Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

In March last year, I was a passenger in my car when my better half
parked it in a tight space. I looked, thought it just reasonable, and we
went off.

When we returned, I found a code 26 parking ticket saying the vahicle
was more than 50 centimetres from the footpath.

This is the result of London only legislation and is usually applies to
double parking.

I used the edge of an A4 sheet of paper and a pencil to record the
distances of the nearside front and rear wheels from the footpath.
I later measured those distances as 47 and 53 centimetres.

I asked Haringey to point out the statute which they did not do.
A knowledgeable person in the City of London referred me to section 6 of
the London Local Authorities Act 2000.

In my appeal, I referred Haringey to the law and asked them to cancel
the ticket. They did not accept my appeal.

In August, I appealed to PATAS, won, and my Penalty Charge was voided.

Costs are not normally awarded in parking ticket appeals. They are only
awarded against a party who has acted in a completely unreasonable
fashion. Councils usually warn owners that they risk costs and, at the
same time, half the prospective damage. The PATAS annual reports do not
give cost award statistics.

Statistics suggest about 60% of appeals to PATAS succeed. I have
observed several appeals and am surprised so many work. The criterion is
that the charge was wrong in law.

PATAS appeals are held in New Zealand House and, theoretically, are open
to the public. NZ House security staff discourage entry to persons who
are not involved in an appeal because PATAS and the NZ High Commission
are in the same building. I complained on this without success to the
chief adjudicator but was never prevented from entry when I wanted it.

Yesterday, I got a costs award against Haringey. A mere twenty pounds,
but the vindication is superb.
--
Walter Briscoe

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

Walter Briscoe ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

In March last year, I was a passenger in my car when my better half
parked it in a tight space. I looked, thought it just reasonable, and
we went off.

When we returned, I found a code 26 parking ticket saying the vahicle
was more than 50 centimetres from the footpath.

This is the result of London only legislation

Good for London.

I used the edge of an A4 sheet of paper and a pencil to record the
distances of the nearside front and rear wheels from the footpath.
I later measured those distances as 47 and 53 centimetres.

And you thought 18" away from the kerb "looked reasonable"? Was the taxi
expensive?

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

In message , Walter Briscoe
writes
PATAS appeals are held in New Zealand House and, theoretically, are
open to the public. NZ House security staff discourage entry to persons
who are not involved in an appeal because PATAS and the NZ High
Commission are in the same building.

I understand the security implications but meeting either *are* open to
the public or they are *not*. "discouraging" people from entering is a
pointless exercise and not enough to actually keep people out.

Perhaps they need a new venue somewhere less sensitive. Suggestions,
team? ;-)

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...

Yesterday, I got a costs award against Haringey.

Ah - you meant your council, not your counsel...

Paul

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...
I later measured those distances as 47 and 53 centimetres.

That's not 'parking' - that's 'leaving the car in the middle of the road
and doing a runner'!

Ian

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

Perhaps they need a new venue somewhere less sensitive. Suggestions,
team? ;-)


I hear there's a place in Greenwich that's available :-)

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

In message of Fri, 2 Feb 2007
12:07:57 in uk.transport.london, Paul Scott
writes

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...

Yesterday, I got a costs award against Haringey.

Ah - you meant your council, not your counsel...

Touched! ;)

I don't object to the law. I object to its obscurity and to a council
(thanks) taking money with a law which is not understood by either the
relevant attendant or the appeals service. Another sensible London-only
law (I don't have a reference to the statute to hand) makes blocking a
driveway an offence.

In California - where I first passed a driving test - the corresponding
distance is a foot and, AFAIR, both nearside wheels have to be within
that distance.

P.S. Can somebody point to the detailed law which applies to Bus lanes?
I note the lack of timing consistency results in many treating all of
them as "at any time". I recently went through about 6 which did not
apply. The 7th was "at any time" and I did not spot that until I checked
back later. Fortunately, no camera seems to have recorded my inadvertent
offence.

P.P.S. Before 2000, we used to visit friends who lived in a 4 lane
residential street. None of the houses had off-street parking. Residents
used to double park and co-operate when a blocked car moved. It worked
well enough for them.
--
Walter Briscoe

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

"Ian F." wrote:
I later measured those distances as 47 and 53 centimetres.

That's not 'parking' - that's 'leaving the car in the middle of the road
and doing a runner'!

And that joke comes courtesy of this week's Mock The Week.....

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

"AstraVanMan" wrote in message
...

And that joke comes courtesy of this week's Mock The Week.....

Rats! Foiled again! ;-)

Ian

Costs against counsel over parking ticket.
 

Walter Briscoe wrote in
:

In message of Fri, 2 Feb 2007
12:07:57 in uk.transport.london, Paul Scott
writes

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...

Yesterday, I got a costs award against Haringey.

Ah - you meant your council, not your counsel...

Touched! ;)

I don't object to the law. I object to its obscurity and to a council
(thanks) taking money with a law which is not understood by either the

Counsel would take _much_ more!!!