Westminster City Council rigged parking appeals service computers ahead of hearing.

PATAS stands for The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, and PATAS, London Councils and the local London Authorities claim it to be an independent adjudication service.  Should you be in receipt of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and the Local Council have rejected the appeals made to them you can have another go at appealing with PATAS.

 

In our last post we described the cases of two black cab drivers who had received PCN’s and were attempting to appeal their PCN’s through PATAS. Both the drivers had chosen to have representatives to speak for them at the appeals.

 

Unlike normal appeals which are adjudicated by just one adjudicator, both these two PCNs were a special case because of a long running dispute over the legality of Westminster City Councils CCTV system. You can read our very long and sometimes technical post here, where you may spot that we called PATAS a kangaroo court and we said PATAS were anything but independent.

 

Now to the reason for this post, this is to publish a Freedom of Information (FoI) request that arrived only yesterday ( Download FoI here ). The FoI is important as it backs up what we said in our last post.

 

The FoI confirms that before the PATAS hearing on the 23rd May 2012, Westminster City Council had sent their own contractor in to PATAS’s offices to spend hours rigging their computers in an effort to try to ensure that the councils evidential DVDs would play. We also learn that this council contractor is Ms Elise Andrews.

 

It gets worse

 

If it were not bad enough that the so called independent adjudicators (PATAS) fully sanctioned Westminster City Councils IT people having access to the PATAS computers to give the council the best possible chance of winning the appeals, Ms Elise Andrews conducted un-monitored telephone chats with Richard Reeve, PATAS Tribunal Manager.

 

And worse

 

According to the councils FoI response there is no correspondence held by Westminster Council, its contractor Vertex or PATAS regarding Ms Andrews visits to the PATAS offices.

 

And worse

 

Even after all Westminster’s scheming behind the scenes to dishonesty rig the equipment at PATAS to their own advantage they still managed to spectacularly cock up the playback of both their own DVDs on the day of the hearing. Thank goodness ‘skippy’ Donavan was able reach into to her pouch to offer up emergency replacement evidential DVD’s. to a more that slightly worried looking Ms Andrews.

 

A kangaroo which had absolutely no part in smearing the reputations of three taxpayers

A kangaroo which had absolutely no part in smearing the reputations of three taxpayers

 

 

All this makes you think you have to leave your integrity at the door when you work for Westminster Council.

 

And worse

 

So perhaps in a superb piece of irony the Director of Legal Services for Westminster City Council, Peter Large decided to attack Nutsville, claiming amongst other things that we have no integrity and our post had been nasty to a member of his staff. Baffled as to how specifically we were nasty, as we did not Photoshop any of the photos in that post, perhaps we were meant to.

 

To see what we mean take a look at the multiple comments made by a rather unhinged Peter ‘Large to our last post. You can see why he’s worth every penny of the  £122,733 taxpayers hard earned the council say the Head of Legal can trouser each year.

 

Such a pity he has time to spend trolling on the Internet making completely wrong assumptions yet has no time to address any of the points we made in our last post.

 

“What’s that Skippy, there’s a man fallen down the well.”

 

“Don’t worry Skippy he’ll be fine, I hear he has a fantastic private health care package”

 

————————————————————————————————-

If you have a story you think we would be interested in please email:

news@nutsville.com

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

 

  • Share/Bookmark

2 Comments

Joe KingJune 20th, 2012 at 10:51 am

I think the answer to Question 8 on the FOI has been worded in such a way as to not be clear if any video footage had been downloaded onto a Hard Drive or Flash memory device.

ShaunJune 20th, 2012 at 12:00 pm

I agree. The actual question asked isn’t answered at all. The purpose of the visit wasn’t to “present evidence”.
Elise Andrews went to PATAS prior to the hearing and therefore can’t have been “presenting” evidence” as the hearing hadn’t taken place when she carried out her “work”.

I think another question would be “Provide full details of the work undertaken by Elise Andrews at PATAS, including step by step actions taken.”

Leave a comment

Your comment

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree