PCN Issued by Wlatham Forest and refused by PATAS

[NASLAM968]

Need Urgent help regarding my case about PCN issued while Parking bay was suspended. I have used this forum and found relavent information which I sent to Local Authority.

 

I received rejection letter and sent again appeal to Local Authority with further evidence.

 

Rejection letter was issued by Local Authority and few days later Notice to owner without any form of appeal process.

 

Wrote again and received appeal documents and sent to PATAS with lots of information and even letter from Department of Transport confirming Local Authority didn't have applied for Traffic Sign to Suspend the bay.

 

Appeal was refused by Adjudicator Michael Burke saying that Local Authority have displayed correct sign and there is no reason to refuse the appeal.

 

I asked for review because I came across new information which was

 

 

 

• at the time I was issued PCN my neighbour was issued PCN same time, same date and for same contravention.
  
• Local Authority day before when my neighbour case was due to appear in front of Adjudicator decided not contest the appeal.
  
• I provided the same information to PATAS and asked for the review.
  
• PATAS Manger wrote to me that after reviewed by another Adjudicator his reply is that (Michael Burke first Adjudicator who reviewed my case) Adjudicator couldn't have that information therefore his intial decision still stand.
  

I wrote again to PATAS explaining that's why I asked to reviewed the decision because there was new evidence. But again received same letter that their is no ground to review and if I am not happy I should ask for High Court Judicial review.

 

Sent few letters to Local Authority asking to cancel the PCN but getting no where.

 

Need Advice where to take this matter before it escalate into some thing I don't have control.

[Michael Browne]

You have exhausted all avenues and, other than a Judicial review which would be very costly, your only option is to pay before bailiffs are clamping your vehicle.

[green_and_mean]

Even if they did review it, the fact that the Council let someone else of for the same contravention is not grounds for cancelling your PCN.

[Jamberson]

Just pay it. You don't have any further appeal options, and if you don't pay, then it will escalate, as you say, into a situation where you don't have control.

[NASLAM968]

Even if they did review it, the fact that the Council let someone else of for the same contravention is not grounds for cancelling your PCN.

 

 

I don't know if this sound right but my point is

 

• If council issue 2 PCN same time, same date and for same reason on cars parked next to each other however don't contest one and other get full penalised
  

I thought justice system need to equal to everyone. I have provided the proof and letter from the claimant whom PCN have been cancelled. Why can't Adjudicator and Council can accept and either cancel both or neither.

 

Maybe I am wrong but I believe law should be same for every one.

[Jamberson]

The law is the same for everyone, but everyone's circumstances are different somehow. There might be a reason why his was cancelled, which does not apply to you - maybe he had a medical emergency, maybe the contravention printed on his PCN was wrong, maybe his vehicle was broken down, maybe the PCN wasn't served to him - and so on.

 

You presented your reasons why your PCN should be cancelled, and they said that those reasons weren't sufficient. His appeal would have been different to yours.

[NASLAM968]

The law is the same for everyone, but everyone's circumstances are different somehow. There might be a reason why his was cancelled, which does not apply to you - maybe he had a medical emergency, maybe the contravention printed on his PCN was wrong, maybe his vehicle was broken down, maybe the PCN wasn't served to him - and so on.

 

You presented your reasons why your PCN should be cancelled, and they said that those reasons weren't sufficient. His appeal would have been different to yours.

 

None of the above applies because when we both left our car in suspended bays in question, suspension started at 18.30 on the day in question and PCN were issued to my car at 1834 and my neighbour car at 1835.

We both did came across the PCN next morning about the same time and decided to challenge for same reason.

 

That's what makes matter worse and I feel hard done by, maybe one or 2 things we may have different to each other but most of the point were same, main thing which need to be focus on is Council phoned or wrote to PATAS couple of days before the case was suppose to appear in front of Adjudicator and informed that Council is not contesting this PCN. If they can do for one they should do same for the other as well in which case its my PCN.

[green_and_mean]

If they can do for one they should do same for the other as well in which case its my PCN.

 

The same could apply the other way, you could complain that the neighbour should be made to pay since the adjudicator clearly felt there were no grounds to cancel the PCN!?

[NASLAM968]

Adjudicator decision was based on that Council have displayed the correct sign which is questionable on it own.

 

Not that I didn't challenged correctly or any thing else. Nor I had the information at that time that my neighbour PCN appeal has been allowed.

 

If I had that information with me before the adjudicator was going to review my case maybe outcome would have been different.

 

Anyway my issue or advice I am trying to receive is that Law should be equal when circumstances are same I emphasis again "when circumstances are same" outcome of any decision should be same as well.

[Jamberson]

Circumstances are never the same. For some reason - I don't know what - the council declined to contest the case. Perhaps you're right and the basis of his appeal was the same as yours, but there is a reason why they backed out. Maybe they were short staffed and couldn't prepare for the additional hearing? Maybe they'd messed up procedure with his documents? Maybe their paperwork wasn't prepared - I don't know why, but they dropped it for some reason. He didn't win it on his arguments.

 

But your case went through to hearing, arguments were heard, and the PCN stood.

 

That's just the way it goes. His case is separate from yours and a different chain of events happened.

[NASLAM968]

Fair enough but what I like to know where can I challenge this because I am not happy and believe to hard done by.

[Jamberson]

You can and have challenged it, and even had a personal hearing at no cost to you. The fact is, you didn't win - that's that. There is no right to get a PCN cancelled - you tried, lost and so all you can do is pay. There's nothing else open to you.

