Examples of pedantic or unhelpful behaviour by councils

The following cases illustrate how pedantic or unhelpful the council can be until robustly challenged. Example A. A lady lost her mother who died at the hospice. Her brother was also dying in the same hospice. She went to collect her mother's death certificate and accidentally parked in an all day bay instead of a 1 hour bay. The hospice is at the edge of a CPZ zone. The parking ticket made her cry and her appeal was turned down by the council. I heard about it and visited the site, saw that the road markings were faded, the CPZ zone sign was behind a tree near a junction so easily missed and the time plate was above a high hedge and also easily missed. I challenged the council and they refunded the monies paid which the distressed lady had sent to put an end to the matter. The rejection of the appeal was in breach of the council's internal guidelines about how to deal with the matter. They should have simply asked for a copy of the death certificate if in doubt. Motorists should not have to put up with this sort of thing. B. Many council's enforce on bank holidays. Numerous people strayed into a bus lane on Boxing Day which was a Wednesday. Hardly anyone was on the road and no harm was occasioned to anyone, certainly no bus was held up as there was a much reduced service. They all got sent a ticket in the post for 130. Bank holiday enforcement should be limited to really serious contraventions. C. A decision from PATAS.

Mr A's evidence is that he was parked to make a delivery to the Barnados shop to which he is a regular donor and a letter from Barnados is submitted in evidence confirming a donation on 7 April 2012. I have noted that there was no observation period by the CEO (see footnote). Mr A says that he would have been in the shop for no more than a minute. I am satisfied from his evidence that he was properly parked for unloading purposes and I therefore find that the alleged contravention did not occur. I am also not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued. There is no photographic evidence and the Council's evidence is contradictory. The case summary says that the PCN was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle while the CEO's notes state that it was handed to the driver. I accept Mr A's evidence that he was not handed a PCN and that there was no PCN attached to the car when he came out of the shop. D. A motorist who was on their mobile phone actually trying to pay for their parking was given a parking ticket. This parking ticket was cancelled by PATAS (case 2120607739) but why did it get that far? E. A motorist had to take his wife to the doctor's surgery as an emergency as she was 30 weeks pregnant and had stomach pains. This was not sufficient mitigation for Barnet Council and it took PATAS to cancel the ticket (2120590771) F. PATAS report: The Appellant's case is that no PCN was issued. The CEO's note reads "affixed to vehicle but not secure". A PCN that is not secure is in my view selfevidently not "fixed" as required by Regulation 8 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007. How the Council felt able to proceed on the basis this evidence is something of a mystery. The PCN was not correctly issued and the Appeal must be allowed. (2120551135)

G. PATAS report: Mr X accepted that the Penalty Charge Notice in this case was issued because his vehicle was parked in a bay bearing a sign indicating that the bay was reserved to permit holders only from Monday to Friday between 11 am and Midday. However, he appealed on the grounds that the sign was not in place when he parked. Indeed, he was adamant that the sign had been erected that very morning. In correspondence with the local authority, the appellant asked the authority when the sign was erected. There has been a deafening silence from the authority on this point. The authority concedes that there was no sign to indicate the restriction in previous months, but maintains that there was a sign at the time of the contravention. That however, is not the point. Of course the appellant accepts that the sign was in place when the PCN was issued; he argues that it was not in place when he parked. Indeed, he goes further, and suggests that the sign was only erected that morning. As the authority has failed to inform me when the sign was erected (a matter which it cannot be difficult to ascertain) I must accept the appellant's account that it was only erected that morning. On the evidence that is before me, I accept that the appellant parked in an unmarked bay and accordingly I will allow the appeal. The appellant indicated that he will be asking for costs. This must be done in writing and I have asked him to prepare a schedule of costs. The authority will then be given an opportunity to respond. If it is the case that the sign was indeed erected that morning, an application for costs will be hard to resist. (2120557324) H PATAS report: It appears that this is an entrance to one property only. It follows that a PCN should only have been issued following a request from the occupier of the premises. Considering that occupier was hosting funeral prayers at which the appellant was attending, I find it highly unlikely that such a request would have been forthcoming. I find that there was no authority to issue this PCN and the appeal is thus allowed. I think those 8 cases are sufficient to demonstrate that there is a lack of good judgment at council level.