PATAS - w/c 25 August - stolen car

Another quiet week at PATAS as it was one day short due to the Monday being a Bank Holiday.

There were 899 new Appeals filed for the whole of London of which 47 came from Barnet and that is a run rate of 5% which is higher than the 4% they should represent. Something is going wrong in parking in Barnet.

There were only 25 Barnet appeals heard and of those 14 were good for the motorist so they won 56% of the time, slightly above average.

There are 4 I want to tell you about. the first 3 PCN were cancelled, the final one was upheld.

A nurse practitioner won her appeal inside the Saracens zone. The council really should cut district nurse types some slack as they are doing a valuable job in the community.

Another motorist was told on the phone that their PCN would be cancelled. The adjudicator believed them and therefore made the council do what they said they would do. When you phone up a about a parking ticket you are talking to Capita not NSL and only NSL or the council itself can press the cancellation button. I recommend you tape all your calls to the parking line.

NSL excelled themselves yet again. The DVD they sent of a supposed bus lane contravention was for the wrong car.

A man who had his car stolen with the PCN inside it wanted to pay 50% and was denied. What should have happened is that the unfortunate motorist should have phoned up the parking section with his car registration number and asked for the PCN number and then he could have paid it at the 50% reduced rate.

Keep filing those Appeals.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 18 August 14 - Hot & cross

A quiet week at PATAS without any Saturday hearings (best avoided anyway) as the Monday was a bank holiday. 956 new Appeals were filed of which 60 were from Barnet. This is 6% and is more than a fair share which probably reflects the poor quality of the PCNs and of their processing.

There were 58 Appeals of which 39 (67% or 2/3rds) were won by the motorist.

I'll tell you of one lost Appeal and then of 3 that were won.

The one that was lost related to a yellow line on Good Friday. That is, for parking purposes on yellow lines, a normal day. I expect that the motorist was hot & cross at that PCN and the outcome as it isn't necessary to restrict Bank holiday parking.

Three that were won:

In Ridge Road, NW2 the bay markings were found to be very faded.

In the Lodge Lane Car Park the adjudicator was unhappy with the council for having filed 134 pages of Evidence which was said to be overwhelming for the typical motorist. Having given out the PCN for a PayByPhone bay the council fell over its shoelaces by referring to a meter.

A disabled motorist who didn't display their blue badge clock (but did display the blue badge) was OK as there is no stated requirement in the Traffic Management Order for the clock to be on display.

A quiet week and the next one is even quieter. Time to file some more appeals folks.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 11 August 14 - antisocial parking

In this week at PATAS there were 1,027 new Appeals of which 62 came from parking. As Barnet give out 4% of all PCN they shouldn't really be 6% of Appeals.

57 Barnet cases were considered and 34 PCN, that is 60% were cancelled.

There are seven I want to tell you about, the rest being pretty routine.

1. The motorist had not yet purchased the vehicle which had the PCN. How is it that Barnet Council can't settle a simple ownership question without the matter having to go all the way to PATAS?

2.  Some parking right up to, if not slightly over, a dropped kerb was held to be antisocial but not illegal. Please keep back from dropped kerbs so that residents can exit their drives safely.

3.  A motorist was given a PCN whilst reading the suspended bay sign. They are allowed time to read it and then park elsewhere. The council did not have an approved suspension sign until August so appeal all earlier PCN.

4.  There was poor quality evidence to justify sending out a postal PCN.

5.  There were poor quality photos at night. Photos are not obligatory but they do settle a lot of arguments. If there is no other evidence the PCN may well be cancelled.

6.  A motorist was told their permit was on its way. These have been taking months. It isn't good enough.

7.  Barnet said there wasn't an exemption but their own Traffic Management Order said there was. Oops. Don't take what the council say at face value; check it against the paperwork.

Keep those appeals coming. Motorists are winning more than they lose.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 4 August 14 - mind the gap

hard to find a gap here

In this week at PATAS there were 1,073 new Appeals registered of which 65, that is 6% came from Barnet although they should only account for 4%.

Some 69 Appeals were heard of which 40 led to cancelled PCN which is a 58% win rate for the motorist.

There were 4 cases of note which led to cancelled PCN.

- The sign on the Argos loading bay at North Finchley did not reflect the terms of the Traffic Management Order. Mr Mustard suspects that an old one was exhibited.

- In a case in The Drive (Mr Mustard's patch) both CPZ entry signs were not visible.

- a motorist was served a PCN whilst waiting for a gap in the traffic in order to move off.

- the legend "Loading only" was not marked on the roadway (adjacent to a loading bay). That seems to be the case on a lot of Barnet's loading bays

Keep those Appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 28 July 14 - boring

There were 1,056 new Appeals registered at PATAS from across London. 

46 of them came from Barnet which is 4% and the "right" amount.

Only two were of any great interest.

The signs in Lodge Rd were held to be incompatible. I can't work out what they are incompatible with but any PCN there will be worth contesting.

A resident had dispensation and permit problems which are still ongoing now.

Those 2 cancelled PCN were 2 of the 33 cancelled out of the 46 hearings (coincidentally the same number of decisions as new Appeals although decisions are usually 4 weeks behind Appeals).

Thus, 72% of Appeals were won.

Make sure you Appeal all the way to PATAS if you get a PCN in Barnet.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

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 14 July 14 - a maximum break

the maximum break in snooker is 147

There were 1,150 new Appeals lodged at PATAS in this particular week of which 55, that is 5%, emanated from Barnet which is 9 or 10 more than their ought to be given that the council issue 4% of all the PCN in London.

There were three cases of note.

- A traffic warden who claimed that a motorist drove away and then came back to collect his PCN was not credible. the PCN was cancelled.

- A carer who got a PCN whilst in the house collecting the free carer's permit (a person needing care may have more than one carer so the permit is left indoors) was allowed the requisite time and thus the PCN was cancelled. this is the trouble with not having a 5 minute observation period for many contraventions, traffic wardens work on the hit and run basis.

- An adjudicator decided to look at the record of a particular motorist and it turned out that they had got 147 Appeals registered on the PATAS computer (since September 2000) of which 57 had been refused. I think most of those appeals were in the last year or two. Partly for that reason his claim for costs failed. Now it seems that this motorist is very bad at parking but pretty good at making appeals and must be spending a lot of time doing so. You can't say that he is wrong to challenge as he has won 61% of his cases and thus he is better off than paying them all at the 50% rate. He spends his time but gets time to pay.

I suspect that he must be out in the car a lot and takes a chance when he nips in to shops or to see friends. Only he knows what the problem is. It might be that the motorist is anti authority, we don't know but someone ought to find out.

He is clearly costing the borough a small fortune in Appeals costs (about £6,000) and in the time to deal with his appeals.

The council parking manager should study his cases over the last 2 years, find out what the common themes are and then invite the motorist in for a chat or pop round their house for one, over a nice cup of tea. there are mutual benefits to be gained.

Do try and park properly all of you and avoid even one PCN.

There were Barnet 61 PCN that were decided upon in this week of which 41 led to PCN being cancelled, that is 67% or a 2 in 3 chance of winning. You can see it is worth the bother to appeal to the end.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance