PATAS - w/c 21 July 14 - Yew Grove

Yew Grove (Leeds Castle)

In this week at PATAS there were 1,155 new Appeals registered. Of those, 55 came form Barnet which is 5% and 11 more than should be the norm.

There were 5 notable cases all of which led to the PCN being cancelled:

- a grace period was over-ridden and even then the PCN had to be sent in the post as the traffic warden could not produce it in time to stick it on the windscreen.

- a yellow line across a dropped kerb inside a CPZ was held to be confusing as it implied that you could park across the dropped kerb outside the CPZ hours and you can't (unless it is your personal access point to one residence).

- the lines in Yew Grove were held to be not clear enough.

- A motorist from Hastings had their scooter registration mark cloned. Why on earth that reached PATAS without the council comparing photographs of the cloned and real scooter is hard to say.

- a PCN was started on 6 seconds after seeing a car which had passengers alighting. Up to 2 minutes would be allowed for able bodied passengers by the adjudicator.

Of the appeals heard there were 55 (coincidentally) for Barnet and 36, that is 65%, were won. It is well worth appealing to PATAS.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS w/c 9 June 2014 - 78% win rate

In this particular week at PATAS there were 1,201 new Appeals registered of which 50, that is 4%, came from Barnet which was, for once, the percentage that you would expect. The peak in Appeals looks to have abated for now.

There were 4 PCN worth a mention.

In Bells Hill the signage on a single yellow line, which for some bizarre reason, operates until late at night and is a favourite trap spot of scooterised traffic wardens, was found to be "not very effective". That is because the sign is around the bend in a side turning and cannot be seen from your car.

A person who displayed their blue badge got a PCN notwithstanding. This was because the traffic warden managed to only photograph part of the windscreen which did not contain the Blue Badge. Don't get a traffic warden to take your wedding photographs as the bride or the groom will be missing from shot. This was, of course, a genuine accident which I have seen happen several times before.

Yew Grove was found to be not clearly marked. I see to recall having seen that location in this blog recently. You know what to do, appeal.

Gervase Rd is a regular feature at PATAS as the road is marked out for pavement parking but all of the necessary signs are not in place and people go astray and park, perfectly safely, with 2 wheels on the kerb where markings are not provided. Usually  the PCN gets cancelled due to lack of clarity but in a very unusual move a Review was requested of a decision lost at that location and the PCN now has to be paid. Just remember that within 14 days of an Appeal decision either party can ask for a Review and although there are usually only about 50 such requests a year your winning case could suddenly be a losing case. I wonder if this motorist had been especially upsetting in some way to NSL or the council?

Keep those appeals coming. the odds are certainly in your favour.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance