 |
| Deep Purple |
Last Friday there was a very interesting case in front of the independent Adjudicator at PATAS. Here is what the adjudicator had to say.
The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway when in Prospect Place on 17 May 2012 at 21.56
The Appellant denies the contravention.
I have considered the evidence in this case and whilst photographic evidence is not a mandatory requirement, it is rare for it not to be produced. In this case its absence makes it difficult to resolve the principal dispute in this case.
Further, the map site report appears unrealistic for a parking allegedly on the kerb - the Civil Enforcement Officer has not it appears even drawn a diagram.
Furthermore, a disproportionate amount of time is having to be spent on Barnet cases due to the presentation of its evidence; the purple cards (at least 12) have to be greatly magnified before they can be deciphered.
Finally, considering all the evidence I find that the Appellant's case to be stronger than that of the authority, I am not satisfied that the authority has proved that the Appellant's wheels were on the footway.
The appeal is allowed.
The Appellant denies the contravention.
I have considered the evidence in this case and whilst photographic evidence is not a mandatory requirement, it is rare for it not to be produced. In this case its absence makes it difficult to resolve the principal dispute in this case.
Further, the map site report appears unrealistic for a parking allegedly on the kerb - the Civil Enforcement Officer has not it appears even drawn a diagram.
Furthermore, a disproportionate amount of time is having to be spent on Barnet cases due to the presentation of its evidence; the purple cards (at least 12) have to be greatly magnified before they can be deciphered.
Finally, considering all the evidence I find that the Appellant's case to be stronger than that of the authority, I am not satisfied that the authority has proved that the Appellant's wheels were on the footway.
The appeal is allowed.
The parking enforcement contract with NSL started on 1 May 2012. Here we are on 23 November 2012 and NSL still have not got their act together. If they can't sort themselves out on a simple contract like parking, a sausage machine operation, then how the heck are Capita going to manage on NSCSO where they have lots of different roles to play.
Are Capita fantastic? Not in Southampton. See this.
It is clear that whilst out-sourcing might cure some problems, you simply get another set in exchange for them. It is not a panacea for all ills. A bit like modern medicines, there are "side effects", which really should be called faults.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.