Seeking advice

Thomask

Hi Neil

Apologies for the slow response! Am out on the Road a lot with limited access to the internet.

I've had a reply from the Head of CCTV and Parking Fines at the Islington Council. I've pasted his response below. I'm still very interested in proceeding further with the appeal.

Another email recieved relates to timeframes I questioned. You'll see below they specify the discounted rate as remaining valid until 30 Jan. I'm sure this is longer than it should be valid for (despite the fact they extended it).

The discounted charge of 60.00 is applicable until 30 January 2009 (as advised in Mr X’s letter to you dated 12 January 2009). After that period the charge will increase to the full amount of £120.00. If you appeal to PATAS within the allotted time period (that is, 28 days after you received Mr X’s letter of 12 January), the full charge of £120.00 will apply until they advise you of their decision. If they decide we are correct in enforcing the ticket, you will have a further 28 days to pay the £120.00 before it increases to £180.00. If they instruct us to cancel the ticket, we will do so and no charge will be due. It is not possible to pay to settle the case and then appeal


Email from the head of CCTV guy:

Mr X

If you require a PCN number of a case that was recently successfully defended at PATAS, you may wish to contact them about IS 15283713 which was a moving traffic contravention that was supported by the same documentation that you feel is not legal. I am unable to provide you with the names of the appellant (or any other of the linked documents) as I consider this to be a data protection issue.
May I take the opportunity to apologise for typing the incorrect e-mail address when I responded earlier. Unfortunately, this did not bounce back to my inbox, so I assumed the mail had been received.
Yours sincerely

X


Thanks

Neil_B

Neil_B wrote: »

Appellant succesful.

Just to clarify - what an unfortunate turning of the page!

That was a response to the question from 'pianoplayer' on the previous page!

For the very recent PATAS case I am still awaiting news of the ruling.
-

Neil_B

Thomask wrote: »

Hi Neil



Email from the head of CCTV guy:

Mr X

If you require a PCN number of a case that was recently successfully defended at PATAS, you may wish to contact them about IS 15283713 which was a moving traffic contravention that was supported by the same documentation that you feel is not legal. I am unable to provide you with the names of the appellant (or any other of the linked documents) as I consider this to be a data protection issue.
May I take the opportunity to apologise for typing the incorrect e-mail address when I responded earlier. Unfortunately, this did not bounce back to my inbox, so I assumed the mail had been received.
Yours sincerely

X


Thanks

Ok - got the name and PATAS case number. E-mailed tonight for case notes.
Let's see what happened exactly. Couple of days normally at most.
-

Neil_B

Thomask wrote: »

Hi Neil

Apologies for the slow response! Am out on the Road a lot with limited access to the internet.

Not a problem. I was just a bit concerned with the clock ticking.

Thomask wrote: »

I'm still very interested in proceeding further with the appeal.

Good for you. Just to reiterate for you and anyone though - you owe me nothing. You are welcome to take the cheaper payment option whenever you can.
To continue, yes it is an additional £60 you are risking. There are no further costs, PATAS is free (exceptions in very rare cicumstances).

Thomask wrote: »

Another email recieved relates to timeframes I questioned. You'll see below they specify the discounted rate as remaining valid until 30 Jan. I'm sure this is longer than it should be valid for (despite the fact they extended it).

Easy one to clear up. It is entirely discretionary to extend a discount deadline. No statute covers or defines it. Most go somewhere around the 14 day level but can go anywhere between zero and the full 28 days - entirely up to them.

So we've got until Friday to get the PATAS info and make a final decision.

Neil_B

Heads up Thomas! I HAVE NEWS and you might like it!

It is so dodgy I have to check with crabman first before posting it in public - but will PM you.

For those trying to guess - read carefully the wording where Islington cited previous PATAS cases and see how they weren't quite absolute?

movingforward2010

to be fair, ive NEVER seen road markings like that anywhere Ive driven??? what a bizarre traffic island why not just have one in the middle? lol
It looks more likely to cause an accident with someone swerving around the markings than driving straight thru.

Thomask

Neil - thanks for the PM. Had a good chuckle.

Sent you a couple of PMs. Also as a heads up, appears I now have until this Monday to pay at the reduced rate.

If I decide to appeal, is there any advantage/disadvantage in having the case reviewed / heard via the post (as opposed to in person)? Am away overseas early Feb. Notice they give this option on the appeal form.

Neil_B

PM responses coming.

Neil_B

Thomas, just repeating e-mail from a few minutes ago.

Hmmm, Decision time.



I still haven't seen the documents I requested?



Unfortunately, as at Thursday, the result of the significant hearing at PATAS the previous Friday was not known. That appellant is not asking again until tomorrow - when he's actually there for another hearing! The result is important to a lot of people! I did tell him you had a deadline but he doesn't listen too well, lol.



To sum up your position. If he wins it does not set a legal precedent but it does give you a greatly better chance.

If he loses, you still have a chance because knowledgable people are still adamant the PCN is wrong - but makes it harder. Then again, their iffy reference to an apparently irrelevant case may help you as well.



You also have to consider Adjudicator attitude. Although they rule on specific legal issues they are still human. In you particular case Islington are bound to mention they have let you off two others and an Adjudicator may be swayed by that? Maybe.



let me know what you decide to do. Pay the £60 or risk another £60-.



I will PM the other guy now to try and get him to announce the result if known, before your deadline expires. No gaurantee he picks up the PM though.

Throbbe

wxmlad wrote: »

to be fair, ive NEVER seen road markings like that anywhere Ive driven??? what a bizarre traffic island why not just have one in the middle? lol

To allow emergency services through the restriction. A full island would block the route, a removable bollard would slow them down significantly.

The big clue is the solid line bordering the hatched area. While it is perfectly legal to cross a hatched area (and not just for right turns) a solid centreline should never be crossed.

Apologies for threadjack!