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

Parking ticket pursued in breach of Human Rights Convention

Here is a recent adjudication decision in respect of a PCN issued on 24 June 11 by Barnet Council. The pursuit of the PCN has been by NSL Ltd since they took over on 1 May 12 (although they may not have picked them up immediately which could be part of the reason for the delay). 

There has been a great deal of unexplained delay in this case.

The Notice to Owner was issued on 24th August 2011.

However the Charge Certificate was only issued on 22nd March 2013.

The Council has not given any explanation for the level of delay before issuing the Charge Certificate and obtaining registration of the debt at Court.

In my judgement there is a compromise of Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention here.

It is a problem for the Adjudicator to give a fair hearing in the case if the delay has potentially affected the recollection of events by either the Appellant or the parking attendant.

Also, for this enforcement to be lawful the Council has a duty to exercise its powers with reasonable expedition and fairness.

I note the case of R-v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex p. Doody (1994) (House of Lords) per Lord Mustill: "Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances".

I have also considered Davis-v-Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (PAS 1970198981) where it was considered that a delay of more than 2/3 months in responding to an appellant's representations was prima facie evidence of unfairness in the absence of explanation.

I am not satisfied that the local authority has conducted the timetable of this enforcement with reasonable expedition and that, as a result, there is an unfairness.

For both of these reasons I find that the appropriate Direction here is that the Penalty Charge Notice must now be cancelled.

If Barnet Council are chasing you for a 2011 PCN and you are appealing to PATAS then quote this case (PATAS ref 2130453008) in support of your case. Any delay at any stage of the process of 6 months or more is in the Code of Practice issued by London Councils  (paragraph 170e) as a PCN that should be cancelled. The other phrase to quote is "justice delayed is justice denied". How can you be expected to now remember the circumstances of your parking on 24 June 11?

Don't take these old tickets on the chin; appeal against them and complain to your ward councillors about your Human Rights being abused. 

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard