display a permit or that the requirement to do so was clearly indicated by clear and correct signage, I cannot be satisfied that a contravention occurred and must allow the appeal.

 

The next Saracens Event Day is coming up this Saturday 31 August 2013. If you are one of the motorists unlucky enough to be targeted for a parking ticket then make all of the same appeal points as were successful in the above appeal, particularly (i), (ii) & (iii).

 

Quite a long report this week but if you are in a similar situation you can crib ideas and save yourself £60, 3110 or £130. Remember once the 50% discount offer has expired i.e. you have received the Notice to Owner, you have absolutely nothing to lose by appealing again to the council and then again to PATAS as it is only 28 days after losing a PATAS appeal that the council can increase the amount to pay (or they can increase it 28 days after the Notice to Owner if you don't appeal to PATAS) so you can delay the inevitable and you also have a 72% chance of winning if you put together a half decent argument.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance