«

»

Apr 13 2013

Appealing a Parking Ticket in Harrow? You have a 50:50 Chance of Winning

parking_ticketOur friend Miss Feezance, over in Barnet, keeps a close eye on on the number of challenges that her Council gets to parking tickets, and reports that some weeks, up to two thirds of tickets issued in that borough get cancelled on appeal to PATAS. Indeed, Mr Mustard has written a very useful guide for Barnet all about appealing a parking ticket – and, of course, much the same applies in Harrow.

We’ve done a quick analysis of parking ticket appeals in Harrow over the last week (w/c April 8, 2013) to see what the numbers are for Harrow residents, should they be issued with, and challenge, a parking ticket. It’s fair to point out that we don’t know how many tickets are issued in the borough – perhaps it’s only the ones obviously issued in error that get appealed? Nonetheless, it’s pertinent to note that you should always park lawfully.

So, over the last week, PATAS saw 25 parking tickets appealed from Harrow residents, and it allowed the appeal (ie: got the ticket cancelled) for 13 of them – about a 50% success rate (or failure rate, depending how you look at it).

You can do your own research here, and, if you’re bored, go and look at Harrow’s PCN portal here (click on ‘Pay or Challenge’) to see the photos of any alleged contravention – you’ll just need the PCN number and the vehicle registration number, which PATAS will give you.

Some items of interest:

  • For April 8, four out of the six cancelled tickets were due simply because the Council didn’t send back their paperwork, thus, the appellant won by default. Another winner was where the Council didn’t send the PCN within the 21 days that it has to do so. Finally, in another win, the adjudicator said that the Council “…have provided… a copy of a Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) in respect of a wholly different vehicle and owner and said to have been in a very different place.”
  • On April 9, Ms Liu had her ticket cancelled because the Council couldn’t convince the adjudicator that their CCTV system was approved by the Secretary of State, and thus, wasn’t issued lawfully.
  • Four cases on April 11, 2013, got cancelled without any effort, because again, no evidence had been sent in by the Council. One loser, however, was Mrs Fredericks, who thought that a Blude Badge permitted her to park with two wheels on the footway “whilst collecting some meat.”
  • Finally, one case on April 12th was lost on appeal. The appellant said he had to stop unlawfully to buy some Calpol for his child who had a fever. Despite having his wife also in the car, the adjudicator said that “There was no apparent reason why she could not have gone to the pharmacy while the Appellant drives round.” £110 won by the Council.

My thanks to Mr Mustard and Miss Feezance for the original idea, which we’ll do from time to time again in the future.

(Visited 436 times, 1 visits today)