PATAS - w/c 20 January 14 - an average week

This week was so average that I have one page missing out of the notes that I took about it. I can't remember any notable cases though and the page will turn up in another file one day. One case was referred back to be looked at again by the council with a view to cancelling, 33 PCN were upheld as payable and 63 were cancelled. So that is 66% won by the motorist. you see, it is worth filling out that Notice of Appeal. If you skip the optional box 5 it takes 3 or 4 minutes at most.

Really average reasons to have your PCN cancelled this week included:-

- the council denying you the boarding or alighting exemption but the adjudicator allowing it

- the PCN not having been handed to a female driver as the traffic warden noted, the driver was a male

- the Saracens Event Day sign not showing that you need 2 permits if you live within the ED zone and a residents zone

- a suspension not being proven (very common this one)

- a single yellow line being non-existent

- a PCN from May 12 being too old to pursue due to a delay of over 6 months between the Charge Certificate and the Order for Recovery

- the council didn't put the representations they had received in the evidence bundle

- dropping a child at a nursery and being away from the car for a short while - I wonder if any of the clerks at NSL actually have children?

- a description of Station Rd being found wanting as there are 6 in Barnet (this only works when you don't find the PCN on your windscreen)

- a dropped kerb in Bulwer Rd not having been dropped to the level of the road

- someone driving away is not "preventing" the traffic warden from issuing the PCN so one shouldn't be sent by post

- actually these ones were not average. Vehicle taken without consent receives 23 PCN. The first 3 have been in front of the adjudicator and cancelled.

- ran out of fuel was allowed (it isn't usually) because the vehicle was in the hands of a garage and the fuel gauge was faulty

- the motorist was helping their disabled sister upstairs. You can't just leave them on the pavement if they need help and you need the car near to where you are going.

- the PayByPhone app got the blame for not changing a registration number back.

- attending a breakdown of another car.

That's it. Another week in which about 3% of the week's PCNs made it to PATAS. Any advance on 3%?, can we get it to 5% by the end of 2014?

Yours appealingly


Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 13 Jan 2014 - Gross!

What a week. There was a gross of decided appeals (+1 referred back with a recommendation) and for the younger readers, a gross is not in this context something revolting but the number 144 or 12 dozen, a number in which goods used to be sold to shops.

If this were kept up every week then 4.5% of all PCN would be appealed. That would cause a bit of a flap in the back office.

Now there were some common cases.

21 cases from 2011 (and a few from 2012, it is 2014 now after all) led to 21 cancelled PCNs due to the difficulty in providing a fair trial (Article 6 of the Human Rights Act) for what happened all that time ago.

In 23 cases the council decided not to contest the appeal, known by me as throwing in the towel. This was probably due to the Xmas holidays getting in the way of work.

And then there were the one off cases.

A bus stop was worn and unclear so that motorist had a lucky escape. Bus stops are for buses, if you don't have one, keep out.

One poor person got 2 PCN as the parking bay was painted around his car whilst he was parked. it sounds like a music hall joke but it isn't funny if it happens to you. Fortunately when put to proof as to when the bay was installed the council can never come up with any paperwork and thus the decision goes the way of the motorist. It's a right faff though to have to appeal.

Another motorist paid in a shop and spoke to the traffic warden about the payment he had made. The PCN he still got was cancelled as it would be ridiculous to do anything else once proof of on time payment was provided.

In a case of parking in a residents bay with an expired permit, only 4 days out of date, the motorist was bang to rights but luckily the section of the Traffic Management Order produced by the council was the wrong one and so they hadn't proceed the contravention had occurred and that PCN was cancelled.

The visitors permit which had been placed in the driver's window was not photographed by the traffic warden. Oversight or deliberate omission, who can say but we can say the PCN is now cancelled.

There was a printer problem in the permit section a couple of months ago. Motorists were told what to put in their windscreen and of course traffic wardens ignored the note and issued a PCN. PATAS cancelled it as the story just had to be true.

A section of what the council think is footway in Bunns Lane had been parked on for 30 years without previous trouble. The PCN was cancelled. You must always be careful to avoid what is clearly footway for the use of pedestrians.

The ambiguous lines painted near the Montessori School in Rectory Lane led to another PCN being cancelled.

Dropping off your pregnant wife shouldn't be cause for a PCN. The adjudicators at PATAS are more sensible and sensitive than some faceless NSL employee in Croydon so that was another PCN cancelled.

A deaf person asked a traffic warden for help about whether they needed to use the 3 digit security code on the back of the credit card when texting payment. The traffic warden said not which was the incorrect answer. Thus the deaf person didn't pay and then got a PCN.  Their appeal was heard clearly by PATAS and the PCN was cancelled.

Well done to all 144 of you. Will that number stand as the record for 2014? Keep looking here to find out and keep those appeals going.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

PATAS w/c 6 Jan 14 - start as you mean to go on

Sorry, no picture today as Blogger won't let you update them since 1 January 2014. They are trying to fix the problem.

There were 88 hearings of which 1 was the subject of a recommendation to cancel, 29 PCN were upheld and 58 were cancelled. So 66.66% were allowed, or 2 out of 3. Given that appealing to PATAS is free to the motorist and that it costs the council £40 every time, you really should complete the PATAS form and post it off as it will gain you another 28 days at the very least in which to pay, put the council to a whole load of work which they might not bother to do and then you win and you could, if you want to do the minimum, simply not bother filling in the optional box 5, details of appeal, and let your existing representations to the council stand to be looked at again by an independent adjudicator as a postal appeal so you don't even need to go to Angel, Islington. To complete the PATAS form that way will take 2 minutes, I know because I have just done one. All it will cost you is 50p for a second class stamp.

Have you got a Notice of Rejection of Representations and a PATAS form which you have received in the last 28 days. It's the New Year, fill out that form! Go on, stop reading this, fill out that form and come back here afterwards.

.

.

.

.

.

You've done it? Good. Now to the PCN which were cancelled last week and why.

The first one is a corker. The motorist saw the traffic warden run across the road to take a photo so they drove away. They received a PCN in the post. They were held not to have prevented the issue of a PCN. The position is quite simple. A traffic warden employed by NSL has no power to detain you, you can simply go about your normal business without waiting around to be penalised.

The Saracens Event Dday signage continued to cause a headache for the council. They probably don't care as they issue 400 PCN on most event days and as half of the recipients simply pay up that is at least £6,000 into the coffers every time. They lost 4 ED zone appeals in this week which is an appeal to PATAS rate of only 3%.

There is a missing sign in Castle Rd. That sounds like a good place to park or to appeal from.

The council only put part of the representations into the evidence pack. That isn't good enough so the PCN was cancelled. the motto of the story is to write long letters to the council so that they fall over their technical shoelaces.

Someone who tried 5 times to pay by phone and the system failed was held to have tried hard enough. There is more to life than trying to combat Barnet's unfriendly payment system.

A bay in Algernon Rd changes halfway along and catches people out. There should be a clear division if a bay changes. If there isn't your PCN should be cancelled if you appeal to PATAS. I note that the free from 10 till 4 loading bays have been repainted to be wider and separate them from the normal pay parking bays as people were getting caught out in droves. Nice to see the council doing something sensible for once.

The council are still pushing their luck on historic PCN with ones from 25 May 11, 6 June 11, 13 July 11, 21 July 11 & 12 September 11 being rapidly cancelled by the adjudicator.

The traffic warden put the PCN in his pocket but didn't tell the office that. It has now been cancelled.

The evidence for a car supposedly parked more than 50cm from the kerb (the whole car has to be this distance away or more) was vague and so the PCN was cancelled.

A suspension was not adequately signed. I suspect they often aren't nor in good time.

Someone accused of not having their blue badge on display produced photographs of it chained to the steering wheel. Anyone that careful with it is likely to have had it on display. Perhaps the traffic warden only photographed other sections of the windscreen?

Someone who paid £1 to park had their PCN cancelled as the council failed to show where the £1 was allocated.

I have often wondered how the abbreviations used by traffic wardens are meant to be understood by the public. The council lost a case because they didn't produce a key with their evidence pack.

The council often claim that if they haven't answered informal representations (ones sent in response to receiving a PCN on your car and before the Notice to Owner is issued after which they become formal representations)  that they didn't need to. The adjudicator in case 2130605773 said otherwise and referred to the famous Hackney Drivers Association Ltd case as establishing this in Court.

There was a time lag on the PayByPhone payment being registered. As it was clearly paid on time the PCN was cancelled.

Is this start to the year typical of what is going to happen in 2014? That is up to you. Remember once you have the Notice to Owner (which means that the offer to pay 50% no longer exists) you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by ploughing on to the end of the process.

Yours frugally

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 30 Dec 13 - 63.636363% won

The number of appeals won at 35 out of 55 gives us a percentage success rate of 63.636363...% a recurring number. there were some appeals that looked like recurrences of earlier ones.

 

There were two PCN from 4 June 11 and 15 April 11 which fell foul of the Human Rights Act as has every other 2001 PCN in 2013 once the point is raised with the adjudicator.

 

There was a failure to consider informal representations. That was held to be a procedural impropriety.

 

The council produced the wrong PCN in evidence. Whoops, the real one was then cancelled.

 

The council took yet another kicking on the Saracens Event Day zone where they have repeatedly written to motorists telling them they should check the internet before they set off. This is what the Adjudicator said

"The Council says in its case summary that it is the motorist's responsibility to familiarise themselves through the internet with the days on which events are taking place. In my view, that is an absurd proposition. It is the responsibility of the Council to properly sign event day restrictions."

 

Someone proved they had paid, why couldn't the council find their money rather than make them go to PATAS to get their PCN cancelled?

 

Someone else was in the process of paying. If traffic wardens are going to issue parking tickets starting from the second that you get out of your car to look at the sign and get your phone out it is simply unfair but that is what they do sometimes.

 

Someone else didn't have the necessary vouchers because of a printer problem. Mr Mustard knew about this problem, resident permits weren't issued for at least a week. Why on earth the council hasn't got printer maintenance on contract (it probably has, perhaps a spare part had to come a long way) to avoid this sort of problem is one question. The second is why the council don't make allowances for the problems they themselves cause?

 

Paying by cash near to where you park has been trouble ever since the bonkers decision was taken to remove cash parking meters. Here is a case that may help you if you have got caught without your phone and didn't know where the nearest paypoint or voucher shop was. These are the adjudicator's comments:

 

The Enforcement Authority has referred to alternative means for payment being possible at either a Council pay-point outlet or by purchasing a parking voucher from a retailer in accordance with details stated "on the sign post where the pay by phone sign is situated."

According to the Appellant, the relevant sign referred to in the Enforcement Authority's evidence was located on the other side of the road to where she had parked. This informative sign was not visible in any of the other photographs provided by the Enforcement Authority of the sign at the location at which the Appellant had parked, and I have therefore concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, it was not there.

I consider that, whilst not part of the signage required under the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, the additional informative sign is an essential requirement to convey to the motorist the various methods of payment available. I find that the Enforcement Authority had failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to take such steps as are necessary to secure that adequate information as to the effect of the relevant parking regulations was made available.

The alleged contravention cannot be enforced and I allow the appeal.

 

Finally someone was held not to have been next to a dropped kerb. The council tend to issue a PCN first and argue later if your overhang is marginal or even non-existent.

 

Come on then. It is 2014. Your New Year Resolutions are to not get parking tickets and, if you do, to appeal every parking ticket you get all the way to PATAS. Easier than losing weight or getting fit.

 

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 16 December - the council win 55%

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjblackwell/3545764529/

It had to happen and finally, just before Xmas, Barnet Council managed to win 55% of the 92 cases that were adjudicated that week (there were also 2 cases subject to recommendation to cancel but I leave those aside as they aren't finished).

 

So for a change I will tell you why motorists lost their appeals and what they might have been able to do about it, if anything.

 

- Being in a bus lane. Stay out of it during the hours of operation (simple but obvious, sorry).

 

- The vehicle was on hire. The hirer didn't provide proof and should have done. The adjudicators are more readily convinced by paper evidence than by mere words.

 

- Claimed the PCN plastic wallet was empty. That may well have been the case but you still need a better argument than that as the Notice to Owner also sets out the alleged contravention details and although the PCN may have been removed by the traffic warden after issue and taken away your chance of paying at the 50% rate, you just have to take that on the chin and start looking for why the contravention did not occur. Traffic wardens doing such a thing could become a thing of the past if everyone who doesn't get their PCN takes it to PATAS which causes extra work and cost for the council. The motorist is already in for the full penalty so has nothing to lose by pursuing an appeal to PATAS.

 

- Claimed to have paid but didn't provide any proof. You need to produce copies of your texts and credit or debit card transactions to show that payment was duly made.

 

- Didn't realise was inside a CPZ. If all the single yellow lines don't have timeplates then you are probably inside a CPZ and you need to track back to the point where you passed a large CPZ entry sign to see what times apply to the single yellow lines (unless they have their own time plate which takes priority) or park in a car park or other pay to park bay.

 

- In a motorcycle bay. Don't park in it unless you are riding a powered two wheeler. It is free to park one in Barnet.

 

- On footpath. Just don't ever put a wheel on the pavement, ever.

 

- Had a blue badge on display but there was a sign saying No Loading. As well as the sign there should also be flashes of yellow paint across the kerb. The missing flashes, or the missing sign, could be your escape route from such a PCN.

