Tribunal Appeals - Jan 17

Richmond Rd, the trap awaits as you turn in

Gosh, here we are, bang up to date with my tribunal decision reporting.

 

In January 2017 there were 300 Appeals heard of which 161, a lovely 54%, went the way of the motorist. It really is worth the effort to complete that orange Appeal form and post it off to Nottingham, as you have a more than even chance of then paying nothing for your PCN, and you lose nothing if the discount option had gone.

 

There are 8 decisions for which you can now read the adjudicator's decision although I take out the name of the motorist even though it is published on the tribunal register.

 

Redundant dropped kerb since 2003

 

Mr B has appeared in person, supported by his father, Mr DB.

 

This PCN was issued at 10.43am on 4 July 2016 for the alleged contravention of being parked in a special enforcement area in Colin Gardens adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge lowered to meet the level of the carriageway.

 

It is not in dispute that Mr B's car was parked next to a dropped footway. Mr Beeltah tells me that the dropped footway originally provided vehicular access to garages for 9 and 11 Colin Gardens. Mr Beeltah has been a resident of Colin Gardens since 1997. Mr B explains that, in around 2003, the Council gave permission for the garages to be removed and for the garage areas to be converted into part of the properties. He says that, since 2003, there has been no vehicular access with the garages gone. Images submitted in evidence show that the area is no longer used for vehicular access. Mr B says that he has parked his car across the dropped footway since the garages were removed.

 

I find Mr B to be an honest witness and I accept his evidence.

 

Since the footway has long since ceased to be lowered for the purpose of assisting vehicular access from the carriage way, I find that the prohibition in Section 86(1)(a)(iii) of The Traffic Management Act 2004 does not apply. I interpret the wording of the provision purposively so that the purpose for which the footway is lowered is to be read as a continuing purpose. The prohibition cannot continue to apply where an entrance way has effectively been blocked off and the purpose for which the footway was lowered has long since ceased to exist.

 

Zig zags - U turn if you want to.

 

Barnet council provide a very short section of CCTV footage taken on 19 October 2016 at 08:46. It shows Mrs D’s car, manoeuvring backwards and forwards in Whitings Road. As part of that manoeuvre, it is captured being momentarily stationary on a school crossing.

 

Mrs D’s account is that she was simply manoeuvring to pass congestion ahead while she decided the best way in which to proceed to work. In the event, she made a U turn, although the CCTV footage is far too short to demonstrate that.

 

It is entirely appropriate that enforcement authorities should look to enforce school entrance restrictions, and they are entitled to do so by camera. However, they do still have to provide sufficient evidence of a contravention. I do not find that they have done so in this case. As noted above, the CCTV footage shows the car stopped only as part of a driving manoeuvre. The footage confirms at least part of Mrs D’s account that there is congestion ahead, and her activities are entirely consistent with her account of attempting to manoeuvre past those.

 

The CCTV footage is in fact so brief that it unfairly does not show the whole of the incident that could support Mrs D’s version of events.

 

In any event, on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the evidence shows nothing more than Mrs D carrying out a driving manoeuvre and being forced to stop as part of that manoeuvre. That is insufficient to demonstrate a “parking” or even a “stopping” contravention.

 

As the contravention is not proved I allow the appeal.

 

Overnight waiting ban - not adequately signed

 

The Appellant did not attend this hearing.

 

The Appellant argues that the signage for this restriction is inadequate and he refers to the Signs Manual which states as follows:

 

6.19 The sign [640.2A] is used either as a repeater sign within a controlled parking zone that applies only to commercial vehicles (see paras 12.15 to 12.18) or as the only sign on roads not forming part of a zone. In both cases, road markings are not used and enforcement depends on the upright signs only. At the start or end of any restriction that is not within a zone, the sign should include an arrow indicating the length of road to which the restriction applies. On other signs the arrow is omitted. In a zone, the Regulations require that at least one sign is provided on each side of every road. For roads not within a zone, additional signs might be required as there is no zone entry sign. In this case, the aim should be to provide signs at approximately 60 m intervals on each side of the road.

 

The restricted area was not within a zone where the signs were on entrance points to the zone (no evidence of such zonal signage has been provided) . The council in their summary state:

 

The Council would reiterate that the restriction is a borough wide ban and that signage meets statutory requirements. The Council would further advise that whilst signage indicating the overnight waiting ban is required on every street within the borough, it is not required on either side of the street in the borough. Annotated maps in evidence type H shows that the vehicle was parked within 100 metres distance from the time plate indicating the restrictions.

 

In fact the Manual recommends signs on each side of the road at intervals of 60 meters; this was not in place. Chapter 3 of the Manual sets out the relationship between it and the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 in these terms:

 

1.1 The Traffic Signs Manual is intended to give advice to traffic authorities and their agents on the correct use of signs and road markings. Mandatory requirements are set out in the current version of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions; nothing in the Manual can override these. The advice is given to assist authorities in the discharge of their duties under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Part 2 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. Subject always to compliance with the Directions, which, except in Northern Ireland, are mandatory (see para 1.4), it is for traffic authorities to determine what signing is necessary to meet those duties, although failure to follow the Manual's guidance without good reason might well lead to enforcement difficulties. In particular, adjudicators might consider such failure to be evidence that the signing was unclear. Traffic authorities should always remember that the purpose of regulatory signs is to ensure that drivers clearly understand what restrictions or prohibitions are in force.

 

The council have given no reason, good or otherwise, why they have not followed the Manual’s guidance/recommendations and therefor I find that the signage in place was inadequate.

 

Yellow box junction - car cuts in from the side

 

The appellant attended the hearing.

The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

I find that when the appellant made his move to enter the box junction there was enough space on the other side for his vehicle to clear the box junction.

The space was however taken by another vehicle entering the box junction from the other side.

Effectively the appellant's vehicle was, "Cut up."

I will therefore allow the appeal

 

Richmond Road school zig zags - a known trap spot

 

The appellant attended. Together we looked at the on-line footage.

He told me and I believed him that as he drove along this road there was a "Stand-off" between two vehicles out of camera vision.

Neither vehicle would give way, then one started reversing in the appellant's direction. Due to the fact that there were parked cars along the road the carriageway was narrow. That is why the appellant reversed-to allow the reversing "Stand-off" vehicle to come by. The on-line footage is too short in duration to confirm this but I accept it as fact.

I find that the appellant stopped in circumstances beyond his control.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

 

Richmond Road school zig zags - again

 

Mr R attended today. He was the driver on 9th November 2016. His wife, Julie R is the registered keeper of the car.

 

Mr R does not dispute that the car was stopped in a restricted area outside a school. Mr R states that his car was stopped for only so long as necessary to allow oncoming traffic to proceed. Mr R lives in Richmond Road a short distance from the school. He was no his way home having taken his own children to school. The children do not go to the school in Richmond Road. Mr R states that he would have no reason to stop the car in Richmond Road other than to wait for oncoming traffic as he was going home and he could park the car on the drive to his property.

 

I have seen the CCTV footage. The car stops at 08:45:00. At 08:45:12 the camera focuses on the timeplate at the location. The footage ends at 08:45:16. The footage shows a car parked in front of the appellant’s car. There is no evidence of any oncoming vehicle on the footage however I accept the appellant’s evidence that the only reason he had for stopping was to wait for traffic. Mr R explains that sometimes approaching cars stop to park to drop off children at the school.

 

I allow this appeal because I find that the reason that the car was stopped to wait for oncoming traffic.

 

I allow this appeal.

 

Saracens Event day zone not proven to be adequately signed

 

Mr S was scheduled for a personal hearing today but he was unable to attend and he has requested that the hearing proceed in his absence.

 

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit space or zone in Longfield Avenue at 3.32pm on 9 October 2016 without clearly displaying a valid permit.

 

The Council says in its case summary that there was a permit holder only restriction between 1pm and 6pm on Event Days in the location where Mr S's car was parked.

 

I have looked at the CEO's images. They show no signage of any restrictions where the vehicle was parked. The Council submits a google image showing two parking signs at the entrance to Longfield Avenue. I am unable to see what is written on these signs even with the benefit of magnification.

 

Further, the images from the CEO show that there were no bay markings where Mr S's car was parked. The car was parked some distance into Longfield Avenue. This means that there was nothing at, or near to, the place of parking to alert the motorist to look for parking restrictions. A single yellow line will alert the motorist to look for CPZ restrictions where there is no signage in a particular street. A marked bay will similarly alert a motorist to look for parking restrictions.

 

I am not satisfied for these reasons that any restrictions were properly or adequately signed.

 

Yellow Box Junction - 3 lanes make situation impossible (case 2160497090)

 

The contravention is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).

 

The yellow box junction conveys the prohibition 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."

 

The prohibition has the following elements:

i. Causing a vehicle to enter the box junction,
ii. Stopping within the box junction, and
iii. That stopping being due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

 

There is always a risk that the traffic ahead will stop for one reason or another. The Highway Code accordingly advises motorists as follows: "you must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear".

 

It is not unlawful for a motorist to enter a box junction in a line of traffic or before there is a receiving space for his vehicle beyond the junction. While the Highway Code advice is simply that - advice, it is a reasonable interpretation of how a contravention can occur. A motorist who follows it cannot commit this contravention. A motorists who does not follow the advice is likely to find himself or herself in contravention.

 

In this case, the junction is quite large. At the material time, there are three entrances to one exit and all three entrances have vehicles waiting to enter the junction. None of the entrances are controlled by traffic signals. The High Code Advice cannot be adhered to. Each motorist must depend on at least two other motorists not moving into the junction. This begs the question as to what decides which motorist can enter the junction first when one receiving space becomes available. I have asked the Authority this question. It was either unable or unwilling to respond.

 

Under the above condition, I am not satisfied that the contravention has occurred.

 

I am refusing the appeal. (a typing error, it was allowed)

 

Such fun, all these Appeals. Go on, give it a go.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 25 May 15 - Capita could learn ....

I must apologise for the gap in the blogging brought about mostly by the transformation of PATAS into London Tribunals which led to the register not being available for a few weeks. I will catch up asap.

Here are the stats for the week in question:

so as you can see Barnet were responsible for more than their fair share of new Appeals and contrived to lose more of them than the usual 50%.

There were four cases of note, which all led to the PCN being cancelled:

-  A dropped kerb was not proven

-  The Saracens Event Day Zone was not proven (the council struggle with this)

-  3 spaces in a bay were suspended. The bay had space for 4 cars; the 3 which were suspended was not made clear.

- My favourite, this one, in the words of the adjudicator;

The Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street displaying a badge that had expired and a fairly detailed note explaining that the badge was in the process of being renewed.

Despite that note I would not criticise the CEO for issuing the PCN ( as motorists cannot write themselves exemptions from parking restrictions). However it transpires that the reason there was no valid badge on display is that the Council's agents Capita, had failed to issue him with one at the proper time.

Having heard the Appellant in person in detail there is no doubt at all that the sorry history of his attempt to renew the badge in very good time is correct; and that his request to Capita for the required renewal forms was, as he was informed by Capita when chasing the matter, "lost in the system". When the forms were eventually received on a Saturday morning, he completed them and put them in the post that same morning.

It appears that Capita could learn something from the Appellant's efficiency. 

The Council states that the Appellant should have applied for a temporary dispensation. He was never informed of this by the Council when he made his initial renewal enquiry or at any subsequent stage by the Council's agents Capita. All he was told to do was to display a note, which he did. In my judgement in these circumstances the law follows common sense and does not allow a Council to enforce a penalty for a contravention which occurred entirely as a result of its own failings (Capita being the agent of the Council for these purposes). Allowing it to do so would be the equivalent of an abuse of process and in these circumstances no contravention can be said to have occurred (see the dicta in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905) 

The Appeal is therefore allowed.

The Appellant has shown to me today a charge certificate issued in respect of a very similar case, and where he never received a Notice to Owner. He has of course the right to follow the statutory procedures to set this aside. I am not seized of that matter today. However, if it is the case that the situation in that case is indeed identical, the Council might be well advised to cancel that PCN without further ado, since if the matter ever came to appeal it might well find itself at risk of an order for costs on the Appeal being allowed.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 9 March 15 - moving on

Here are the stats for the most recent week at PATAS:

	Barnet	London	%	Status
New Appeals	52	1110	5	Higher than normal
	Won	Out of	%
Cases heard	23	34	68	Higher than normal

The number of new appeals got over 1,100 for the first time this year. Perhaps this is a sign of spring when more traffic wardens come out to play?

Motorists in Barnet continued to find it worth the effort to contest their PCN.

There were 4 notable cases:

1.   Footway parking in Victoria Rd, NW4 is not enforced so this PCN was cancelled.

2.   An Uber driver was moved on by a traffic warden who then proceeded to send him a PCN in the post which wasn't cricket. It has been cancelled.

T3.   The car was moving at the time the photos were taken. The motorist said they were turning around, not parking. Another cancelled PCN.

4.   An adjudicator said that motorists do not have to research match days in advance, they may not even know there is a stadium somewhere near where they are driving to. It is the signs that, legally, count. The PCN has been cancelled.

Keep those challenges flowing. It's usually worth the effort.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 26 Jan 15 - phone a friend

Another week gone by. How can it be February already?

In this week at PATAS there were 910 fresh Appeals lodged at PATAS with Xmas still depressing the figures slightly. Of those only 27 were from Barnet which is 3% and is below what I would expect so perhaps more challenges are being accepted.

There were 62 cases decided and 42, or 68%, of those went the way of the motorist.

First 3 cases which the motorist won:

1  The council took 2 months and 2 days to reply to the formal representations (the ones you do after the Notice to Owner) and the legislation says they are only allowed 56 days. it was naughty of the council (NSL) to continue to PATAS.

2  Saracens signs were found to be misleading. So many people get PCN that they must be.

3  There was no evidence from the traffic warden to support the issue of a Regulation 10 (drive away) PCN.

and two which the motorist lost:

4  stopped to take a phone call. You can't unless you get into a pay bay and pay.

5  In the orange bays in Woodhouse Road car park. These are for permit holders not people who have paid.

Keep those appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 19 Jan 15 - the sh1t hits the fan

from the Saracen Joust (may not have got this quite right)

Yet another week passes by at PATAS. There were 860 new Appeals lodged, down below the usual 1000 because of the seasonal break. Give it two weeks and numbers will be back to normal. Of those 860, some 35 cases came from Barnet and this is the expected 4% so Barnet seems to be getting back to normal as well.

There were 64 actual hearings (there is at least a 4 week time lag between lodging an Appeal and it being decided) of which 43 went the way of the motorist. That is a 67% success rate. The council threw in the towel on 14 cases to avoid the time of preparing evidence and if they had contested them all I think the motorist would have won 58%. If the environment committee vote in favour on Tuesday, as I suspect they will, there are going to be 12 new members of staff to deal with challenges to PCN in-house, and to prepare evidence packs, so we ought to see better more consistent decisions and more Appeals being contested by the council. Motorists equally need to sharpen up their act.

The reason for my headline this week is that for the first time that I can remember there was an Appeal against an Event Day (Saracens) zone PCN by a fan of Saracens. If that person doesn't know when match days are, why are uninterested members of the public expected to? He still got his PCN cancelled as the council had produced signs for the wrong location.

There were two Regulation 10 (drive away) PCN which came in the post. In both cases the council could not show that they had started to prepare a PCN on street rather than merely observing and so both PCN were cancelled.

There were also two PCN which were cancelled on the grounds that the suspension was not properly signed.

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Patas - w/c 23 June 14 - bus lanes

Another quiet week at PATAS with 1,206 new cases filed of which 50, that is 4%, were the expected amount for Barnet.

65 Barnet appeals were heard and 50 finished up with cancelled PCN so you can see how worthwhile it can be to appeal.

Only 4 things of note:

- someone was loading (possibly a decorator) and a ladder was in a photo taken by the traffic warden which rather confirmed it

- 3 PCN in the Saracens Event Day Zone were cancelled

- a baby being collected was subject to the boarding exemption as they can't walk themselves from the house to the car

- two bus lanes that were 250m apart were treated as one by the adjudicator who did not agree with the council's argument that they had discrete 9i.e. separate) legal status. The adjudicator will only allow one PCN to stand if you go through 2 stretches of bus lane, which is very fair of them.

Have you got a PATAS form? Then fill it in. 

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 2 June 14 - Motorists win 2 out of every 3 appeals

I don't see a man at work?

