Monday, 9 December 2013

PATAS - w/c 2 Dec 13 - Commonality

In this week there were 86 appeals, two of which were the subject of a recommendation to cancel, 51 PCN were cancelled and 33 upheld. A 61% success rate.
There were some common themes.
There were 4 PCN for the Saracens Event Day Zone. Now there are none that survive. That tells you it is worth the trouble to appeal all the way to PATAS.
There were 3 cases where the PCN was sent by post because the  motorist drove away. All 3 were cancelled as the traffic warden wasn't prevented from giving the PCN to the driver or affixing it to the windscreen. If you get a driveaway postal PCN, that is also well worth appealing. The council look to be issuing PCN by post when they should not do so, they should treat those motorists as the ones who got away and just tell tall tales about them in the pub.
There were 4 PCN which had been issued between July 2010 (it was on papyrus) and August 11. All of them are too old for a legal enforcement as the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act has been compromised by the passage of time.
Then there were some one-offs.
One poor motorist got the bay reference number wrong and paid Westminster £11.10 instead of £7 to Barnet (that illustrates how relatively expensive the leafy outer London suburb of Barnet has become). What this PCN illustrates is that the bay numbers should be in blocks so that at least payment is made to the correct borough (Westminster have no legal right to a payment made under mistake, the motorist can reclaim it) and that technology is not being used for the benefit of the motorist. The telephone knows it is in Barnet by the GPS co-ordinates so PayByPhone could use that data, with the phone holder's permission, to limit the bay numbers to which payment could be made (with a manual override if you are paying from elsewhere, perhaps you left your car in the car park to recover tomorrow as you went to the pub on a whim one evening).
An appeal illustrated the misleading nature of the on-line payment method. Do make sure you press the confirm button when you are on the Payment Confirmation page.
A suspension sign at low level was held to be unfair and the PCN was cancelled.
The next case should not have reached PATAS. The council knew when they dropped the kerb. They were simply hoping that the motorist didn't.
The appellant Mr K attended the personal hearing listed for today. I found him to be a sincere and honest witness.

He stated that he is a local resident and that although he was aware that his neighbours with whom he has a good relationship were going to drop the kerb and the residents bay was eventually going to be removed he had not received any advance warning of when this would take place. At the time he parked his vehicle the bay markings were still present as was the residents bay signage which permitted parking during the restricted hours to residents displaying a residents permit which he states was displayed in is vehicle.

I have looked at the photographic evidence. I can still clearly see the residents bay road markings which I find to make the signage at the location to be confusing.

I am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur and allow this appeal.
A nurse who was unloading heavy equipment for her patient at home saw her PCN cancelled. How on earth is home care to be provided if one public servant is at the mercy of a different one?
Keep those appeals coming. They are worth the time and trouble.
Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

No comments:

Post a Comment