In the week of 22 April there were 71 appeals of which 50 made the motorist happy.
In a vital case for pay-by-phone the adjudicator noted that the Traffic Management Order did not contain any requirement for the motorist to enter a vehicle registration number. This looks like a sure fire appeal winner for future p-b-p cases.
A motorist without a phone and/or a credit card went off in search of a Paypoint shop. He reached the first one which no longer sold parking; then he went on to the second and purchased his parking time. By the time he got back to his vehicle he had a parking ticket. Now it has been cancelled as he did all he could do to avoid a parking ticket.
In another pay-by-phone case the adjudicator said "I understand the system is unpopular". Anyone else whose appeal ends up in front of that adjudicator is half way home.
A motorist was on the pavement in Barnfield Rd. Pavement parking is allowed there in marked sections but as proof of signage was not produced their parking ticket was cancelled.
A resident with a permit for the FNZ zone was parked in the FN zone, which seems fair enough. As no proof of the arrangements was produced their parking ticket was cancelled.
Other cases in which the parking ticket was cancelled included ones with lack of proof of how pay-by-phone worked, of unloading (setting down in reality) children, in a bus lane to avoid a collision, where signage was not good enough, where there was no proof of service of the PCN, where photos were dark and of poor quality, where the car was not on a single yellow as alleged near the Adam & Eve Public House, where loading was ongoing, and loads where the council simply threw in the towel at the last minute.
Keep those appeals coming.