PATAS rejected my appeal - should I ask for a review?

tulipchickuk

Hello all,

I am new to these discussion boards, but not new to contesting PCNs. As a busy working mother, I estimate I park somewhere that is not outside my home an average of 4 times a day. I am currently appealing 3 PCNs, one of which has been rejected by the adjudicator this week. I am wondering whether I have cause to ask for a review. The details are:

On 26th April at 10:26 I was given a PCN in a public car park (leisure centre.) When I opened my door I found the ticket I'd purchased laying face down by the foot controls. I had left the car in a hurry 25 minutes earlier because I was running late, with two kids and a dog, and probably when I closed (or slammed) the door, the ticket floated off the dashboard.
I sent the ticket and explanation to the council (Hackney) and they rejected it. So after the NTO arrived I appealed to PATAS:
I also enclosed a document detailing attendances at the centre, including that the day I got the PCN was the 5th time that week I had parked at the centre at that time (my 7-year old was attending a course there.)
I have a good success rate here, 100% so I was a bit amazed to be turned down this time!
Here is my appeal letter:

I write to appeal against the PCN given to me on 16th April 2010 in Brittania leisure centre car park.
As I have already explained in my initial appeal the council, I purchased a parking voucher costing 40p for one hour at 10.01am and displayed it on the dashboard of my car.
I then dropped my child to her trampoline class, the last in a series of 5 over the half term which we had attended every day that week, and took my younger child and dog to the park. When I returned to the car, I saw that I had been given a parking ticket for failure to display a pay and display voucher. I then noticed that the voucher was indeed missing from the dashboard, and when I opened the car door, found it laying face door on the drivers side of my car.
I immediately appealed, enclosing my pay and display ticket. But to my surprise I received back a letter telling me that having a pay and display voucher was not proof of having a pay and display voucher.
I attach a photocopy of the voucher, as my original voucher was not returned to me.
Were these vouchers the type you could stick on your window or dashboard, they would be more unlikely to move from the place where they are put. But as I have pointed out, they do not stick. They simply lay in place so it is probable that a gust of wind dislodged it from its place.
I also attach a list of courses/events which show I parked here every day this week.
Given the circumstances, I would be grateful therefore if this PCN could be cancelled.
With thanks.

Here is the response:
Adjudicator's reasons:

This PCN was issued as the appellant's vehicle was parked in a car park without displaying a valid pay and display ticket. The appellant (App)has produced the ticket which she purchased, and I accept that it was valid at the time the PCN was issued. however it is clear - and it is accepted by the App - that it was not displayed when the CEO issued the PCN.
The App says that she placed the ticket on the dashboard and it had fallen off. She says that it must have blown off by a gust of wind. Assuming that not leave her vehicle with windows open, the only time that the wind could have played a part is when she closed the doors on leaving. I accept she intended to display the ticket but it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that a ticket has been correctly displayed, and in the case the App f ailed to display the ticket adequately. The contravention is thus proved and the appeal must therefore be refused.

My question is: should I pay up and shut up? I am so loathe to do so when I had a ticket! It is so unfair. The adjudicator has ignored completely the fact that I park here so often, left the car in a hurry, had two kids and a dog with me....
what would others do? I can ask for a review under the following four reasons; do any fit my case?

A. Review under Regulation 11 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended

A review may only be granted in the following limited cases:

1. the decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;
2. you failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;
3. there is new evidence and the existence of this could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision;
4. the interests of justice require a review. You should note that an

Adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the Adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.

I feel the interests of justice have not been served in my most likely bet.
Although it is not possible to see in the photos taken by the PA, it is possible I left a back window open, I often do for the dog, who btw I had left in the car while I took my daughter into the centre, picking up the dog after this, then going on to the park.

Please post your thoughts!
Thanking you.

peter_the_piper

I don't think that the adjudicator erred on a point of law so I doubt that it will achieve anything. What might have helped would have been posting the ticket up and seeing if there were any other ways of avoiding payment. However that door is closed, I think, so it may be someone can show ways of assisting you on the other two.

tulipchickuk

Thank you for your response Peter-the-Piper.
I am almost at the 28 deadline so will decide tomorrow whether to submit an appeal or pay up.

peter_the_piper

I don't know if anyone can help as its already 14 days since your last post. I hope you sort it.

tulipchickuk

I did apply to PATAS for a review under the interests of Justice require a review clause, and was successful; the review takes place next Friday 28th January. I am hoping for a good result.

My only previous PATAS appeal ended positively for me, with the adjudicator deciding that the traffic warden had wrongly given me the PCN (two minutes after expiry of the visitor permit) because: the permit was in five minute intervals therefore I should have been given until the next five minute interval had begun. Which of course makes perfect sense.

I am hopeful because the decision letter turning down my original appeal made no mention at all to two pertinent points I had submitted evidence about: also, PATAs is not obliged to offer a further hearing. Here is the ground for review which I've been granted, which is the last and fourth in the list:

the interests of justice require a review. You should note that an Adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the Adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
Please note that a review will only be granted if an Adjudicator is satisfied that one or more of these applies. A review is NOT simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You cannot ask for a review just because you disagree with the Adjudicator's decision.

Keep fingers crossed for me!
Thanks,

Tulipchickuk

peter_the_piper

Very best of luck, if you need it.

Coupon-mad

tulipchickuk wrote: »

I did apply to PATAS for a review under the interests of Justice require a review clause, and was successful; the review takes place next Friday 28th January. I am hoping for a good result.

My only previous PATAS appeal ended positively for me, with the adjudicator deciding that the traffic warden had wrongly given me the PCN (two minutes after expiry of the visitor permit) because: the permit was in five minute intervals therefore I should have been given until the next five minute interval had begun. Which of course makes perfect sense.

I am hopeful because the decision letter turning down my original appeal made no mention at all to two pertinent points I had submitted evidence about: also, PATAs is not obliged to offer a further hearing. Here is the ground for review which I've been granted, which is the last and fourth in the list:

the interests of justice require a review. You should note that an Adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the Adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
Please note that a review will only be granted if an Adjudicator is satisfied that one or more of these applies. A review is NOT simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You cannot ask for a review just because you disagree with the Adjudicator's decision.

Keep fingers crossed for me!
Thanks,

Tulipchickuk

Good luck. :T

Did you get pepipoo forum help? If not you could still copy your post into a new thread over there now and ask for any words of wisdom/advice before your case:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

Let us know what happens please!