Tuesday, 17 September 2013

PATAS - w/c 9 September 13 - the pregnant pause

This was a typical week with 53 parking tickets cancelled, some 72% of the total of 74 decisions.
A £110 PCN was issued with a value of £60. This is a procedural impropriety and so the PCN was cancelled.
In Barnfield Rd the footway parking markings were unclear and so the PCN was cancelled.
College Terrace was the cause of some confusion as adjacent zones are CE and CE1 (there is also CEZ) and given that the council did not answer why there was a difference the PCN was cancelled.
A workman was spending 3 days fitting a kitchen. The client gave him 3 visitor vouchers and he put them on his vehicle each day. He put one in the side window (probably the kerb side one) and the traffic warden somehow didn't see it. The PCN is now cancelled.
There was no evidence that the traffic warden had actually begun to prepare the PCN before the motorist drove away, only observations had taken place. In that situation the PCN cannot be sent by post.
Inside a CPZ on a Sunday the single yellow line was in operation but pay bays were free (madness). This time the motorist lost although I think they should have won as there is a reasonable expectation that will not be the case, I think there should have been a time plate to show this.
Bay markings are too worn in Avenue Rd so appeal any ticket you get there until they are painted again.
There are two Queens Roads in the borough and the applicable one was not stated on the PCN so it was cancelled for vague locus i.e. the contravention was not clearly made out.
Barnet admitted to a processing error and agreed to cancel a PCN. That doesn't happen very often.
A PayByPhone problem for a motorist with 2 vehicles was ascribed to the council and the PCN was cancelled.
A motorist who had paid for a permit didn't receive it for 3 months. This was for a PCN from 2 May 2012 which was being readied to send to bailiffs when an application was made to return it to the start of the process. The PCN was cancelled. It is bare faced cheek on the part of the council to pursue a parking ticket caused largely by their own incompetence. I think I would be asking for costs.
On a voucher the 4th was partially scratched out and then the 5th fully scratched out. The adjudicator gave the motorist the benefit of the doubt as given that other items are scratched out it wouldn't be possible for years to re-use the voucher.
This decision seems rather pedantic but then I am not a legally qualified adjudicator and also I wasn't at the hearing so can't tell how good the evidence was.
The appellant claims that she is a midwife and was displaying her Health Emergency Badge (HEB).She has provided no details of the visit she was making. She has provided conditions of use for the HEB. These state badge users attending an emergency can park in a resident bay if no alternative parking space is available. The badge should be clearly displayed hanging on the rear view mirror. The number of the house should be shown if the visit is in the same street as the vehicle is parked. If the conditions are complied with a badge user will not usually receive a penalty charge notice (pcn).

I find as fact that the vehicle was parked in a permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit. The HEB was not displayed hanging from the rear view mirror. The appellant acknowledges that it was on the dashboard. The appellant has provided insufficient evidence to satisfy me that there was an emergency and that there was no alternative parking place. I am not satisfied that the HEB was properly completed. I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that there is no exemption. I refuse the appeal.
One can imagine that a midwife rushing to a home birth could easily put the HEB in the wrong place but it was still clearly visible and if he/she had a little car derived van might not even have a rear view mirror in the first place. I also think that there are ethical and possibly data protection problems in providing details of expectant mothers to NSL Ltd.
In Powis Gardens a parking bay is alongside a dropped kerb which is somewhat confusing as the bay gives permission to park and the dropped kerb forbids it. in law, ambiguity is usually construed against the person who caused it, the council in this case and so the PCN was cancelled.
Another relic of the past, a parking ticket from 7 June 2011. There were no photos and the motorist said the car was on his drive. The PCN is now officially in the bin. It should never have been pursued due to its age.
Here is the pregnant pause from the heading.
The appellant claims that he was giving a driving lesson and his pupil who was 8 months pregnant needed to use the toilet. He claims he stopped outside his home and showed her to the bathroom. He claims he was 3 minutes. He has provided photographs.

I find as fact that the vehicle was parked in a resident permit holders' only bay without clearly displaying a valid permit. The appellant's reasons do not provide an exemption. I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and I refuse the appeal.
So next time the driving instructor will drive around for 5 minutes and then pick his customer back up (there is an exemption for boarding) and make the air more polluted.
A PaybyPhone transaction was made a few minutes after the PCN was issued. This was accepted as adequate and the PCN was cancelled.
A traffic warden said it was OK to park somewhere. It wasn't as a PCN was issued. it is now as thanks to what the traffic warden said the PCN has been cancelled.
It took 13 minutes to set up an account on PaybyPhone and then pay. This was held to be reasonable and the PCN was cancelled.
A traffic warden took the parking ticket back to cancel it they said (as if!). It has now been cancelled. If this is offered to you don't give them the PCN back. Simply write in to the council on the day and say this is what the traffic warden said and ask the warden to make a note on their handheld equipment.
Keep those appeals coming. We seem to have stalled at about 70 a week. It is still 2% of issued tickets but surely we can make it to 3%?

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

No comments:

Post a Comment