Barnet refuses to back down after appeals claim thrown out
Adjudicator rejects council's call for reviews of case that hinged on PCN issue date
Parking Review
by Denis Huseyin
The London Borough of Barnet has suffered a setback in its fight to overturn a parking adjudicator's decision that it failed to print clear details on its parking tickets.
The initial apeal by the motorist was upheld because there was no date of issue on the penalty charge notice (PR March). Barnet called on the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) to review this decision. But review adjudicator Austin Wilkinson rejected the application describing it as "misconceived". Barnet stated that if the appeal was allowed then other penalty charge notices (PCNs) it had issued could be regarded as unenforceable.
Wilkinson stated: "I find it a curios concept that a legal finding of a potentially widespread failure of compliance with Statute in a penal system could possibly be regarded as 'unduly detrimental to good administration of the council and other London authorities'. Surely good administration commences with compliance of the law?"
Wilkinson concluded by reproaching those authorities that had failed to amend their PCNs to include date of issue. "It is up to local councils to ensure their PCNs are drafted in comliance with Statute," he said.
"These appeals show only too clearly that the findings and concerns of the adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most attractive basis for asserting good administration."
The Barnet case hinges on whether the PCN complied with section 66 (3) (C) of the Road Traffic Act 1991. This states that a fine must be paid before the end of a 28-day period starting with the date of the notice.
In the appeal between Barnet council and Hugh Moses, the motorist insisted he displayed a valid visitor's permit and should not have received a PCN. Adjudicator Timothy Thorne upheld this, adding that the PCN was in any case invalid because it failed to show an issue date. This, he pointed out, was not the same as a PCN showing the date of the alleged contravention.
Barnet insists that the date information given on its PCN is sufficient.
A council spokeswoman said: "We are surprised we didn't get the opportunity to explain our position to PATAS."
She said that the arguments put forward by Austin Wilkinson were not relevant to the Moses case. "We are, therefore, dissatisfied with the decision, and are now discussing with our solicitors how the matter might best be further pursued." One option open to Barnet is to seek a judicial review in the high court.
Barnet is not alone in falling foul of the parking adjudicator because of the absence of issue date on PCNs. The London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Lambeth also lost appeals for the same reason. Lambeth has also requested a review of the adjudicator's decision and was expecting a response from PATAS as Parking Review went to press.
Unlike Barnet, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets have since agreed to change the format of their PCNs to include the issue date. The appellants in all three cases were supported by Barrie Segal, who runs the pro-motorist website AppealNow.
Parking Review
by Denis Huseyin
The London Borough of Barnet has suffered a setback in its fight to overturn a parking adjudicator's decision that it failed to print clear details on its parking tickets.
The initial apeal by the motorist was upheld because there was no date of issue on the penalty charge notice (PR March). Barnet called on the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) to review this decision. But review adjudicator Austin Wilkinson rejected the application describing it as "misconceived". Barnet stated that if the appeal was allowed then other penalty charge notices (PCNs) it had issued could be regarded as unenforceable.
Wilkinson stated: "I find it a curios concept that a legal finding of a potentially widespread failure of compliance with Statute in a penal system could possibly be regarded as 'unduly detrimental to good administration of the council and other London authorities'. Surely good administration commences with compliance of the law?"
Wilkinson concluded by reproaching those authorities that had failed to amend their PCNs to include date of issue. "It is up to local councils to ensure their PCNs are drafted in comliance with Statute," he said.
"These appeals show only too clearly that the findings and concerns of the adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most attractive basis for asserting good administration."
The Barnet case hinges on whether the PCN complied with section 66 (3) (C) of the Road Traffic Act 1991. This states that a fine must be paid before the end of a 28-day period starting with the date of the notice.
In the appeal between Barnet council and Hugh Moses, the motorist insisted he displayed a valid visitor's permit and should not have received a PCN. Adjudicator Timothy Thorne upheld this, adding that the PCN was in any case invalid because it failed to show an issue date. This, he pointed out, was not the same as a PCN showing the date of the alleged contravention.
Barnet insists that the date information given on its PCN is sufficient.
A council spokeswoman said: "We are surprised we didn't get the opportunity to explain our position to PATAS."
She said that the arguments put forward by Austin Wilkinson were not relevant to the Moses case. "We are, therefore, dissatisfied with the decision, and are now discussing with our solicitors how the matter might best be further pursued." One option open to Barnet is to seek a judicial review in the high court.
Barnet is not alone in falling foul of the parking adjudicator because of the absence of issue date on PCNs. The London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Lambeth also lost appeals for the same reason. Lambeth has also requested a review of the adjudicator's decision and was expecting a response from PATAS as Parking Review went to press.
Unlike Barnet, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets have since agreed to change the format of their PCNs to include the issue date. The appellants in all three cases were supported by Barrie Segal, who runs the pro-motorist website AppealNow.
posted by Neil Herron at 12:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home