[MaisyMouse]

Pay the fine and then, depending upon which local authority gave you the PCN, use a Freedom of Information request, to obtain figures of those that are let off for similar circumstances, or you could go for the jugular and request answers on staff bonuses over ticketing and the level of corruption within the chain of command that runs them.

[Jamberson]

Best that will result in, is you get a number for those "let off" - what use is that to anyone?

 

There are never bonuses for ticketing, and in fact the companies involved tend to face penalties themselves for PCNs issued for no good reason.

 

As for corruption - maybe you could suggest what questions should be asked.

[MaisyMouse]

There are never bonuses for ticketing, and in fact the companies involved tend to face penalties themselves for PCNs issued for no good reason.

 

Retaining one's job is not a bonus in your view ?The judge cited an email from Emma Collins, a regional manager with NSL, which read: "There are still significant numbers of people issuing at a rate of below 9 per hour... we should not feel uncomfortable to use the disciplinary process."

Judge Burns responded: "We have no doubt the managers felt under pressure to ensure PCN issuing was maximised and they passed this on to CEOs [traffic wardens].

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

[Jamberson]

No, it's not. "Staff bonuses" as you said it, means extra cash in their pay packet. That's just a myth.

 

If you're now saying a "bonus" means not getting the sack (which is a new definition on me!), read the link you posted. It says quite clearly that it is illegal to set staff minimum quotas, and when this guy was dismissed, he was deemd to have been wrongly dismissed and awarded compensation.

[MaisyMouse]

No, it's not. "Staff bonuses" as you said it, means extra cash in their pay packet. That's just a myth.

 

If you're now saying a "bonus" means not getting the sack (which is a new definition on me!), read the link you posted. It says quite clearly that it is illegal to set staff minimum quotas, and when this guy was dismissed, he was deemd to have been wrongly dismissed and awarded compensation.

 

Not at all, though retaining one's job is certainly an incentive to reach the minimum quotas, whether set by the company, or simply advised by those above you in the pecking order.

 

"The bonus money wasn't that great, an extra £65 a month, and to get your bonus you had to jump through all kinds of hoops." The pressure came instead from management: "I got told more than once: you've got to do more tickets, more tickets, more tickets.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/confessions-of-a-traffic-warden-6286324.html

[green_and_mean]

I guess you think Councils should just pay CEOs for doing nothing, just walk around the streets chatting to mates on their mobile and then go home, seems like a waste of Council tax to me?!

[green_and_mean]

Not at all, though retaining one's job is certainly an incentive to reach the minimum quotas, whether set by the company, or simply advised by those above you in the pecking order.

 

"The bonus money wasn't that great, an extra £65 a month, and to get your bonus you had to jump through all kinds of hoops." The pressure came instead from management: "I got told more than once: you've got to do more tickets, more tickets, more tickets.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/confessions-of-a-traffic-warden-6286324.html

A CEO sacked for gross misconduct is obviously going to be a credible source of information and have no hidden agenda!

[MaisyMouse]

A CEO sacked for gross misconduct is obviously going to be a credible source of information and have no hidden agenda!

 

Apologies, I thought he was the same CEO that was completely exonerated at the employment tribunal within the earlier post.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

 

Strikingly similar name though, they could actually be distant relatives if one squints hard enough .

[green_and_mean]

Apologies, I thought he was the same CEO that was completely exonerated at the employment tribunal within the earlier post.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

 

Strikingly similar name though, they could actually be distant relatives if one squints hard enough .

 

No apology needed the article was a bit confusing and just a poor attempt to promote the guys book. It does however seem a common trend that only those sacked for not being competent decide to spill the beans on being asked to issue a number of PCNs deemed satisfactory by their employer. Any job requires a certain level of competence and anyone not meeting that is obviously going to struggle to keep their job.

Although a CEO has other tasks his main purpose is to issue PCNs with the aim of raising compliance, you can argue by moving people on he is keeping the streets free of congestion but that argument is completely flawed. If you use the analogy of fare evasion a penalty fare is used as the deterrent, if a ticket inspector just asked those without a ticket to pay the appropriate fare there is no incentive to pay properly as you have good odds of not getting caught and if you are caught you are no worse off than if you did pay in the first place. You stick on a penalty fare of £50 and then the choice is pay £5 or risk paying £50, most will not face the risk and fare evasion drops.

If we go back to the CEO if he just wanders the street with a friendly hop and a skip, moving naughty drivers on, who is going to bother adhering to the parking regulations? Most CEOs have large areas to patrol and most areas are visited infrequently meaning you can park on double yellows outside your shop causing havoc for a couple of hours knowing full well when the friendly CEO arrives you can drive around the block and re-park.

CEOs therefore have to issue PCNs to be a deterrent, that is their job. The question then is how many should they issue a day to be seen to be competent and working as hard as their colleagues? Most 'quotas' used in staff performance reviews equate to around 1 PCN an hour and that is usually based on historical data (previous figures), colleagues numbers and compliance data. If you think asking someone that is paid to issue PCNs to issue a single PCN an hour is corrupt you obviously do not live in London. If you do live in London I challenge you to walk or drive around for an hour without seeing a single vehicle that is not parked where it shouldn't be because I doubt you will succeed and that's without checking tickets and permits. No one gets sacked on the spot for having a bad day low issue figures are addressed at performance reviews and only if all avenues taken to improve such as further training fail to improve the matter then disciplinary action may be taken as it would in any other job where an employee wasn't capable of carrying out his job properly.