Monday, 22 July 2013

PATAS - w/c 8 July

Leap Year causes PCN
Another week rolls by and 70 cases are heard. Of those 55% or 39 are found in favour of the motorist who gets their parking ticket (PCN) cancelled. So that is 39 errors made by NSL and/or Barnet Council.
The cases were not at all revolutionary this week and so the blog post will be briefer than usual.
In one case the Verrus PayByPhone system refused to take payment. PCN cancelled.
The Council didn't prove how they knew who the keeper was was an unusual reason for a PCN to be cancelled. This is what the independent adjudicator said:

I note that the enquiries of DVLA made by the Enforcement Authority resulted in an address only; I therefore Adjourned this Case to afford the Enforcement Authority an opportunity to address me as to how it established the Appellant Company as the registered keeper of the said vehicle at the relevant time.

The Enforcement Authority was reminded of the consequence of a lack of, or lack of adequate response.

In the absence of reply from the Enforcement Authority I am unable to determine that liability lies with the Appellant Company , accordingly I allow this Appeal
My guess is that the council googled the address and then pout 2 & 2 together, wrongly.
A vehicle which wouldn't start was given a parking ticket. It has now been cancelled after wasting everybody's time.
The council rejected a double yellow line argument but the car had been on a single yellow so that PCN was cancelled.
The adjudicator said: I observed there to be an overt failure to adequately identify/rebut or retort to the Appellant's issues, which equates to the council have blundered and I now cancel the PCN.
An evidence pack submitted by the council was defective which leads to only one result; cancellation of the PCN.
Lines were missing so that means free parking.
Yellow lines were too faded to count as substantially compliant.
The photographs didn't show the offending dropped kerb so that parking ticket could not stand.
The one losing case worth a mention is where someone scratched out 29 February and it wasn't a leap year. As it would be about 28 years before that voucher could be used again the council could have exercised its discretion but they don't as money is at stake.
Do keep those appeals coming. Remember that you can be knocked back twice by the council and still win at PATAS. If the council have been frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable then you can claim costs.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance

No comments:

Post a Comment