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 24 Mar 14 - 100 cases

a century of cases

A really busy week at PATAS starting on Monday 24 March. There were 13 witness statements which I'll ignore as they are just delaying the inevitable. There were 100 cases which had followed the usual route and of those 68 led to cancellation of the PCN. Even if you are not good at maths you can see there was a 68% success rate last week. Keep those Appeals flowing.

The following cases all resulted in the PCN being cancelled:

- Kara Way, a sign is inadequate.
- PCNs often go missing and the reason is unknown, traffic wardens removing them is oft suspected and not often proved, the following is an extract of the adjudicator's decision in which it was:

Further the Enforcement Authority assert that a Penalty Charge Notice was subsequently issued by post as a result of the said vehicle having been driven away before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the Penalty Charge Notice for service by affixing it to the said vehicle or handing it to the person appearing to be in charge of the said vehicle.

Mr. L indicated the purpose of his business at the location and described a sequence of events regarding the questionable behaviour of two civil enforcement officers. Not only did Mr. L dispute the alleged position of the said vehicle, he also vehemently denied driving away. On the contrary he remained in situ waiting for his passenger and observed the civil enforcement officer print out a document and place it in his breast pocket as he photographed the time plate.

- those PCN which arrive in the post are often suspect. The adjudicator's decision shows that there is concern at PATAS about these Regulation 10 PCN in Barnet:

This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice issued under regulation 10(1)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007. This regulation enables a penalty charge notice to be sent by post after a Civil Enforcement Officer has attempted to serve it either by fixing it to a vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to him to be in charge of it, but was prevented from doing do by some person. In his notes at the time, the issuing Civil Enforcement Officer stated that he had told the returning driver that he had got a Penalty Charge Notice and he got into the vehicle and drove away.

In her representations, the Appellant disputed the alleged contravention by reference to a number of matters, in particular that at no time was a Civil Enforcement Officer prevented from issuing a Penalty Charge Notice. The representations were rejected, and the reduced penalty was reoffered for a limited period, but the offer was not taken up. Similar issues were raised on appeal.

A driver removing a vehicle is not "preventing" the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice. The PCN should refer to the ground at Regulation 10(1)(c) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, not 10(1)(b).

As the PCN does not correctly state the grounds on which it is issued it is defective and its issue is a procedural impropriety. Indeed strictly speaking it ceases to be a PCN at all in law. So long as the Enforcement Authority issues PCNs in this form, in these circumstances appeals will be allowed and the question of costs may fall to be considered.

- there were a few Saracens Event Day PCN and of course the Traffic Management Order does not define what an "Event Day" is. That mistake is now being corrected but will still take a few weeks during which every Saracens Zone PCN should be appealed.

- a type of PCN that isn't often seen is for selling goods from your van or car. That can be forbidden but people in the street must be told about it by signage. Here is the adjudicator again:

Before reaching a determination in this matter I Adjourned the Case to afford the Enforcement Authority an opportunity to elucidate upon the statement in its letter of 12th November 2013 to the Appellant regarding the motorists' knowledge of the prohibition, and how that is achieved.

Although Article 17 of the Traffic Management Order conveys such a restriction the Enforcement Authority were requested to address the issue of the means by which such prohibition is communicated to the motorist.

In so Adjourning I also asked the Enforcement Authority to address its reference to 'grounds' in correspondence where its consideration can encompass mitigation.

I interpret the absence of reply from the Enforcement Authority as an indication that this Appeal is no longer contested, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

- In Heathfield Rd there was obscured signage
- In Woodstock Avenue the signage was unclear.

Remember that once you have the Notice to Owner there is nothing to lose by making representations and then Appealing to PATAS. The opportunity to pay at 50% has gone and won't come back so make the council work for their money.

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 - week of 10 March - Frosty

Last week at PATAS was more like they use to be. There were still nine applications to the TEC to take the process back to the beginning, mostly wrongly so they didn't do any good.

There were 4 cases in which PATAS recommended that the council cancel the parking ticket even though legally issued and then there were 70 run of the mill cases of which 43 (that is 61% of them) led to the PCN being cancelled.

It is still well worth putting your appeal in if you have missed the discount period.

Cases where the PCN was cancelled included:

- The Saracens zone. Every PCN in this zone should be taken to PATAS.

- 2 bus lane PCN in one minute. Technically each of the bus lanes are separate but 2 PCN in one minute for what looks like one long bus lane on the A5 will not be allowed; the first one will be upheld though.

- Delivering bread.

- Obtaining a visitor voucher.

- One car over-heated and another with a blown fuse (These must not be regular faults or due to poor maintenance otherwise they are foreseeable events. Always good to have a proper invoice for the repair as well).

- In Dollis Road the pavement parking areas are unclear.

- The sign was not where the traffic warden said it was.

The final case I want to you about was one that was lost i.e. the PCN has to be paid. In this case the car had a frost screen on it. This is what the adjudicator said:

The contemporaneous photographic evidence leads me to conclude that a valid permit was not visible because of the frost shield.

The administrative practicalities of the parking scheme require a vehicle's owner, at all times it waits in a bay or space, to pay for that time and display proof of that by way of a ticket or voucher or meter reading. The Scheme imposes owner liability. That implies that the owner may be liable even if he did not know about the contravention, which in turn implies liability without fault. An Adjudicator must balance any decision between fairness and administrative practicality. Sometimes the latter overrides the former. A Scheme requires that parked vehicles pay for their waiting time and that the payment is visibly displayed. Should either requirement be absent then a contravention occurs. I find that this principle also applies to permits and badges.

The issue is whether the officer was under a duty to remove the frost shield to ascertain whether or not a valid permit was on display. I believe not.

I find that in the circumstances the officer was entitled to issue the penalty notice because no permit was visible in the circumstances, with which he was confronted.

The question of unreasonableness is not for an Adjudicator. This is more the province of a High Court Judge.

An Adjudicator must look at the evidence to ascertain if there has been a contravention and if there is an exemption to it.

In this instance I find that the circumstance are mitigating circumstances or extenuating factors. They do not amount to a ground of appeal.

The local authority has clearly considered the relevant circumstances but has chosen not to exercise their discretion in the appellant's favour. Mitigation is the province of the local authority. In the Court of Appeal case of R (Walmsley) v. Lane, the judges stated that an Adjudicator may only cancel a penalty charge notice if a ground of appeal has been established and that an Adjudicator may not exercise their discretion and cancel a penalty notice when mitigating circumstances and not a ground of appeal has been established. Mitigation is for the local authority. An Adjudicator is not permitted to mitigate a fixed penalty, a penalty fixed by law.

I have to find that the penalty notice was properly issued.

In those circumstances, as I find that no ground of appeal has been established, I have to refuse the appeal.

This at first looks like a surprising result but it was one that the adjudicator was bound to come to as he has to apply the law. If he had evidence that a permit did exist for the vehicle he could have recommended that the council cancel the PCN but as they had already exercised their discretion against cancelling he probably couldn't see any compelling reason and nor can I. The conditions of your permit includes:

The permit must be displayed on the front windscreen of the vehicle so that the details are clearly visible from outside the vehicle.

so if you then cover it you are contravening the conditions. If snow falls or the windscreen frosts over, then you have not failed to comply with the conditions, it is an outside force that has acted and commonsense should prevail in those cases.

Another question is whether a traffic warden should have removed the cover (or if they should scrape snow or ice away). They do have the legal right to uncover a number plate but are not empowered to do anything else and would be at risk of a claim for damages if they did so.

What should you do? I think I would cut a hole in the cover where the permit sits even though it will then be frosted over and still not clear.

Of course the council should, if a valid permit existed for the vehicle, have cancelled the PCN but that would be to fail to satisfy their voracious appetite for revenue raised from parking tickets instead of through council tax.

Keep on appealing.


Yours appealingly


Miss Feezance

PATAS - week of 3 March 14

The incidence of resource to the TEC using the form TE9 was much reduced in this week with only 11 cases. That left 26 which the council won and 51 which the motorist won and of those 51 the council didn't bother to contest 18 of them, hence the picture of the towel above; it should really be a thrown one though. So of the true PCN, a 66% success rate. Keep those appeals coming.

Case of note which the motorist won include:

One where payment was made 1 minute after the PCN was issued as it must take at least a minute to do and show up.

One where the entire car was not more than 50cm from the kerb.

One where the notes of the CEO supported the defence that boarding was taking place. Why did that case get as far as PATAS?

One in Prince of Wales Close where the sign is turned away from the road. If you can't see it, it isn't valid.

One where the loading flashes (those marks across the kerb)  were not clear.

In Varley Parade - the poor surface markings are not good enough for a PCN to stand.

If you have a PCN in similar circumstances, appeal it.

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