PATAS - 6 Grounds for Appeal?

[Arthur Dent]

Hi Folks,

 

Apparently PATAS only allow six grounds for appeal - otherwise they throw out your appeal automatically.

 

Have searched the PATAS website but cannot find any info on this.

 

Can anyone provide a relevant link?

 

Cheers,

 

Art

[Jamberson]

This was brought up on the forum recently - can you remind me where it was mentioned?

[Arthur Dent]

Yep, let me do a quick search....

 

Art

[Arthur Dent]

Hi Jamberson

 

Post #14 in the following thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?385730-Taken-to-court-even-though-parking-fee-was-paid

 

Art

[lamma]

Do you refer to TMA cases and LLA cases ? ?

[Michael Browne]

Parking:

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/grounds_parking.htm

Clamping:

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/grounds_clampremove.htm

Bus Lanes:

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/grounds_buslanes.htm

Moving Traffic:

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/grounds_movingtraffic.htm

[Arthur Dent]

Hi Michael,

 

I'd found them - I was rather hoping they explained in more detail.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Take #7 as an example "The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid - the Order creates the contravention." What does 'the Order creates the contravention' mean??

 

In order to succesfully challenge a PCN at tribunal, you have to challenge on the specific grounds?

 

Art

Edited March 21, 2013 by Arthur Dent

[Jamberson]

I think there is some confusion here. The original post has nothing concrete, "just someone told me so".

 

The link re: parking from Michael, above, specifies the grounds for making a formal rep - not for adjudication (PATAS). So far as I know, you do not need to specify grounds for adjudication - it is there to enable you to challenge the council's decision, as opposed to lodging an actual appeal against the PCN.

 

In any case, the formal rep stage tends to be fairly open - you can submit one on any grounds you like, and they will at least consider it before responding, so I don't think that's much of an issue. Also, the "procedural impropriety" grounds cover almost anything you want them to.

"The Traffic Order allegedly contravened is invalid - the Order creates the contravention. If you want to see it ask the Enforcement Authority.".... The part in bold is the grounds, the rest is an explanatory note. It points out that the traffic order (the legal definition of the parking restrictions) is where the real rules apply - not a sign, or what someone says, etc. It just means that the contravention has to be a contravention of the order, and not of something else.

[Arthur Dent]

Thanks Jamberson

 

I'm hopeful of my challenge because the restriction on the bay that I parked in (as defined in the current TRO and not affected by any subsequent amendments) is different to the underlying CPZ (under which I was issued the P CN) and the restriction plate for the bay is missing.

 

Sent my challenge by registered post and they received it 2 days later - at least here is an on-line squiggle on Royal Mail's Track and Trace saying someone signed for it. So far, the council haven't even acknowledged my letter. Is that normal?

 

Art

[Jamberson]

Yep.

[Kiki1]

Thanks Jamberson

 

I'm hopeful of my challenge because the restriction on the bay that I parked in (as defined in the current TRO and not affected by any subsequent amendments) is different to the underlying CPZ (under which I was issued the P CN) and the restriction plate for the bay is missing.

 

Sent my challenge by registered post and they received it 2 days later - at least here is an on-line squiggle on Royal Mail's Track and Trace saying someone signed for it. So far, the council haven't even acknowledged my letter. Is that normal?

 

Art

 

Is this a challenge following an NTO or the documentation beforehand (Notice of Rejection ?)

 

What documents have you sent out and received prior to your challenging ?

[Arthur Dent]

This is a challenge to the original P CN. The 14-day 50% off period ends tomorrow from the original issue date of the P CN.

 

Not got as far as the NtO yet - and hopefully, it won't get that far - but I'm happy to take it all the way to tribunal if necessary : )

 

Letter challenging the P CN included photos showing distinct lack of signage and CEO's attempt of providing proof of the contravention by

photographing the restriction plate for the bus stop on the opposite side of the road, rather than the unsigned loading bay that I'd

parked in!

 

Art

[Kiki1]

Good luck, but I believe any response by the LA will be deemed as imaginary - sorry - informal (and therefore irrelevant) until the NTO is provided.

 

It would be good to know how they reply though, please post up whatever they send to you so that it can be pulled apart.

[Jamberson]

any response by the LA will be deemed as imaginary - sorry - informal

 

What do you mean? The challenge is an informal representation. The response will be a decision on the case. If it is rejected, then payment or NTO are the options ahead.

[Kiki1]

Are you confirming that a reply by the LA before the NTO is a formal response ?

 

I can see elsewhere on the forum that in a lot of cases when PATAS get involved, they do not take anything prior to the NTO as formal.

[Jamberson]

I still don't quite know what you are getting at. Everything the council does is, in a sense, formal. It's all meaningful decision making which determines the progress or not of the case.

 

There's a difference between a formal representation and an informal representation - but what's the difference between a formal response and a non-formal response?

[Kiki1]

There's a difference between a formal representation and an informal representation - but what's the difference between a formal response and a non-formal response?

 

I believe a notice of rejection by the council would be a non-formal response since it happens prior to the NTO, and it is received before an Appeal using PATAS can take place.

 

PATAS code of conduct also mentions that 'Make formal representations to the enforcement authority explaining why they think they should not have to pay the penalty' , this being after the NTO has been served.

 

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/tmaparkingenforcement.htm

[green_and_mean]

I believe a notice of rejection by the council would be a non-formal response since it happens prior to the NTO, and it is received before an Appeal using PATAS can take place.

 

PATAS code of conduct also mentions that 'Make formal representations to the enforcement authority explaining why they think they should not have to pay the penalty' , this being after the NTO has been served.

 

http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/tmaparkingenforcement.htm

 

A notice of rejection comes after a NTO you cannot get one unless you have ha a NTO or CCTV pcn.

[Jamberson]

Notices of Rejection are in no way informal, and the quote you put in bold says nothing about "informal responses". Whatever the council puts in writing is formal. I think you are just confusing an informal rep with a rejection letter.

[Kiki1]

I think you are just confusing an informal rep with a rejection letter.

 

It would be useful to see examples of both then. A letter (Notice) of Rejection should have what within the text exactly to make it a formal response ?

[lamma]

Prior to an NTO being served a response to the challenge of a (Reg 9) PCN does not have to be sent by the LA.

[Kiki1]

Prior to an NTO being served a response to the challenge of a (Reg 9) PCN does not have to be sent by the LA.

 

I was thinking more of the Mr Dent's predicament, as PATAS have a seventh - unwritten - rule, in that they cannot be approached before a set procedure of documentation has been served by the Appellant and the Respondent.

 

Likewise, the LGO are unable to give guidance on the seemingly ubiquitous irregularities reported once PATAS are invited to the loaded table.

[Jamberson]

It would be useful to see examples of both then. A letter (Notice) of Rejection should have what within the text exactly to make it a formal response ?

 

A rejection letter is a letter, sent in response to an informal rep, which is to say, a pre-NTO appeal. A Notice of Rejection is sent in response to a formal rep, which is post-NTO. Both are formal responses, I think. I don't see anything informal about them - they are part of the proper procedure and admissable at an adjudication hearing as written records.

 

I think this is leading nowhere to be honest, so let's not keep debating it. I just think PATAS would not be doing their job properly if they didn't give due weight to a rejection letter.

[Kiki1]

Everything to date according to the o/p is pre-NTO, and the o/p has confirmed he will progress to the tribunal.

 

What I believe Mr Dent's concern is that the existing correspondence may not have any leverage once the NTO is served, which is why I was asking about the how the Council responses might be scripted, titled and their general legitimacy.

 

If for an example the first response from the council (pre-nto) has an air of Notice of Rejection about it, possibly by the title, the wording within, or even a reference number, and this might mislead him into believing it is a formal response.

 

As mentioned earlier, does anyone have a samle page of a legitimate Notice of Rejection, or the minimum requirement that must be met for it to be an official Notice of Rejection ?

[Jamberson]

does anyone have a samle page of a legitimate Notice of Rejection, or the minimum requirement that must be met for it to be an official Notice of Rejection ?

 

There will be a few scans floating around the forum somewhere if you want to search, or look on Google images. They take the form of letters, with the heading "Notice of Rejection", which is a meaningful term and differentiates them from some other form of correspondence. I don't know what you mean by official (they all are), but the minimum requirement is that they carry that heading and pertain to the appeal. They need to be written (or at least signed) by a council employee. They need to be sent to the same name and address as was on the NTO. They need to quote the PCN number and (I think) the date and reason the PCN was issued.

 

I can't think of anything else. Typically they raise the grounds stated in the appeal and address them, accounting for why the appeal has failed. Usually they have embedded images, where useful. The person rejecting the case should have checked the TRO.

 

As you say, this case is pre-NTO so the particulars of a Notice of Rejection are not pertinent right now. I understand that a rejection letter at this stage would not necessarily have leverage, since by the time the case gets to adjudication there will have been a Notice of Rejection sent out, which is what is being appealed at the hearing. Nevertheless, the letter at this stage is formal, official correspondence, and will make up part of the bundle of documents for the adjudicator to consider.

 

I think the key point is that if the letter now is deficient in some way, it is up to the appelant to bring this up at the formal rep stage. If he does not, his formal rep will not be as robust as it might have been.