Motorist fined for parking outside home

Times Series: Aladdin Fatherazi Aladdin Fatherazi

A motorist fined for parking outside his house is “disappointed” after an independent adjudicator refused to waive the charge.

Aladdin Fatherazi, of Holders Hill Road, Hendon, parked his white BMW on the street during a match day at nearby Allianz Park Rugby Stadium.

Residents are required to display a special permit on their cars when a game is taking place - but he claimed he was unaware of the fixture on September 15.

The 61-year-old claims he applied for a permit from Barnet Council by post last June - but when he did not get a response he assumed the rules had changed.

When he was slapped with the £110 fine, he took the matter to an independent adjudicator, who ruled in the council’s favour.

Architect Mr Fatherazi said: “It’s astonishing. I’m furious I received the ticket in the first place. It’s quite clear I live here, so I don’t see what the problem is.

“I’m disappointed the adjudicator didn’t listen to me. It’s not my fault the council didn’t get back to me with a permit.”

After losing the appeal, Mr Fatherazi was sent a list of retrospective fixtures from June to November 2013 and is still awaiting a permit.

The father-of-one usually leaves his car in the drive, but chose to park on the street while the front of his house was being painted.

His story echoes that of the Walters family, of Flower Lane, Mill Hill, who were also ticketed for failing to display a permit on a match day - but in that instance the charge was waived.

He added: “It’s double standards with different rules for different people. It doesn’t seem fair at all. I genuinely thought I didn’t have to display a permit as I didn’t hear back from the council.”

Explaining his findings, adjudicator Gerald Styles said: “It seems to me he most certainly did know his road was the subject of special restrictions at the time.

“Any suggestion that a driver in the Fatherazi home could be genuinely ignorant of the new scheme is not plausible in any way.

“I have been shown a copy of a local newspaper report arising from a ticket given in a different road, where the council chose to cancel liability from considerations of good will. That cancellation does not perform as a precedent.

“Complaints about delay (in getting the permit) would not justify me in overturning the penalty charge.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:05am Mon 6 Jan 14

barnet head says...

So he cannot be bothered to complete an application having been given months of warning for a free permit and vouchers and moans about a ticket. what a waste of everyones time.
So he cannot be bothered to complete an application having been given months of warning for a free permit and vouchers and moans about a ticket. what a waste of everyones time. barnet head
  • Score: 2

8:46am Mon 6 Jan 14

Mr. Datchery says...

I live in the area and while there are numerous instances where I think all Councils do their best to squeeze money out of residents for parking the Saracens parking system isn't one of them. There are numerous signs all over the place explaining the rules and they are regularly updated to show when the next match day is. There is no reason to get ticketed...if you can read.
I live in the area and while there are numerous instances where I think all Councils do their best to squeeze money out of residents for parking the Saracens parking system isn't one of them. There are numerous signs all over the place explaining the rules and they are regularly updated to show when the next match day is. There is no reason to get ticketed...if you can read. Mr. Datchery
  • Score: 2

12:50pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Not that Dave, another one. says...

Sometimes you have to interpret these cases from the standpoint of the authorities. If the adjudicator had permitted the argument about the Mill Hill family's case setting a precedent, then effectively all parking restrictions would become unenforceable. So that was always going to be the result. The article in the paper served as a timely reminder to others to get their permit sorted out, not as a reason not to bother.
Sometimes you have to interpret these cases from the standpoint of the authorities. If the adjudicator had permitted the argument about the Mill Hill family's case setting a precedent, then effectively all parking restrictions would become unenforceable. So that was always going to be the result. The article in the paper served as a timely reminder to others to get their permit sorted out, not as a reason not to bother. Not that Dave, another one.
  • Score: 1

7:52am Wed 8 Jan 14

barnet123 says...

Let me get my violin out for another resident who gets a fine then decides to contact the local paper as if it isn't in the slightest bit his fault
Let me get my violin out for another resident who gets a fine then decides to contact the local paper as if it isn't in the slightest bit his fault barnet123
  • Score: 3

10:26am Wed 8 Jan 14

Andrew Haynes says...

". . . when he did not get a response he assumed the rules had changed." And then he wasted the adjudicator's time by complaining. The man's an idiot. But he's a BMW driver, so what do you expect.
". . . when he did not get a response he assumed the rules had changed." And then he wasted the adjudicator's time by complaining. The man's an idiot. But he's a BMW driver, so what do you expect. Andrew Haynes
  • Score: 2

10:34pm Wed 8 Jan 14

You don't fool me says...

