Wednesday, 19 June 2013

PATAS w/c 3 June

In the week which commenced on 3rd June there were 66 hearings at PATAS and 48 of them (73%) saw the parking ticket (PCN) cancelled.

Notable cancellations included:

- Barnet Council told a motorist that parking next to a sloping kerb was not allowed. Clang. It does not form part of a dropped kerb.

- there was no evidence of when bay suspended signs were erected.

- A yellow line across a dropped kerb was held to be misleading and should be removed.

- A cordoned off shop frontage was held to be private

- The appellant attended the hearing. I accepted his evidence that his vehicle had been involved in an accident and effectively was not capable of being driven.  I also accept that he was injured in the accident. I also accept that the vehicle was pushed to the place in question by the driver of the other vehicle in the accident and by people who had observed the accident.  I am persuaded that this was an emergency in accordance with Section 15(3)(b) of the 1974 Act.  In addition I am persuaded that there probably is a procedural impropriety in the case.  The local authority issued a notice to owner on 2nd October 2012.  The appellant made representations in a letter of 14th October 2012, which the local authority has included in their evidence. He produced proof of posting dated 17th October 2012. I have caused a copy to be scanned onto the system as evidence. The local authority notice of rejection is dated 15th February 2013. This is beyond the 56 days deadline for service of reply to representations. I will therefore allow the appeal on both limbs.

- I have carefully considered the Enforcement Authority's evidence, including their Civil Enforcement Officer's contemporaneous notes and photographs and extract from local Traffic Management Order. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued by post pursuant to Regulation 10 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.

The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes are totally lacking in any detail as to the location at which the alleged contravention occurred and the road markings and signage in place. The supporting photographs appear to show the Appellant's vehicle in motion and, on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant had been parked on a single yellow line as alleged or that a contravention had occurred.

The appeal is allowed.

- Poor quality photographs.

- PCN not handed to driver. was unloading.

- Brief notes and poor photographs.

- Loading bay - woefully lacking in detail.

- Kerb dropped for bin store.

Keep those appeals coming. The more there are the harder it is for the council to keep up as is evidenced by this tweet which reports on the contract monitoring committee meeting of yesterday evening.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

A short week at PATAS - honours even

more or less evenly balanced
Monday the 27th May was a bank holiday and so there were no hearings that day. The number of hearings was down on the weekly average but still 45 for a week out of 168,000 parking tickets a year is still 1.4% which is a good rate and above the 1% norm. Together we can make it higher. I have aspirations to make it 5%

Reasons that 20 parking tickets were cancelled, include:

Collecting from Royal Mail
Not parked across the sloping kerb part of the dropped kerb or the lowered part.
Not in the bus stop as claimed.
Formal representations not properly considered (three cases).
No cctv of bus lane contravention (unusual as there should be)
Copy of PCN not the same as the original.
PCN not served and unloading in any event.
Time plate sign only 2 feet from the ground and easily obscured.
Towel thrown in by the council.
Not handed to driver as claimed.
Tax disk number incorrect.

Reasons why some 23 tickets were upheld:

Blue badge clock not displayed (a common error).
In the bus lane during hours of operation.
In goods vehicle bay when not a goods vehicle.
Parked in the middle of the road (only do this in a marked bay).
On the pavement (it isn't for cars unless so marked)
Didn't pay to park (two cases, really!)
In a disabled space without a blue badge.
Popped to the shops.
Failed to follow the appeal procedure (two cases).
On a single yellow line and didn't realise was in a CPZ (this happens a lot).
Parked in the bus stop.
Across a dropped kerb.
Nose bleed not a medical emergency.
Blue badge clock wrongly set.
Used the wrong kind of voucher.
Referred to the wrong sign.

In the following week the numbers go back up as does the success rate.

Keep those appeals coming. Once the discount period has gone there is nothing to lose by appealing.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

Thursday, 6 June 2013

PATAS week of 20 May - 59% of PCNs cancelled

Another good week for the motorists who persevered through all 3 appeal stages. The best chance of winning comes at the end because the independent adjudicator at PATAS is not after your money. 37 parking tickets were cancelled and 26 were upheld.

I will tell you this week the entire 37 reasons that parking tickets were cancelled.

1. Barnet council threw in the towel rather than fight. So why did they fight the first 2 stages?
2. Pay-by-phone error ascribed to verrus.
3. Evidence too vague and uncertain. (Photos were black).
4. Unloading heavy shopping.
5. Verrus system was going haywire.
6. No cctv proof of bus lane offence.
7. Towel thrown in.
8. CEO took PCN back and said it was cancelled. Liar!
9. Towel thrown in.
10. Inadequate proof of signage.
11. Assertions in case summary unsupported by substantive evidence.
12. PCN not handed to driver as alleged.
13. Poor photos, case not otherwise proven.
14. Towel thrown in (Barnet Council have a lot of towels!)
15. Correspondence file of the evidence produced by the council is in a mess with papers relating to other penalties...
16. Confusion between bays and single yellow line.
17. Pay-by-phone system not accepting money.
18. No proof of restrictions in place.
19. Towel thrown in.
20. ditto
21. Helping old lady who fell over.
22. Poor photos of lowered footway.
23. Motorist had phoned the speaking clock to check the time before parking.
24. Scaffold obscured the sign. Motorist used Pepipoo website for advice.
25. Vehicle was accepted as being "goods carrying". Motorist was pregnant and fetching a case of water so needed to be near the location.
26. PCN not handed to driver as alleged.
27. Case summary full of errors.
28. Towel thrown in.
29. Sign was for a different bay. (cheating or accident?)
30. Dropped kerb has no purpose.
31. Towel thrown in.
32. Black photos. Purported "evidence" from google streetview not acceptable.
33. Towel thrown in.
34. PCN both affixed to windscreen and handed to driver!
35. Traffic Management Order supplied did not mention the zone concerned.
36. PCN was blank!
37. Unloading exemption.

Hopefully the above will give you some ideas about grounds of appeal.

Keep those appeals coming. Don't be at all put off by the council rejecting your arguments; they simply want your money.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance.