Are you appealing enough? Careful where you Parke!

Not a question to decide whether you appealing or attractive to the opposite sex but a question as to why more people don't challenge their PCN.
Real reason is that having a 50% discount for early capitulation levelled at your head makes most people think that it's not worth the fight no matter how unjust or unfair the PCN is.

However, your chances of success are quite high and don't always take it for granted that the council will win should you fight all the way to adjudication. It is sometimes the underdog who causes the upset!

Drivers Told To Fight Unfair Parking Tickets
Friday June 03, 2011
Lulu Sinclair, Sky News Online

Motorists are being urged to consider contesting car parking tickets if they think they have been given one unfairly.

Fewer than 1% of drivers took issue with their fines in 2009/10 out of a total of almost 4.25 million tickets, according to the chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

But of those who did, just under 60% won their case, Caroline Sheppard revealed.

She is head of a team of 24 lawyers who rule on appeals from dissatisfied drivers within the 250 or so councils in England and Wales which are responsible for parking tickets.

The adjudicator makes her plea in a new report which says councils on the whole are issuing slightly fewer tickets than before.

"Parking tickets are a strong source of revenue for councils "

"The aim of the tribunal is to provide an easy, convenient, fair and informal service for motorists," Ms Sheppard said.

"We believe it is important for people to understand better the rules and regulations, for councils to exercise discretion in cases where it is due, and finally, for people to know that they have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator if they want to continue to challenge a penalty after the council has rejected their case."

A spokeswoman for the tribunal chief said she was keen to let people know there was an appeal system, if they thought they were being unjustly treated.

"This is open and accessible to motorists who think they have a case and we want to make sure people know about it."

Another source of irritation among drivers is the private parking system where parking fines are disproportionate to the "crime", and the chief adjudicator is calling for an independent ombudsman to be set up, to allow rights of appeal to drivers.

Take Parking Tickets To The Tribunal
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal deals with the final stage of the appeals process.

You can appeal to it if:

:: You have been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice by a council.

:: You have already made a formal appeal in writing to the council.

:: The council rejected your appeal and sent you a Notice of Appeal form.

:: You then have 28 days to appeal to the tribunal.

Source: Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Neil Herron, the former metric martyr turned campaigner for fairer parking, is pleased motorists are being made more aware of what they can do but warns it is a Catch 22 situation.

"The more people know about methods of complaint, the more they will use them and the more overloaded the system will eventually become."

He remains sceptical that councils use parking restrictions as a way of managing traffic, arguing that they are a growing source of revenue, particularly when central funding to councils is being cut back.

"Councils rely on people just paying up," Mr Herron told Sky News Online.

"You usually have the incentive of 'half-price' fines for 14 days so you're taking a risk if you decide to appeal. If you lose, you'll have to pay double right away.

"But remember, your chances of success are greatly approved once you get into the formal legal process, so don't be put off.

"The rules are built on unstable foundations. If you feel that your ticket has been unfairly or unjustly issued, then fight it. You stand a good chance of winning!"

Was the definition of a CPZ met? You decide ...

A CPZ is defined at Regulation 4 TSRGD 2002 as:
"controlled parking zone" means -
(a) an area -
(i) in which, except where parking places have been provided, every road has been marked with one or more of the road markings shown in diagrams 1017, 1018.1, 1019 and 1020.1; and
(ii) into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1;

The pictures below represent a sample of the evidence provided to NPAS Adjudicator Andrew Keenan at the hearings in Sunderland in 2007. They indicate areas of unrestricted highway, non-compliant bays and restrictions which are not contained in the Regulation 4 definition.

He considered these 'trivialities' in his decision.

Police seize documents from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Let us hope that the Police leave no stone unturned in this investigation. It follows closely on from the admission from the Council that the Traffic Orders for the Devon and Exeter hospital car parks have 'not been legal' since 2008. This will then go to the core of Devon's application to the Department for Transport for Civil Parking Enforcement powers.

Furthermore, it is understood that Mr. Harry has instructed a firm of London solicitors to represent him and that a private action is being considered against a number of individuals.

His case is also being assisted by the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund.

Councils' parking tribunal evidence probed by Exeter police
Tuesday, February 23,

POLICE are investigating allegations that a council employee falsified details on a map which was given as evidence at a tribunal.
The probe was launched after concern was raised by Peter Harry who was given a penalty charge notice after he left his car parked in Southernhay East, Exeter, in March last year.
The 67-year-old from Dawlish appealed against his fine and took the matter to a tribunal. He claimed the markings on the road were not legally correct.

An adjudicator ruled against him but after obtaining evidence from the tribunal, held in Manchester, Mr Harry went to the police with his concerns prompting a criminal investigation.
He claims that a council worker from Exeter City Council or Devon County Council, both of which have responsibilities for administering parking in the city, had realised that Southernhay West had been wrongly put as the location on the penalty notice and had changed it to Southernhay to defend the appeal.

He said: “The councils provided a map, showing the location of my vehicle, underneath the marked reference placed on the map is the word Southernhay. On the PCN the location is given as Southernhay West.
“In actual fact I was parked in Southernhay East which would have made the PCN invalid. But sooner that cancel the ticket, I believe they decided to take another route in order to enforce the unenforceable by doctoring the map, which is an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”

Devon and Cornwall police confirmed yesterday that an allegation of perverting the course of justice was currently being investigated.

A spokesman said: “Police have made preliminary inquires following an allegation of perverting the course of justice in relation to documents being altered to assist a prosecution. At this stage we have not established if a crime has been committed so it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

It is understood that senior officers have been to Manchester and have seized documents which had been filed in relation to the appeal.
It is not clear at this stage which authority was responsible for carrying out the alleged alteration of the map.
No one from either the county or city council was available for comment yesterday

Conflicts of Interest for Adjudicators?

From the former Department for Constitutional Affairs website re: Adjudicators.

Link Here ...

Once you have read it then you can decide whether the fact that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard is employed by Manchester City Council represents a conflict of interest. More ...

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The governing principle is that no person should sit in a judicial capacity in any circumstances which would lead an objective onlooker with knowledge of all the material facts, reasonably to suspect that the person might be biased. As a general principle therefore, a barrister or solicitor advocate ought not to sit or to appear before a tribunal, at a particular hearing centre, if he is liable to be embarrassed in either capacity by doing so.

As a general rule, it is undesirable for judicial office holders who are solicitors to sit at a tribunal or hearing centre where they or any partner or employee of theirs regularly practises. This is to help avoid them being assigned to adjudicate in a case (or several cases) from which they would have to stand down. If a fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holder who is a solicitor does sit at such a hearing centre or a tribunal, then the Lord Chancellor regards it as the judicial office holder's personal responsibility (and not that of the staff of the tribunal or the hearing centre) to ensure, as far as possible, that he avoids any potential conflict of interest which might require him to stand down from a particular case.

Fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holders should not sit in a case involving their own firm or client, or otherwise where to do so could give rise to the perception of prejudice in the administration of justice. They should comply with the existing case law governing pecuniary or other interests in deciding whether to declare an interest in, or to stand down from, a particular case e.g. Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and Another [(2000) QB 451; in re medicaments and related classes of goods (No 2) (2001) 1 WLR 700; and Lawal v Northern Spirits Limited (2003) UKHL35].

Fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holder should not sit on a case if he has a personal, professional or pecuniary interest in that case; or if any business or practice of which he is a member in any capacity has such an interest.

Judicial office holders are expected to refrain from any activity, political or otherwise, which would conflict with their judicial office or be seen to compromise their impartiality, having regard for example to the comments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Locabail. Fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holders should also be aware of the risk of a perceived lack of impartiality arising from published articles or public pronouncements, etc. (Timmins v Gormley [(2000) 2 WLR 870]).

Fee-paid (part-time) Adjudicators should exercise caution in any reference to their appointment on, for example, letterheads or in chambers advertising literature.

Fee-paid (part-time) Adjudicators hold office only when he or she is serving judicially and should not use their office as a means of pursuing personal, professional or commercial advantage

Chief Adjudicator writes to councils advising them that their PCNs were illegal

Yet it seems no-one is prepared to disclose which councils were written to and why they ignored the advice from the Chief Adjudicator.
As the Glenn Dickinson v The Parking Adjudicator case awaits a date before the courts one has to ask why the 'independent and impartial' Chief Adjudicator only wrote to the councils and not motorists with pending PCNs. Is that 'independent and impartial?

Caroline Sheppard (left) is the Chief Adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, and, it has been revealed, is an employee of Manchester City Council.

Lord Adonis is unable to provide the answer to Lord Lucas' question as to what was written and to whom as is revealed by the Parliamentary Question below.


As matters develop we expect that the press and media take a closer look at which councils benefited financially by continuing to issue PCNs that they knew to be illegal and contrary to the High Court ruling.

What also needs bearing in mind is that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal receive 60p from each PCN issued.
Despite the Daily Telegraph reporting nearly two years ago no-one is prepared to disclose the list or the content of the letter. Time for someone to start digging.

Illegal parking fines cost drivers millions
Motorists have paid millions of pounds in illegal parking fines, The Telegraph has learned.
By David Millward,
Transport Editor
30 May 2008

At least 80 councils across the country continued to take money from drivers for 16 months even though they had been told by the national parking adjudicator that their tickets did not comply with the law.
Others have been victims of local authorities who have enforced fines even though their road markings were illegal and, in some cases, where parking bays were narrower than the width of a family car. More ...

Last night, the Department for Transport said councils should "seriously consider" contacting motorists and reimbursing any fines that were illegally imposed.