Thursday, 30 May 2013

PATAS - why people lost

Although 62% of appeals were won this week (43 out of 69) I thought it would make a change to look at reasons why people lost their appeal to the independent adjudicator followed by proposed preventative actions for the future in some cases.
Having made 4 attempts to pay-by-phone the driver simply gave up whereas he should have found a paypoint shop or a shop selling vouchers however inconvenient this might be. It sometimes takes longer to pay than what you wanted to do in the first place.
A taxi driver claimed to be loading but didn't provide any evidence. If he had done so he might have won his appeal.
An error in the registration number for pay-by-phone was the motorist's fault. I would think this should only exceptionally be the case.
A breakdown was claimed. No proof was provided. If it had been the appeal might have been won.
The wrong vehicle was chosen on the pay-by-phone system. A silly mistake should not cost someone £60 but it does.
There was not any proof of the alleged sale of the vehicle (do you see a pattern here about proving your case?).
A permit was not visible.
The adjudicator accepted a printout from google streetmap that a yellow line was in place. This is quite simply the wrong decision as it is not evidence from the day of the alleged contravention.
Parked on a bus stop. Stay out of them unless you have a bus.
The blue badge had become dislodged. Make sure you stick it in the corner of the windscreen where it cannot fall.
Parked across a dropped kerb. Don't do it.
Parked on a single yellow line instead of the residents bay they thought they were in. Check around your vehicle before you leave it.
Someone presented no real argument. Do some research!
Showing a blue badge but there were "no loading" kerb flashes. Don't park there.
Not realising that there were restrictions on a Sunday. Be alert to CPZ zone entry signs or ask a local.
Unloading whilst parked on the pavement. Only an option for builders when unloading is continuous and there is no other choice.
The cones for the 11 November parade were not out when the car was parked late the previous night. This is rough justice in my view. How would anyone know where the nearest British Legion is and the route a march would take if no signs are out.
Bus lane. Stay out of it during the hours of operation as there are the hardest tickets to fight.
In a residents bay at the wrong time. The times are usually on a nearby time plate so read it.
No proof of loading on1 January. These may not have been the truth? Who was delivering on New Year's Day. Stay off single yellows on Bank Holidays (except for Christmas Day) unless it is a day of the week on which they are not enforced.
Only 3 minutes was allowed to buy a voucher. This is a ridiculous decision. To argue better you would need to measure the time taken to get to the shop and to queue and return and then show that was reasonable.
The one appeal which was won which I want to mention is PATAS case 2130157049 where it was held that you don't have to wait the up to 5 minutes it takes for the confirmation text that you have paid. you are allowed to go about your business.
Keep those appeals coming.
Yours appealingly
Miss Feezance

Tuesday, 21 May 2013

PATAS - week starting 6 May - another drubbing

You will win more often at PATAS
In the week starting 6 May (although that day was a bank holiday) there were 62 appeals of which 44 (71%) were in favour of motorists who saw their parking tickets cancelled.
Cases of interest, all leading to cancelled parking tickets:
1. A vehicle registration error was ascribed to Verrus, the pay-by-phone provider; you know your registration after all!
2. No proof that a vehicle was observed for 15 minutes whilst using the loading bay in High Rd, N12 (during a time when it is a 15minute free bay not a loading bay).
3. A council photograph was enhanced by a technically competent friend of the motorist to show that the blue badge was on display. Truly a good friend.
4. A builder unloading his tools into a bank was allowed to take longer than in the normal situation because of security measures meaning extra time would be needed. Adjudicators are logical and sensible.
5. The council didn't properly consider the appeal.
6. Parking suspension signs were not well sited.
7. The council/NSL served the evidence pack at the wrong address.
8. Vehicle had a flat battery so was broken-down (running out of fuel is not a breakdown but operator error by the way).
9. The parking ticket had invalid wording (they all do from April 2008 prior to about 11 December 12).
10. The council/NSL didn't include "copies of the original representations" in the evidence pack.
11. A dropped kerb only served a flight of steps. It was not for access to a cycle track, to assist pedestrians to cross the road or leading to a driveway.
12. Another dropped kerb was really part of the carriageway itself.
13. A dropped kerb at the home of the motorist themselves. The adjudicator said "Barnet Council ought not to have pursued this alleged contravention". Costs of £32.99 were awarded against them. The law is that an unmarked dropped kerb serving only one private residence should not be enforced by the issue of parking tickets unless the householder asks for enforcement. If this happens to you, ask for proof that someone complained as it won't exist!

Keep those appeals coming.

Yours appealingly

Miss feezance

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

PATAS - week of 29 April - 55% cancelled

The number of cases being heard at PATAS is still very heartening but there is always scope for upward movement. It surely can't be the case that out of the 3,000 parking tickets issued each week by Barnet Council only some 50 to 100 are bad enough to reach the independent adjudicator.

Parking tickets were cancelled for the following reasons:

- the motorist thought they had paid and the council failed to deal with the appeal properly,
- a motorist claimed not to have been parked but driving along Salisbury Rd,
- a former client of mine appeared in person and proved that the parking ticket was not handed to them,
- no proof that the car was actually next to the dropped kerb
- the yellow lines in West Heath Drive were too faded,
- dishonesty was alleged in a case where service of the parking ticket was said to have been handed to the driver
- the car was actually in the shop's own service road and not on the highway

In the following week Barnet Council do better than the motorist for the first time in the last year. Is it a flash in the pan, I will explain the reasons why people lost their appeals.

Keep on appealing

Miss Feezance

Monday, 13 May 2013

PATAS week of 22 April : 70% win rate

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.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Thursday, 9 May 2013

PATAS week of 15 April - 65% to motorist

In the week starting Monday 15 April there were 69 cases at PATAS. I have left 2 aside as they were recommendations to Barnet Council and so are not yet fully decided. Of the remaining 67 cases, 37, some 65% led to parking tickets being cancelled. Cause for a glass of bubbly.
Interesting cases included:
A dropped kerb in Grahame Park Way has no purpose so you cannot get a valid parking ticket for parking across it. I think I have seen this location in the appeals register more than once. Why don't the council stop issuing tickets at a location that the adjudicator says is OK, it wouldn't be the money would it?
A parking ticket given out in College Terrace at 7pm was cancelled at there were not any street lights and it was not possible to read the signs.
My friend DK had her parking ticket for not displaying her blue badge cancelled as the windscreen was frosted over such that nothing could be discerned.
Another blue badge was being collected from the property for use by the disabled person and Barnet council / NSL did not give proper consideration to the representations (the appeal).
When put to proof of their pavement parking ticketing policy Barnet Council did not respond to the adjudicator so the parking ticket was cancelled.
A vehicle registration error on the pay-by-phone system was attributed to Verrus. That seems logical as you know your registration details and they don't so Verrus are more likely to make such an error. It would certainly be my argument.
In a classic error the certified copy PCN sent by Barnet Council acting by their agents NSL was completely blank. That meant the PCN was cancelled.
A case about whether the PCN was properly affixed to the windscreen.
In this case however I see from the photos taken by the officer that it is indeed highly questionable whether the Notice was in fact 'affixed' properly within the normal meaning.  The photo shows the Notice itself resting on the windscreen outside the protective plastic cover, which appears to have been used to stick it partially on the windscreen.  Clearly there is therefore insufficient adhesive to  secure the Notice and on this occasion I concur with the appellant's submission that service was not effective. (and I therefore cancel the parking ticket.)
You can't trust a traffic warden. Someone was collecting or delivering a parcel. They showed it to the traffic warden who walked on. the PCN arrived in the post. Naughty. It has now been cancelled. If you have been cheated, fight and complain.
How about paying by phone at 09:51 and getting a parking ticket at 09:50. It happened. It is now cancelled.
In Ballards Lane a PCN was issued for not being inside the bay but when dealing with the appeal they replied instead about the bay markings not being too worn and more the vehicle being more than 50cm from the edge of the road. That is a procedural impropriety which leads to the cancellation of the parking ticket.
In a similar case the council failed to consider the representations at all. Another parking ticket cancelled.
Please keep those appeals coming. The council & NSL really aren't very good at dealing with them.
Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance