Sunday, 26 April 2015

PATAS - w/c 6 April 15 - Admin error

Barnet London % Status
New Appeals 30 763 4 Normal

Won Out of %
Cases heard 16 24 67 High

So there you have the stats for the week. Quite a quiet week for new appeals (post Easter) but a good one for motorists who beat the council 2 times out of 3.

The main case of interest was the following one. The council penalise you if you make a simple error but try to explain their own errors away as perfectly acceptable. Adjudicators won't stand for such unfairness.

The Appellant's initial representation centred upon the vague description of the said vehicle's parked position in the Penalty Charge Notice. In response the Enforcement Authority stated its allegation, in its letter of 5th November 2014, to be that the said vehicle was positioned "outside of number 10 Penshurst Gardens."

This information was crucial to the Appellant's further conduct of the matter; it influenced his decision to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice, since he maintained the contrary, that the said vehicle was not so positioned.

For the Enforcement Authority to subsequently suggest that such statement was erroneous and an "administrative error" is not acceptable; these are legal proceedings and the accuracy of information is paramount.

Further, the main issue raised by the Appellant, of which the address was a salient point, was the lack of specific identification of the said vehicle's alleged location on the Penalty Charge Notice in view of the fact that the road in question was lengthy.
That point raised by the Appellant deserved proper consideration, I therefore carefully examined the wording of both the Notice of Rejection itself, and the Case Summary to assist in my determination as to whether or not the Enforcement Authority had accorded requisite consideration as it is obliged so to do.

In addition to the so-called administrative error, I observe there to be a overt failure to adequately identify/rebut or retort to the Appellant's main issue.

I concluded that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a 'procedural impropriety' on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

In this context, 'procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management act 2004 or Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if I conclude that a Ground specified in Regulation 4(4) applies I shall Allow the Appeal.

This Appeal is allowed.

Keep those Appeals rolling in, especially for vagueness of location when the road is a long one.

Yours appealingly

Miss Feezance

No comments:

Post a Comment