Not that Dave, another one. wrote:
Sometimes you have to interpret these cases from the standpoint of the authorities. If the adjudicator had permitted the argument about the Mill Hill family's case setting a precedent, then effectively all parking restrictions would become unenforceable. So that was always going to be the result. The article in the paper served as a timely reminder to others to get their permit sorted out, not as a reason not to bother.
Sorry but this is not quite correct Dave, Adjudicators are independent and have no legal powers to set a president. The same Adjudicator can decide two identical cases completely differently if he / she wishes on the same day even. Also one Adjudicator can rule completely differently to another, It's a crap system but there it is.
[quote][p][bold]Not that Dave, another one.[/bold] wrote: Sometimes you have to interpret these cases from the standpoint of the authorities. If the adjudicator had permitted the argument about the Mill Hill family's case setting a precedent, then effectively all parking restrictions would become unenforceable. So that was always going to be the result. The article in the paper served as a timely reminder to others to get their permit sorted out, not as a reason not to bother.[/p][/quote]Sorry but this is not quite correct Dave, Adjudicators are independent and have no legal powers to set a president. The same Adjudicator can decide two identical cases completely differently if he / she wishes on the same day even. Also one Adjudicator can rule completely differently to another, It's a crap system but there it is. You don't fool me
  • Score: 1

1:02pm Thu 9 Jan 14

The King Pin says...

Typical BMW driver, who thinks that the rules apply to everyone else but him and then is genuinely shocked when he is fined / pulled over!
Typical BMW driver, who thinks that the rules apply to everyone else but him and then is genuinely shocked when he is fined / pulled over! The King Pin
  • Score: 2

3:32pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Not that Dave, another one. says...

You don't fool me wrote:
Not that Dave, another one. wrote:
Sometimes you have to interpret these cases from the standpoint of the authorities. If the adjudicator had permitted the argument about the Mill Hill family's case setting a precedent, then effectively all parking restrictions would become unenforceable. So that was always going to be the result. The article in the paper served as a timely reminder to others to get their permit sorted out, not as a reason not to bother.
Sorry but this is not quite correct Dave, Adjudicators are independent and have no legal powers to set a president. The same Adjudicator can decide two identical cases completely differently if he / she wishes on the same day even. Also one Adjudicator can rule completely differently to another, It's a crap system but there it is.
I think you misread my comment. I am aware there is a difference between a court decision being legally binding on a lower court, and the non-binding nature of Adjudicators' (and Arbitrators') decisions. What I meant was that, especially in the light of the previous case where the family was let off, the Adjudicator was aware that the effect of allowing the complainant's argument on the basis of the previous case, would be sending a message to the public, the council, and other Adjudicators, that this acted as a precedent and thus was a valid reason for voiding the ticket. He was in fact disallowing the idea of legal precedent, and that was my point. It was always an argument he would disallow.
[quote][p][bold]You don't fool me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Not that Dave, another one.[/bold] wrote: Sometimes you have to interpret these cases from the standpoint of the authorities. If the adjudicator had permitted the argument about the Mill Hill family's case setting a precedent, then effectively all parking restrictions would become unenforceable. So that was always going to be the result. The article in the paper served as a timely reminder to others to get their permit sorted out, not as a reason not to bother.[/p][/quote]Sorry but this is not quite correct Dave, Adjudicators are independent and have no legal powers to set a president. The same Adjudicator can decide two identical cases completely differently if he / she wishes on the same day even. Also one Adjudicator can rule completely differently to another, It's a crap system but there it is.[/p][/quote]I think you misread my comment. I am aware there is a difference between a court decision being legally binding on a lower court, and the non-binding nature of Adjudicators' (and Arbitrators') decisions. What I meant was that, especially in the light of the previous case where the family was let off, the Adjudicator was aware that the effect of allowing the complainant's argument on the basis of the previous case, would be sending a message to the public, the council, and other Adjudicators, that this acted as a precedent and thus was a valid reason for voiding the ticket. He was in fact disallowing the idea of legal precedent, and that was my point. It was always an argument he would disallow. Not that Dave, another one.
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree