Informal representations still count

the informal representations repository?

Mr Mustard has long suspected that informal representations, the first stage appeal (of three, see guide to the left) get largely ignored or overtaken by a Notice to Owner. Now, if that happens to you, you have a ready made appeal in the form of this decision by an adjudicator at PATAS 

case 213043539A

One of the points made by the Appellant was that her father in law made informal representations on her behalf but she was not then offered the discount again.

The Authority accepted that the representations were received but failed to find their way to the file due to an administrative error (Mr Mustard has personal experience of this happening especially for emailed representations). It said that this had no consequence as the Authority was not bound to consider informal representations.
The Authority's response is incorrect at several levels. First and foremost, the Authority is under a duty to consider informal representations. In R (on the application of the Hackney Drivers' Association Limited) v the Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council, [2012] EWHC 3394 (admin), the High Court considered Regulation 3 (2)(b)(i) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and held that it means that if representations against a Regulation 9 Penalty Charge Notice are received at such address as may be specified by the Authority before a Notice to Owner is served, those representations will be considered.

Secondly, the Notice to Rejection did not address the point despite it being raised in the formal representations.  It did not even offer to settle at the reduced rate when fairness would say that this was the least that the Authority should do bearing in mind that its "administrative error" caused the problem. I should also point out that the Notice of Rejection had not even properly considered the circumstances raised by the Appellant. The Appellant said that she was notified by the hospice that her mother was dying. The Authority rejected her claim on the basis that there was no evidence of an emergency admission to hospital.

The matter has been handled poorly from beginning to end. The issues surrounding the Appellant's personal circumstances are not directly linked to the legal issues in this appeal, but the legality of the Authority's actions has a legal consequences. I find that there had been at least two instances of procedural impropriety. I am allowing the appeal.

This isn't the first time that Mr Mustard has criticised the council's attitude to people who have relatives in a hospice and he wonders if the Notice Processing Officers know that you go to a hospice because you are going to die sooner rather than later. Are you reading NPOs? here is a link to our wonderful local hospice, the North London Hospice. They always need funds, please send them some.

Please try and remember when you reject an appeal that you are writing to a human being, one who might have made a small mistake when under stress. People's lives are more important than some grubby parking ticket.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Subtle hampering

If you get the above message you might be out of time in which to make representations to Barnet Council about your parking ticket (PCN) but, on the other hand, you might not.

You get three bites at the cherry (a PCN is more like a rotten apple though) when it comes to appealing.

The first time, known as informal representations, are usually made in the 28 days after you have been hit served with a PCN. These representations are outside of the statutory process but do allow for obvious errors to be picked up and PCN cancelled at an early stage with least fuss for the motorist. The fewest tickets are cancelled at this stage, about 10%. You can send in an informal appeal at any time up until the Notice to Owner is issued which is a maximum of 6 months after the PCN is served.

The second time, formal representations are made in the 28 days after the Notice to Owner is served. This is set down in statute. Miss this deadline at your peril. These appeals succeed twice as often as informal ones, about 20% of the time, even when the words used are identical.

The third time, for Barnet Council cases, is to PATAS, the home of the independent adjudicator. These appeals succeeded 72% of the time last year (90% for Mr Mustard's cases) and so you can see that the longer you fight for the more chance you have of winning. Keep those appeals flowing; if your argument is a good one, simply use it three times.

Now what Mr Mustard has discovered, after testing on a number of cases, is that if you appeal informally as soon as you get the PCN and have that appeal rejected, the computer system is set so that you cannot make another informal appeal on-line even though you might still be within the 28 days. This means that if you have thought of another point of appeal you cannot use the on-line system to submit it. This is to fetter your ability to appeal on-line and is in contrast to what the PCN says on its face:

"If representations against the penalty charge are received at the address detailed overleaf before the Notice to Owner has been served, those representations will be considered;..." except that you can't easily make them on-line which is offered as an alternative method of communication.

instead you will have to write to:

Barnet Parking, PO Box 4894, Worthing, BN11 9WT 

(get a free proof of posting at the Post Office)

or

email to barnet@nslservices.co.uk

If Mr Mustard was being cynical he would think that the council were trying to put you off from appealing as they dislike receiving too many appeals, it slows them down from their primary task of extracting as much money as possible from the motorist.

Doubtless this fettering will turn out to be a terrible accident in the computer software section and will be changed very soon to allow for on-line appeals at any moment up until 28 days after the Notice to Owner was served.

Paragraph 86 of the Secretary of State's guidance on civil enforcement of parking contraventions is well worth a read:

"Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their discretion, so should ensure that PCNs, NtOs, leaflets and any other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they may consider in the way of representations"

Appeal experts in other boroughs will probably want to test this informal appeal blocking to see if it is a common feature elsewhere. Feel free to add a comment below.

The reason it is worth sending in one or more informal appeals is that the council have to respond to them or they have committed a procedural impropriety as the PCN says that they will be considered. Not doing what a council says it will do on the face of the PCN is clearly unjust. Some adjudicators might say that there is no requirement within the legislation to respond to informal representations but that is to ignore good manners and the council's own service standards when it comes to correspondence and to act contrary to the offer on the face of the PCN. Point that failing out, the PCN promise, to an adjudicator and then they will almost certainly agree with you that it is a procedural impropriety and as soon as that is established the legislation requires the adjudicator to cancel your PCN. Result.

Get your pen or keyboard out and get writing or typing.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard