Parking - An abusive relationship

http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk/

Mr Mustard abhors violence whoever it is directed at. He has some hesitation therefore in comparing the abuse heaped on this lady by the council and NSL over such an essentially trivial matter as a parking ticket which should pale into insignificance as compared to the necessity to leave her home with her children. Here is a recent adjudication report, it is not a very nice thing to have to read, apart from the result:

The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not appear and it was not represented. The date of the alleged contravention was 26 September 2011. A Notice to Owner was issued on 3 November 2011. The Charge Certificate was not issued on 8 April 2013. There was no explanation for the delay.

The Appellant had explained that over that period, she and her children had to leave the family home to escape an abusive relationship and her ex-husband had been using the vehicle. This explained why the Appellant was not able to engage with the enforcement process through no fault on her part but irrespective of the reason, a gap of 18 months between the two stages of the enforcement proceedings is not acceptable. The Authority said that there is no statutory time bar to the issue of a Charge Certificate. This is correct but there is a duty on the Authority to act fairly and this include acting expeditiously.

The PCN cannot be upheld. I am allowing the appeal.

The council know Mr Mustard's view on chasing PCN from 2011 as the external Auditor is still considering his objection to the signing off of the March 2013 Accounts. 

It is a breach of Human Rights (Article 6) to leave a delay of this length in the processing of a parking ticket, it has been described by other adjudicators an an abuse of process. The council know that Mr Mustard reads all of the PATAS reports and so knows exactly what is going on. If they don't want to read blogs that say that the decisions on appeals are being made by heartless, unfeeling, uncaring mercenaries then they need to start making some more sensible, compassionate and considered decisions.

If the person who says no to an appeal had to appear at PATAS and tell the abused in person why they were suffering further abuse the number of self evidently unjust and unreasonable decisions would tumble.

This is the fault in a system where the person who makes the corporate decision to reject an appeal hopes the council will profit by it.

It's all about the money.

Yours in abject disgust

Mr Mustard