 

- Across a dropped kerb. Don't park across a dropped kerb except with the permission of the householder and only then outside CPZ hours (OK if outside a CPZ with permission at any time) and only when the dropped kerb serves one home. If you are visiting a block of 4 flats where only one person drives you cannot park across the dropped kerb even with the permission of that one driver. The council should only issue PCN for dropped kerbs serving one home at the request of the home occupier. If you are genuinely parked get the home occupier to write to the council and ask them why they are giving out PCN when not requested and put a copy of this letter in your evidence to PATAS.

 

- Witness statement TE9 submitted but not supported by evidence of prior appeal. If you file a witness statement to take the PCN back to an earlier stage and say that you submitted representations i9n response to the Notice to Owner then be ready and prepared to produce them. If you didn't keep a copy (which you always should) then do your best to produce what your memory says you sent and when you sent it. The council don't have a copy after all. There is no point in filing the TE( and then not providing backup to your case; you will simply be told to pay the PCN although the 50% uplift and the extra £7 will probably go away (but not if you have abused the procedure).

 

- PaidByPhone for the wrong vehicle. Go online and tidy up your vehicles if you get a new one, delete the old one to stop it happening. If you have more than one then double check every time you pay or try to use debit/credit card meters if there are any because that way the error cannot occur.

 

- Vehicle parked more than 50cm from the kerb. This contravention is hard to argue against. Check the council's photos online and make sure the entire car is that far away, a single part of the car that is less will stop the PCN. So don't park in the middle of the road on some white cross hatchings and do park reasonably close to the kerb at all times.

 

- Permit falls off the windscreen. It is the failure to display that is the offence not the failure to buy a permit. Always attach your resident permit to the windscreen using the backing it comes with (it will last at least a year) or if you print out your own permit at home don't leave it flapping about on the dashboard but cut it out and put it into a plastic wallet or sellotape it to the windscreen. You can buy permit holders and parking ticket clips very cheaply on ebay.

 

- No proof of when the vehicle was purchased. You simply have to prove that you purchased the vehicle after the PCN was issued (or sold before the PCN was issued) by some method, by documents if possible.

 

- Not unloading. If you are a business it should be a simple matter to produce a professional looking invoice and/or delivery note to evidence that you were collecting or delivering goods. As an individual it might be harder. People delivering to charity shops often get caught but the manager will probably give you a letter as they want you to donate again in the future. If you were delivering something for a friend get them to write out a letter saying what you were doing for them.

 

- In a disabled bay without a blue badge. you simply shouldn't do this. If you had a blue badge but forgot to put it out the council might let you off but the adjudicator can't as you did commit the contravention. You will need something to be procedurally wrong with the council's paperwork.

 

- Double yellow line was substantially compliant. Don't take risks with lines that are a little worn and think that you'll get away with it as if the message is clear, albeit a bit battered, the adjudicator might find that you chose to ignore the obvious message.

 

There are still a few odd days of adjudications to go this year. If you are going to complete the PATAS form you really do need to do a thorough job of producing your evidence to give yourself the best chance. Try and rustle up more than one argument as you only need one to work so having three will greatly improve your chances.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance

PATAS - w/c 9 Dec 13 - 104 cases

What a busy week. 55 PCN were cancelled, 48 were upheld and one is in limbo whilst the council to decide if they will follow the recommendation to cancel. A 53% win rate, which is lower than usual.

 

Some of the PCN were cancelled for the following reasons: 

• the council were unable to show sufficient records about what was paid for by phone
• there was no proof it was an event day (3 times)
• council evidence was uncertain in 2 separate cases
• a PCN from 19/4/11 was too old to pursue
• an offence that lasted more than 24 hours was treated as one continuous offence
• a suspension sign written in ink was washed away
• unloading
• the vehicle in the bus lane was an 8 seater (don't rely on this one)
• there hadn't been an offer of violence before a driveaway that led to a postal PCN
• a car with a for sale sign within it is not committing an offence
• the evidence pack was sent to the wrong address
• the case summary was not of assistance
• a 9 seater in the bus lane (3 times - still don't rely on this)
• unclear photographs and no other real evidence
• sign obscured by bins
• foot way not obviously dropped for one of the usual 3 reasons

So this week turned out to be about the same for motorists as if everyone had paid the 50% within the first 14 days although the council had to spend £4,000 in fees to PATAS who manage the adjudication process so they were definitely worse off. If you had missed the 14 days in which to pay the 50% then you as a motorist might as well always take your case to PATAS as it is just a question of a simple form to complete which might lead to you paying £nil if you win and the full amount of the ticket if you lose which you were by then liable for in any event.

 

If in doubt, appeal.

 

Yours appealingly

 

Miss Feezance