The statistics were skewed this week by there being 12 of the above form which were referred to PATAS for a decision. If you said you made formal representations to the Notice to Owner when you didn't do so then you will be in difficulty when you are asked to produce them. If however you did nothing in response to the Notice to Owner (because you didn't get it or can't remember that far back and have had several PCN which all look the same) it is a simple matter to tick the "I did not receive" box and there is no evidence that can be produced to the contrary as they come by normal mail. All 12 cases were lost as the correct procedure had not been followed.
Anyway, it was another quiet week. 3 cases were referred back to the council with a recommendation that they cancel, 28 PCN were cancelled and 35 were upheld (including the 12 TE9 cases).
There was a bus lane sign missing in Cricklewood Broadway so that might be useful information for you.
The Western Parade dropped kerb (near the Barnet Odeon), a favourite spot for a traffic warden to ticket another victim, was held not to be dropped to the level of the carriageway so the PCN was cancelled.
Look at what the adjudicator said about the Saracens Event Day Zone:
The Council says in its case summary that it is the motorist's responsibility to familiarise themselves through the internet with the days on which events are taking place. In my view, that is an absurd proposition. It is the responsibility of the Council to properly sign event day restrictions.
Here is another example of the humanity displayed by the NSL Traffic Warden and by their Notice Processing Officer;
The appellant claims that she was 15 weeks pregnant and was suffering from sickness. She claims she pulled over to vomit. She takes issue with service of the pcn by post.
I accept the appellant's account that she pulled over to vomit. I find that she stopped to prevent an accident occurring. The exemption applies. It is unfortunate that the Enforcement Authority did not provide fuller notes and additional photographs. I allow the appeal.
The traffic warden's notes take a hit in the next adjudicator's decision;
The only document I received which appeared to emanate from the CEO was a description of the appellant - where among other things he is described as "Jewish". I do not know if there was any objective basis for such a description (e.g. the appellant's clothing). Given the duties imposed on public bodies by the Equality Act, I would respectfully suggest that the Authority consider whether there was any objective justification for including what may have been an expression of opinion by the CEO in his/her description of the appellant and whether it was appropriate.
Finally the adjudicator loses his rag over the endless stream of Saracens appeals which the council loses nearly every time:
The Authority issued a PCN for a contravention that cannot be proven. It then sought to enforce the PCN to the appeal stage in a manner for which it has been criticised over and over again, I cannot see how it can be said that their action to continue with enforcement proceedings to be anything but wholly unreasonable, vexatious and frivolous.
I am allowing the cost application, to the amount claimed (£63)
It is very rare for costs to be awarded against a council, usually only about 10 times a year for any one of them, and to be criticised on all three possible grounds. Barnet might break a record this year in the costs they have to give out.
I think that Barnet Council must be allowing more challenges and so it is worth your while to keep making them, especially in response to the Notice to Owner.