In this week at PATAS there were quite a lot of new Appeals logged, some 1,308 of them. Of those, 94 emanated from Barnet which is 7% and more than the 4% that there ought to be given that Barnet issue 4% of all PCN in London. This might be the product of issuing too many marginal PCN.

Probably due to being busy with software change quite a number of Appeals were not contested by the council so those PCN get cancelled.

Other notable points were

- The Saracens zone cases are still being cancelled 99% of the time.

- Someone got 2 bus lane PCN in 1 minute and another motorist got 3 in 3 minutes. The adjudicator doesn't usually let more than 1 PCN stand as he/she regards it as unfair.

- A sign which was meant to be, possibly, Mon - Fri only had the abbreviation "Mon" on it so the restriction only applies on Mondays. It wasn't a Monday when the PCN was issued so it was cancelled.

- A kerb on the corner of a road had slipped but wasn't deliberately dropped for the purposes of assisting pedestrians to cross the carriageway. That PCN was therefore cancelled but you will, I hope, all try not to park on junctions in the future.

Remember, once you have a Notice to Owner you have nothing to lose by appealing all the way to PATAS. It costs the council £40 and you nothing except a little time. There are lots of restaurants near the hearing centre at the Angel. You could make it into a day out.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - week of 7 April 14 - no free transfer

your bus lane ticket is not transferable

It has been quiet at PATAS with the number of Barnet cases dropping. This is probably because the council has been busy changing its parking ticket processing software and so haven't been sending out any Notices of Rejection which are accompanied by the PATAS appeal form. This hiatus period might mean that the council have taken longer than 56 days to reject your representations (the challenge you made once you had a Notice to Owner) and if that is the case they have no right to reject you, they have accepted the challenge by default. Do make sure you use this as one of your Grounds of Appeal on the PATAS form (the council will have committed a procedural impropriety so you can tick that box) as well as all the other points you have found. When you sit down at PATAS and the Adjudicator has introduced themselves, and told you in brief how your hearing will proceed, you should raise the delay as a preliminary point and you'll probably find yourself having hardly warmed the seat and on your way back out of the Appeal centre with a grin on your face. You could then apply for costs as the council could be considered to have been wholly unreasonable in not following a law that they know very well.

Anyway, there were 33 PCN cancelled and 23 upheld in the week which is 59% of them won by the motorist.

One case that was lost was a bus lane PCN which was given to a car hire company. They tried to have liability transferred to the driver. They cannot do so, it is in the legislation. It seems like an anomaly as parking tickets can be transferred but the law is the law.

Some of the features of winning cases were:

The council denied receiving an informal challenge when they clearly had and the Adjudicator was unimpressed with a failure of a local authority to tell the truth (as they equally are when a member of the public tries to pull the wool over their eyes).

Not seen very often now in the light of the hammering they were taking but an old PCN slipped through the net from 20 July 12 and won't now see its second birthday as it is cancelled.

A sign was facing the wrong way. You have to be able to see CPZ entry signs as you drive along the road and signs next to a parking bay have to face the road.

More woes in the Saracens zone. This time someone trying to get a permit getting the answerphone machine and didn't get called back. Not just the once either. The PCN has been converted into a meaningless piece of paper now.

The photos taken at night time weren't good enough to show the contravention. A traffic warden could make enough notes to otherwise prove such a case, but they didn't.

In Armitage Road a line painted on the road was found not to be substantially compliant. Lines don't have to be perfect but they should be clear as to the restriction they convey.

I know next week isn't much busier at PATAS but expect numbers to keep rising as you all start to get those latent Notices of Rejection. You know what to do, appeal!

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 31 Mar 14 - mostly routine

Last week at PATAS there were 103 cases of which 64, that is 61%, were won by the motorist. There were an incredible 31 witness statements to the TEC that merely slowed down the inevitable.

There were the usual cases where the motorist was accused of preventing service of a PCN but saying you won't take it and driving off is not prevention for which some physical force is required.

Here is how nurses in the community are treated by NSL / Barnet Council.

I have accepted the appellant's evidence about taking in to the patient an oxygen tank together with respiratory inhalers. The oxygen tank in particular seems to me to attract the benefit of the unloading exemption. I am satisfied that she did not take an unreasonable time in connection with this unloading and I have accordingly allowed the appeal.

Why can't the council use common-sense and accept that nurses have a hard enough job and that they should cancel parking tickets in such situations?

The Saracens Event Day zone saw a number of cancellations. The problem in the Traffic Management Order is now going to be fixed by the council.

More presumed guilty behaviour by Notice Processing Officers which lead to appeals to PATAS that invariably result in a cancelled PCN.

I have accepted the appellant explanation that he was simply visiting another clergyman and the stop was no longer than was necessary for the collection and loading of bags required in connection with funerary rites to be performed. I am satisfied the case properly attracts the benefit of the loading exemption that was available at the time and place concerned at the time and place concerned. I have recorded this appeal as allowed.

Can't NSL / Barnet Council accept that a clergyman is likely to tell the truth?
 

Some signage was hidden by foliage so the PCN was cancelled.

Finally, Barnet Council (NSL) are fond of insisting that if you have a garage bill for repair work or for being recovered that it must have a VAT number on it to be acceptable. That is unreasonable as the VAT registration limit is now £79,000 p.a. and so it is quite possible for a one man band garage, or mobile mechanic, to operate a business without being registered for VAT. So, if they reject your invoice as proof, carry on with your Appeal to PATAS.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance 

PATAS w/c 17 Mar 14 - The low down

The council's appetite for PCN income is constant

Last week at PATAS there were 87 hearings. There were 11 instances of witness statements TE9 which I will ignore. There were 3 cases where the adjudicator couldn't find a legal reason but asked the council to cancel the PCN all the same. That left 73 standard cases of which 47 were won, that is 64% 

Time spent completing a PATAS form is never wasted.

Cases of note, in which the PCN was cancelled unless I tell you otherwise, were:

- one where the photos were too dark to make anything out (you should also deny that the contravention took place as then the only other evidence is the traffic warden's scant notes)

- a time plate that is mounted too low and is filthy in Highwood Hill

- a dropped kerb that was much wider than the entrance (presumably because the part of the drop that leads to a hedge, fence or wall can't be said to be dropped for the purpose of entering a drive)

- 5 cases where the vehicle had been taking without consent

- 2 stolen vehicle PCNs where a crime number was held (why oh why do these ever get to PATAS?)

- a sign too low in Hermitage Lane (realistically it should be visible above the bonnet of a car but it will be a question of judgment by the adjudicator as to whether low is too low or not)

- in their response to representations the council wrote about the wrong hour of restriction so were held to have not properly considered the representations which is a procedural impropriety

- we don't see many now, as they must largely have gone through the system, but there as a PCN from the distant days of 21 July 12. There was a process delay of 6 months 3 days which is just enough to breach your Human Right to a fair trial, when taken with the alleged bus lane contravention being 2 years ago.

- no photo, no tax disc number

- the adjudicator found it unacceptable that any photographs taken more than 5 minutes after the PCN could not be uploaded to the system. this is effect the suppression of evidence to the adjudicator.

- an unclear suspension (they often are)

- PCN not handed to driver as alleged.

- a medical emergency caused an urgent need to use the toilet (you will need proof of your medical condition)

- A traffic warden said it was OK to park there (this sort of claim is hard to prove)

- Saracens zone not proven

Excellent work everyone. Keep those appeals flowing.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

PATAS - w/c 24 Feb 14 - stick to the rules

Stick to the rules please

In this week there were another 23 uses of the TE9 witness statement procedure at the TEC attached to Northampton County Court which simply delayed the inevitable and led to motorists still having to pay the PCN because they hadn't properly followed the procedure. If you don't qualify for a TE9 don't sign one. The best thing to do is to follow the procedure and timetable for challenging a PCN in the first place.

Once those 23 cases were stripped out we are left with 45 PCN which were cancelled and 45 PCN which were upheld and 3 where the council were asked to take another look at cancelling.

Of the cases which were won the council didn't bother contesting 18 (i.e. 40%) of them. They probably can't keep up with the number of Appeals so keep them coming and keep the pressure on.

The council lost one case because it was poorly presented. NSL are contracted to produce the Evidence Packs.

The signs about the Market day in Lodge Lane Car Park were found to be inadequate, as they have been in the past. The motorist in question took advice on the Pepipoo website. It might sound silly but the advice is sound.

The Saracens Zone took another drubbing. The council may say they put up posters but they didn't say where and didn't produce any and they may talk of adverts in the local paper but they didn't produce any copies. Their evidence was mere conjecture.

A person who thought they had paid the 50% in time by credit card over the phone to a customer services person found payment had not been taken and then the council wanted 100%. The adjudicator did not find this to be fair as the non-payment was not the fault of the motorist.

Unloading scaffolding isn't a quick job. There is little doubt that unloading was taking place and accordingly the adjudicator cancelled the PCN.

A suspended bay caused the usual confusion and the evidence was poor so the PCN was cancelled.

The council (NSL) produced the wrong PCN as evidence so the correct one was cancelled.

Quite a busy week but not really remarkable. Keep those Appeals coming and make the council work for their money.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 23 Dec 13 - a short week

There were hearings on only 1 day in this week, and 3 cases processed by postal decision on Xmas Eve. The upshot was 14 PCN cancelled and 12 upheld.

The more notable cancellation cases were:

- not clear that the suspension sign was clear and adequate

- the traffic warden was not prevented by some person from issuing a PCN and so the right to serve it by post did not exist

- no clear reason for the existence of a dropped kerb in Grahame Park Way, just because a pedestrian might use it doesn't mean it was for that purpose (there can't be a similar dropped kerb on the opposite side of the road0

- no evidence that the Saracens Event Day zone was properly signed

- a lady who uses the PayByPhone app and only has one registered car was found not to be at fault when payment did not show up.

- formal representations were rejected but they weren't representations

- a blue badge was found to have been on display

- council referred to single yellow lines not double so hadn't properly considered representations

- an adjudicator phoned a witness to confirm the story of a traffic warden having walked off without issuing a PCN (it is unusual for an adjudicator to do this, normally you would submit a signed written statement by the witness or take them along to the hearing).

What will 2014 bring in the way of adjudications? Stay with me to find out.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 2 Dec 13 - Commonality

In this week there were 86 appeals, two of which were the subject of a recommendation to cancel, 51 PCN were cancelled and 33 upheld. A 61% success rate.

 

There were some common themes.

 

There were 4 PCN for the Saracens Event Day Zone. Now there are none that survive. That tells you it is worth the trouble to appeal all the way to PATAS.

 

There were 3 cases where the PCN was sent by post because the  motorist drove away. All 3 were cancelled as the traffic warden wasn't prevented from giving the PCN to the driver or affixing it to the windscreen. If you get a driveaway postal PCN, that is also well worth appealing. The council look to be issuing PCN by post when they should not do so, they should treat those motorists as the ones who got away and just tell tall tales about them in the pub.

 

There were 4 PCN which had been issued between July 2010 (it was on papyrus) and August 11. All of them are too old for a legal enforcement as the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act has been compromised by the passage of time.

 

Then there were some one-offs.

 

One poor motorist got the bay reference number wrong and paid Westminster £11.10 instead of £7 to Barnet (that illustrates how relatively expensive the leafy outer London suburb of Barnet has become). What this PCN illustrates is that the bay numbers should be in blocks so that at least payment is made to the correct borough (Westminster have no legal right to a payment made under mistake, the motorist can reclaim it) and that technology is not being used for the benefit of the motorist. The telephone knows it is in Barnet by the GPS co-ordinates so PayByPhone could use that data, with the phone holder's permission, to limit the bay numbers to which payment could be made (with a manual override if you are paying from elsewhere, perhaps you left your car in the car park to recover tomorrow as you went to the pub on a whim one evening).

 

An appeal illustrated the misleading nature of the on-line payment method. Do make sure you press the confirm button when you are on the Payment Confirmation page.

 

A suspension sign at low level was held to be unfair and the PCN was cancelled.

 

The next case should not have reached PATAS. The council knew when they dropped the kerb. They were simply hoping that the motorist didn't.

 

The appellant Mr K attended the personal hearing listed for today. I found him to be a sincere and honest witness.

He stated that he is a local resident and that although he was aware that his neighbours with whom he has a good relationship were going to drop the kerb and the residents bay was eventually going to be removed he had not received any advance warning of when this would take place. At the time he parked his vehicle the bay markings were still present as was the residents bay signage which permitted parking during the restricted hours to residents displaying a residents permit which he states was displayed in is vehicle.

I have looked at the photographic evidence. I can still clearly see the residents bay road markings which I find to make the signage at the location to be confusing.

I am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur and allow this appeal.

 

A nurse who was unloading heavy equipment for her patient at home saw her PCN cancelled. How on earth is home care to be provided if one public servant is at the mercy of a different one?

 

Keep those appeals coming. They are worth the time and trouble.

 

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 28 October 13 - so stale

If you have ever wondered how you get caught when you are tucked away somewhere taking a chance this video showing traffic wardens going about their business in Wandsworth should give you a good idea of how much ground they can cover in a very short time. How the wardens don't all get into crashes given the careless way in which they are riding is very hard to comprehend.

 

 

Now back to PATAS. There were 86 appeals in this week and 46 of them resulted in cancelled PCN (parking tickets) which is 53%.

 

A lady paid to park in the Lodge Lane Car park using the credit/debit card meter (wise lady) but it did not issue her with a little ticket to put in her windscreen. The paper must have run out. She made a note of how long she had and came back in time. She had a PCN. She appealed on the grounds that she had paid and produced her bank statement and a letter from the bank. The council rejected her bank statement as it didn't show the time of payment (well they aren't meant to) but failed to notice that the time of payment was in a letter from the bank which the adjudicator read more carefully than the council or NSL did. Anyone would think they read things just looking for grounds to deny an appeal. The PCN is now cancelled.

 

The signage for the Saracens zone was again found to be inadequate so another PCN bit the dust.

 

In a very interesting case, where the PCN was served by post because the driver left the scene the council failed to put into evidence the original PCN that they were supposedly prevented from affixing to the vehicle. That failure to produce the original Regulation 9 PCN (one produced at the scene) meant that the Regulation 10 PCN (sent in the post) was cancelled. A friend is about to use this defence.

 

The council said parking restrictions operated from 8 until 6.30 but the motorist proved it was only from 11 -12 so the PCN was cancelled. I'm not sure that all traffic wardens know the rules about CPZs.

 

In respect of a PCN from 13 September 2011 the adjudicator said that proceedings were so stale that a fair hearing wasn't possible and cancelled the PCN. If the adjudicator's attention is drawn to delays of 6 months or more they always cancel the PCN.

 

An even older PCN from 2 June 2011 led the adjudicator to say that the motorist's Human Rights came first and due to the delay he cancelled the PCN.

 

A PCN from 13 June 2011 was held not to have been served. The delay was not explicitly mentioned but the adjudicator may well have had it in mind. I suppose that they have internal circulars of what problems are coming up in appeals and Barnet must have had a mention for Saracens Zone and 2011 PCN.

 

The actions of the council in not promptly issuing a resident's permit counted against them, it not being fair to thus issue a PCN.

 

A van on the pavement so as to more easily clear a blocked drain had its ticket cancelled.

 

Two PCN from July 2011 became history and were cancelled.

 

Someone paid for 90 minutes but didn't get it. I have seen this problem before.

 

A PCN being chased from July 2011 was held to be an abuse of process.

 

Something odd happened to a case which Barnet asked to withdraw and permission was refused. There was some doubt about the legitimacy of the appeal form but the PCN got cancelled all the same.

 

Someone in a bus stop wasn't served. They were lucky to get away with that one.

 

Someone dropping off a cat, which has since been put down, had their PCN cancelled due to the loading and unloading exemption.

 

Another busy week for NSL and Barnet Council. Why not make them busier? Remember for a PCN on your car you can appeal 3 times

 

firstly - within 28 days of the PCN being put on your car

secondly - after you receiver the Notice to Owner (again within 28 days)

thirdly - to the independent adjudicator at PATAS within 28 days of having your last argument rejected for which you receive a notice of rejection.

 

It is at the third stage that you have the best chance of winning so it is worth it to flog through the other 2 stages. You don't have to respond at the first stage but you must respond to the Notice to Owner.

 

The third stage costs the council £40 so they probably hate it but they should allow more second stage appeals if they want fewer third stage ones.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance