Status of PATAS Appeal

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I thought you might find the following interesting. It is an extract from a letter I received from PATAS following an adjournment of one of the cases I am fighting:

 

The Adjudicator considering this appeal is concerned that the local authority have not adequately, or indeed at all, replied to the matters raised by the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal and representations, with respect to the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice of Appeal (sic). The Adjudicator is of the opinion that the comment ‘[LA] Parking services believe that the PCN and NtO are compliant with the RTA’ is insufficient in light of the Appellant’s detailed submissions. The Adjudicator is of the view that a motorist’s confidence that his submissions have been considered must include some reference to why the local authority say his submissions are wrong or not been accepted, to do otherwise will cause motorists to believe that they have not really been considered and lose confidence in the parking service provided by the local authority. The words ‘fully considered’, ‘full consideration’ and ‘investigated the comments’ sound hollow if there is no explanation as to why the points have been rejected. . . . The Adjudicator also wishes to be informed if they are aware or not if the parking attendants they use are subcontractors or employees of the Company they have contracted to use parking attendants pursuant to section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 as amended by section 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

 

The Adjudicator requests that the local authority provide a response within 21 days, failure to do so will result in the Adjudicator deeming that the LA are no longer contesting this appeal.

 

The subcontractors/employees issue is the NCP issue.

 

I suggested to the Adjudicator that the LA would most likely not bother to go to the effort of replying and he replied that that was rather what he was hoping!

[Guest louis wu]

fingers crossed for you mate, good luck.

 

louis

[Medusa]

I suggested to the Adjudicator that the LA would most likely not bother to go to the effort of replying and he replied that that was rather what he was hoping!

 

YES brilliant!

Whats wrong?

 

Too much replying and replied by similar bodies!

 

Otherwise problems in coping heading towards a roping.

 

BTW "LA", should be "council". A LA gets its title when it earns it, not by sticking a label on it.

 

Just a comment for a lovely sunny day.

[adamna]

I don't understand why the LA (or council ) get a second bite at the cherry. This happened in my case too. The adjudicator found that the rejection of representation 'contained several incorrect statements' (all the reasons they gave were wrong) and that they had 'fettered their discretion'. Surely that should be the end of it? With bells on. It would be in any other 'court'.

 

Something a bit stinky in the World of Appeals if not.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I don't understand why the LA (or council ) get a second bite at the cherry. This happened in my case too. The adjudicator found that the rejection of representation 'contained several incorrect statements' (all the reasons they gave were wrong) and that they had 'fettered their discretion'. Surely that should be the end of it? With bells on. It would be in any other 'court'.

 

Something a bit stinky in the World of Appeals if not.

 

This is a thing I have up my sleeve.

I requested a personal hearing. Council is asked for more evidence PATAS say this will be reviewed and I will be advised of outcome by post but I reckon I should be given the opportunity of rebuttal.

So if it goes againt me I aske for review in the interests of justice and "second bite of the cherry" was exactlt the term I had in mind!

[adamna]

That's exactly what I'm doing, except I have addressed the original adjudicator first for his comments, but not heard back at all. Yes, I believe you have the right to comment on any further info they provide: (references with thanks to Medusa)

 

T A Miller v Ministry of Housing Local Government (1968 ) "The person at risk should have an opportunity to comment on materials being considered by the decision maker and to contradict them".

 

Wiseman v Borneman (1971) Lord Morris "I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be affected by the tribunal’s decision"

 

R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley "The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to controvert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."

 

I am always nervous that they 'know what they are doing' and therefore can't have done it wrong, but then again I'm not so sure....

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Sadly the LA have responded, however I wondered what your thoughts might me on the following:

 

The PATAS hearing was on 12 February. The PATAS letter was dated 12 February. The letter said:

 

The Adjudicator requests that the local authority provide a response within 21 days, failure to do so will result in the Adjudicator deeming that the LA are no longer contesting this appeal.

 

and then:

 

The case will come back into the list for decision on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 and will be considered by an Adjudicator as soon as possible after that date.

 

The "Adjournment Evidence Form" that the LA have provided state "Date sent to Appellant as 4 March 2008" and the covering letter is dated the same day. I received them on the 6th March.

 

I do not know as the evidence is undated when it was provided to the adjudicator. I am hoping it was the same date.

 

My questions are this:

 

When PATAS said

The Adjudicator requests that the local authority provide a response within 21 days

Is that a response to PATAS only or to PATAS and me?

Does LA just have to mailed to or have docs actually with [whoever] within 21 days?

If the clock starts ticking on 12 Feb (ie 12 Feb is day 1), is 4 March day "within 21 days"? I reckon 4 March is day 22.

Based on the wording quoted above, do you reckon the adjudicator has discretion to accept late evidence?

 

Personally I think the LA were out of time in their response

[Medusa]

This is just a quickie as I am in a meeting.

 

Is that a response to PATAS only or to PATAS and me?

 

You should be entitled to see what the council has put up, in order to comment or controvert it.

 

It is a fundamental principle of law, for decision makers, and even decision fakers.

 

Your decison maker looks upright I would say, so far.

 

 

Right to see documents relied on.

 

T A Miller v Ministry of Housing Local Government (1968) "The person at risk should have an opportunity to comment on materials being considered by the decision maker and to contradict them".

 

Wiseman v Borneman (1971) Lord Morris "I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be affected by the tribunal’s decision"

 

R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley "The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to contravert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."

 

Just a comment on what SHOULD take place in a fair world.

look at the analysis of decision makers and their dependence and accountability on the Insight thread here, last medusa post.

 

The above three rulings have come from

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/caselaw.html

Insight thread below

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/126075-insight-entire-procedure-misconduct.html

[adamna]

I was sent the papers from 'the other side' on the day after they were supposed to arrive at PATAS, dated the day before (the deadline date), but sent by Special Delivery which reveals the inaccuracy, and of course I didn't get them 'till the day after that. I think it was surely done to preclude me from making comment, and as there were 17 pages of responses to the adjudicator's questions, I ought to be given reasonable time to analyse and formulate a response. It obviously wasn't possible within the deadline imposed, and never a suggestion that I could respond outside it.

 

There was no reference to what date they were submitted to PATAS beyond 'evidence we have submitted'. Not good enough. It would seem to be formulaic to do this if we've both had the same experience.

 

It's going to a review at PATAS, (on a day I can't attend so I have to request a new date), and I have included the issue of being denied comment in my objection.

[Ellie May]

This all sounds fastinating! I assume that the background to the incident / complaint is on here somewhere? If so can you point me to it as I would love a read.

 

Thanks

[adamna]

Mine's not on here in fullness as I'm going for Judicial Review, and I'd like to keep the detail under wraps until then. It's very long and complex, and reveals my identity. You can pm me with an email address if you want to see the proposed press release.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This all sounds fastinating! I assume that the background to the incident / complaint is on here somewhere? If so can you point me to it as I would love a read.

 

Thanks

 

Not mine either. I will publish on conclusion, whatever the outcome.

[Ellie May]

Ooooh very cloak and dagger!! I shall await the full details with baited breath. Best of luck to you both in the meantime.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Here's an update. The Adjudicator has adjourned again to give the LA a 3rd bite of the cherry.

 

I am invited to submit further evidence and I shall be stating why I feel the LA's answers should be disregarded!

[adamna]

Are 2nd and 3rd bites of the cherry allowed? If they want to maintain that Patas is a 'proper court' surely proper court rules should apply. They are nice and 'informal' until they formally tell you you have to pay.

 

I've got my Patas review very very shortly where I will object to the detail of the 2nd bite of the cherry. I want to deal with the serious mistakes made in the 1st bite! Thereafter, we're off to the big one, just in time for the elections

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Are 2nd and 3rd bites of the cherry allowed? If they want to maintain that Patas is a 'proper court' surely proper court rules should apply. They are nice and 'informal' until they formally tell you you have to pay.

 

I've got my Patas review very very shortly where I will object to the detail of the 2nd bite of the cherry. I want to deal with the serious mistakes made in the 1st bite! Thereafter, we're off to the big one, just in time for the elections

 

I have no idea whether 2nd or 3rd bites are allowed. What concerns me is that I had no opportunity to give a rebuttal of the new evidence at the 2nd bite of the cherry and if I lost this would have formed a central plank of my request for a review of the decision.

 

With the 3rd bite I am asked if I want to submit further evidence so this then rectifies the issue at the 2nd bite.

 

However, I'm rather hoping that the trump card exists of the evidence the LA submitted at the 2nd bite should not have been admitted by the adjudicator as it was submitted out of time.

 

Of course it's always perfectly possible that I will win on the merits of the case!

[adamna]

Well I 'lost' and similarly didn't have an opportunity to respond within time limits. The merits of mine are 'discretionary' which Patas have no juristiction over anyway!!! Am having a review just to go through 'procedure' before JR and another day out. Like I haven't got better things to do. But every time the other side opens it's Word Document it seems to make things worse, for them.

 

How did you get offered a 3rd hearing? Mine was decided on the 2nd bite in my absence.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

How did you get offered a 3rd hearing? Mine was decided on the 2nd bite in my absence.

 

Adjudicator wasn't happy with one aspect of what the LA said so asked for clarification.

 

Kinda has me concerned that he was happy with the rest of their responses!

[adamna]

At least you've got an opportunity to bring that up.