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