 |
| a board game! |
Here is a shockingly interesting decision by a PATAS adjudicator whose hands are tied by having to apply the law, whatever they might think about the situation:
The case was listed for a personal hearing since the Appellant had not indicated whether he wanted a personal or postal decision. He did not attend at the appointed time and so I have considered the appeal on the papers.
The agreed facts are that the Appellant's vehicle was parked outside Sainsbury's at 21.56. Parking restrictions apply here at this time, as indicated on the timeplate. Mr B says he was not aware of this and he only noticed a white sign below the smaller yellow one. He also says that two Civil Enforcement Officers had seen him park there and he had not been advised to move. One of the officers had also gone into the shop and had parked where he had.
I am satisfied that the restriction is properly signed. There are two signs on this post but both must be read to establish the restrictions that apply. The size of the sign is compliant with the statutory regulations.
The Civil Enforcement Officer is not under any obligation to advise motorists about where they should and should not park. They should also follow the regulations themselves and not abuse their position by parking in contravention. However, that is not a matter that assists Mr B although it is hoped that the authority will investigate such conduct.
The agreed facts are that the Appellant's vehicle was parked outside Sainsbury's at 21.56. Parking restrictions apply here at this time, as indicated on the timeplate. Mr B says he was not aware of this and he only noticed a white sign below the smaller yellow one. He also says that two Civil Enforcement Officers had seen him park there and he had not been advised to move. One of the officers had also gone into the shop and had parked where he had.
I am satisfied that the restriction is properly signed. There are two signs on this post but both must be read to establish the restrictions that apply. The size of the sign is compliant with the statutory regulations.
The Civil Enforcement Officer is not under any obligation to advise motorists about where they should and should not park. They should also follow the regulations themselves and not abuse their position by parking in contravention. However, that is not a matter that assists Mr B although it is hoped that the authority will investigate such conduct.
Unluckily for Mr B the PCN was issued just 4 minutes before the ban on parking at that location in Regents Park Road came to an end.
The adjudicator had no real choice in the matter although had Mr Mustard been representing there were other technical grounds on which the PCN could & most likely would have been cancelled.
It seems unlikely that NSL who run the parking enforcement under contract will investigate the conduct of a traffic warden whom they directly employ and trained but that might change tomorrow as the council parking management read this blog and may well take the matter up with their contractor. Mr Mustard hasn't checked but he is confident that the contract will not allow for employees of the contractor to go shopping in work time.
Photographs of traffic wardens doing things they shouldn't be doing especially things like parking on the pavement or coming out the the betting shop are always welcome at mrmustard@zoho.com
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.