Advice Needed RE Appeal to Parking and Traffic Appeals Service

[yugi65]

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me what to do about my parking appeal?

 

Early last year I went shopping with my son. I purchased a ticket and placed it on the dashboard. I locked the car after that and my son and I went. Then he remembered he left his PSP console on the front passenger seat visibly so he went to get it. When we came back from shopping a PCN was issued for the reason that the ticket was not displayed. It was found on the floor. It must have been blown off to the floor. I appealed on this ground. The council cancelled the PCN. On August last year I went to a library. I purchased a sticky ticket and stuck it on the window trying to avoid what had happened previously. On my return I was issued a PCN because the ticket fell off on to the floor. My appeal was rejected for the reason that previous PCN was issued with the same remarks. The council has sent the Parking and Traffic Appeal Services form. What I am not clear about is that I was the driver at the time but since my husband is the registered keeper, is it him who is going to the informal hearing should we choose personal hearing? Is it him who will be questioned and not me?

 

I feel that a personal hearing is better than post however is it worth fighting for this? Or is it worth paying up £100?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Personal hearing every time without a shadow of a doubt.

 

You are correct about the fact that it will be your husband who will appeal.

 

What is the date of your NTO - how long do you have to get the appeal in. The reason I ask is that there are conflicting cases as between PATAS (London appeals) and NPAS (rest of country) on the "fluttering ticket" issue. They ajudicate on the same law but it is the nature of these things that there are some inconsistencies as each case is decided on its own merits and no case decided by the ajudicators set a precedent.

 

IMHO you should regard your chances of winning on this alone as no greater than 50/50. This does not mean that you should give up as you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by appealing.

 

What this forum may well be able to do is to significantly increase the chance of success. If you can scan all that you have (both sides of the whole lot) , expunge stuff like names, reference nos, personal identifiers etc and upload it to say imageshack with a link here, we can scour it for further grounds for appeal and I would say that the chances of there being some are high.

 

What you do need to do is to be entirely unashamed at using seemingly pedantic technical arguments in your appeal. It is important, believe me - as you get into this you will understand (I don't mean to sound patronising but it's late and at this time you would be better focused on posting the docs - oops there I go again! )

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Just one thing, there is no reason to be concerned at all about the PATAS hearing (by which I mean do not feel intimidated) it is very informal and relaxed. The only issue I have ever had is that the adjudicators go so far out of their way to be impartial that normal human pleasantries like smiling and eye contact go out of the window.

 

Some have issues with the "impartiality" when they are paid for by the councils but I have no experience of it personally and do not subscribe to that view - I can see why others have a problem though!

[yugi65]

Hello Bernie the Bolt

thank you for your immediate reply. I received the letter on the 19th Jan and appeal should be within 28 days.

 

How do I go about with this imageshack?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Hello Bernie the Bolt

thank you for your immediate reply. I received the letter on the 19th Jan and appeal should be within 28 days.

 

How do I go about with this imageshack?

 

The one question I didn't want you to ask!!

I hope someone else will come along and answer in a nice and simple way (and I promise to keep a copy this time!)

 

Anyway - don't worry there's a stack of time to get your case together.

 

Just to correct my first post (cos if I don't someone else will) when I referred to NTO I should have said Notice of Rejection. Doesn't change anything else though.

[Michael Browne]

See this post here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html#post1151870

 

Ignore the first part, as this has now been disabled, but below is a guide to Photobucket

[green_and_mean]

A point to remember is the adjudicator cannot rule on mitigation only on the facts before him, the contravention is 'not displaying a valid ticket' if it was not displayed in most circumstances all he can do is reject the appeal and 'suggest' that the Council do not pursue the PCN.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

A point to remember is the adjudicator cannot rule on mitigation only on the facts before him, the contravention is 'not displaying a valid ticket' if it was not displayed in most circumstances all he can do is reject the appeal and 'suggest' that the Council do not pursue the PCN.

 

But there is this case.

 

It all depends on the circumstances.

 

Here there is the added issue that the LA, in considering the appeal, referred back to an earlier entirely unrelated case and IMV misdirected themselves.

[adampaddam]

need to see front side of NTO and NORejection to check for 28 day rule.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

need to see front side of NTO and NORejection to check for 28 day rule.

 

Both sides of NTO as there are often errors on the grounds for appeal.

[yugi65]

who will be questioned during the hearing? is it the driver or the registered keeper? My husband is pretty reluctant to face a personal hearing but I would definitely go. if i do, will i be given the opportunity to speak up?

[yugi65]

This is the council's reply after my first appeal was cancelled.

[yugi65]

 

 

The ticket clearly says 'fix ticket inside windscreen' which I did and fell off to the floor.

[yugi65]

This is the front of the issued PCN.

 

[yugi65]

This is the back of the issued PCN

 

[yugi65]

This is the notice of rejection page 1

 

[yugi65]

This is page 2 of the notice

 

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I think that you can contact PATAS and ask if you can attend and answer questions as your husbands representative. I do not know if you can do this and your husband not attend.

 

Can you post both sides of the NTO as well please?

[yugi65]

Sorry Bernie does NTO means notice to owner?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Sorry Bernie does NTO means notice to owner?

 

Yes

[yugi65]

[yugi65]

This is the back part of the NTO

 

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

IMHO this NTO has a number of what I would call fatal flaws. These being flaws that create the real possibility of prejudice. It is immaterial whether you were prejudiced.

 

BUT it is late and so I will expand on this in the next day or so.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

OK,

I have three issuse with the Notice to Owner. If it was mine I would argue against it as follows:

 

1) The Notice to Owner has been served on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred. In your case if I understand it correctly it is the keeper.

 

But they then assert keeper liability when they say "As the registered owner/keeper/hirer of the vehicle you are legally liable . . . "

This is not true. Section 66 subsection 2 of the RTA 1991 makes the owner liable for the PCN. It is a rebuttable presumption that the keeper is the owner but there are many keepers whe are not the owner for example company car drivers, a wife who keeps a car that her husband owns, a car provided to a child by a parent for use while at university etc. It is not necessary to show that prejudice occured but merely to show that prejudice could occur (Al's Bar v Wandsworth) and further "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established" (R (on Application of London Borough of Barnet ) v The Parking Adjudicator). The potential prejudice here is that keepers who are not owners may be duped into believing that they are liable when they are not by the assertion of the LA.

 

2) Ground A for appeal does not include the ground stipulated in Schedule 6 Section 2 Para (4) (a) (i) namely "(a) that the recipient (i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question;" The detail given on the NTO solely are in relation to vehicles that the recipient has at some time owned. Again, for the reasons given above it is not necessary to show prejudice.

 

3) Ground F for appeal is confined solely in respect of stolen vehicles. It expressly says "Use this only if your vehicle had been stolen. . . " It is not confined to stolen vehicles. Geffen -v- Westminster City Council is a PATAS "Key Case" relating to this ground and has nothing to do with a stolen vehicle. Again, for the reasons given above it is not necessary to show prejudice.

 

These are three material areas of non compliance with the RTA. Three areas where there is a real risk of prejudice.

 

This NTO should be cancelled. The registered keeper does not deny ownership of the vehicle in question. The law does not permit a new, compliant NTO to be served. The LA has no lawful method of enforcing the PCN and should cancel it.

 

Good luck!

[JOSH_IOU]

Lol if it happens again the outcome wont be the same?

 

Will they simply give in ?