Newham Council are Cheats - #44

 

It is evident from google street view that this is a location where signs get damaged and by the evidence of this motorist removed altogther.

Fairly rourtine cheating by Newham Council. There was not a sign in the bay where the car was parked so the 'traffic warden' (CEO / officer) took a photograph of a sign in a different bay, one which unless you are informed by signage as to the rules may well have different ones.

Newham Council must know by now, this being one of dozens of cases Mr Mustard has written about that cpz signage does not set the restrictions for parking bays but only for unsigned yellow lines.

They removed the car to the pound so the traffic warden cheated, the back office cheated in rejecting perfect representations and in opposing the Appeal to the independent adjudicator who wasn't having any of it.

The end but not of cheating at Newham Council.

Barnet - paper visitor vouchers/permits - how to obtain them

 

 

On 1 November the parking enforcement contractor changed from NSL to APCOA. There are various other contractors doing other things (notwithstanding that the APCOA uniform says they are in 'partnership' with Barnet Council, toffee, you are servants, mere paid lackeys or mercenaries as many may view you).

Thus NSL Apply gave way to MiPermit and your data for a cpz residents or other types of permit was passed over to MiPermit whose data must be available to APCOA so they can know you have the right to park where you have.

Although virtual visitor vouchers/permits can be purchased through the MiPermit system you can't apply on line for paper permits. That does actually make sense as the people who really need paper permits, elderly people perhaps living on their own and not users of computers, smart phones or a car need paper vouchers they can give to visiting family or tradespeople. It is simpler and quicker for them. Other people find them easier, for example Mr Mustard himself, who gives 4 vouchers at a time to his gardener so that she can visit at her convenience whether Mr Mustard is at home or not and on two of the last 3 visits he has not been home. Halfway around the M25 on his way to Guildford is not a good time to try and buy a virtual permit on his phone.

The arrangements may not have been concluded by 1 November and two of Mr Mustard's neighbours tried and failed to obtain paper vouchers. Once Mr Mustard asked for clear instructions from the council he got some and he has streamlined the process to turn two phone calls into one.

You do not need an miPermit account in order to buy paper vouchers.

You do have to prove you live within a cpz.

Step 1: Send an email to help@mipermit.com with the heading 'Paper visitor vouchers' and attach proof of residence, as follows:

One copy of the following documents (except for the utility bills where you are required to provide two copies).

Council Tax demand within the last 12 month period showing your name and address within the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) that you currently live in.

Signed rent agreement within the last 12 month period showing your name and address within the CPZ.

Signed solicitor’s letter showing the house purchase completion date and also showing your name and address within the CPZ.

Two utility bills from different suppliers within the last 12 months showing your name and address within the CPZ. Not mobile phone bills.

Driving licence showing your name and address within the CPZ.

Formats allowed are are jpg, png and pdf.

Step 2: Phone 0345 520 7007 (Monday to Friday 8am – 6pm, Saturdays 8am - 4pm and on Sundays and Bank Holidays 10am - 4pm) and tell the MiPermit employee you want to buy permits, tell them the email address you emailed from and then you will be able to say how many paper permits you would like (minimum 12 maximum 200) provide your credit or debit card details and they will be with you in days.

You can buy both virtual and paper permits if you need a mix.

I have assumed eveyone has email but if you can't you won't be reading this blog. MiPermit will doubtless provide a postal address on request if you still do things that way and maybe still use cheques.

Simples.

 

 

 

Greenacre Walk - Friday 5 December 2025

 

Corporate data under FOI

 

When Mr Mustard saw this FOI information in the online register he thought it must be a mistake, he thought the data would not be disclosable but he was wrong, as he sometimes is.

He took advice from a proper expect in the area and was told this:

Take that as your cue to ask any questions you like about councils and companies.

If you get a ZipCar transferred liability Notice to Owner or postal PCN do email mrmustard@zoho.com as liability transfer is often done wrongly.

Southwark Council - bus lane PCN template error

 

A short bus lane in Southwark Bridge Road

There are a few professional PCN fighters who link up in disparate loose ways. One such is Phillip Morgan and Mr Mustard has to raise his hat to him for his work on bus lanes in Southwark.

 

Council blunders simply never stop even when all they have to do is to copy some words out of the legislation.

 

It was Phillip who spotted Southwark's major blunder in that the words on their PCN were simply not correct thus rendering a PCN a meaningless piece of paper.

Here is a copy of the Freedom of Information response he was sent in August 25:

Full credit to Southwark Council for throwing in the towel (they had to be prodded a few times before they were forced to do this) but a news report elsewhere tells Mr Mustard that the contractor picked up the tab. If a contractor can swallow a hit of half a million pounds they are being overpaid for the services supplied?

There will doubtless be another blunder along soon.

The end. 

Barnet v Barnet (except)

Mr Mustard always looks at tribunal decisions when councils are fighting themselves or each other.

What appears to Mr Mustard to be the background motive here is Barnet Council holding Mr Hoskar liable for the penalty. Mr Mustard does not know what his Contract of Employment states.

 

Mr Mustard asked Barnet Council (using the Freedom of Information legislation) for certain sections of the Evidence Pack provided to the tribunal and by the council to themselves. It was quickly provided on the second request, the first one perhaps not having got through on email. Let's go through it.

We start with the original postal PCN

That led to a representation on 18 December 24 that the vehicle was contracted out at the time and a copy of the front page of the Rental Agreement was provided (price redacted by Mr Mustard).

Following that representation liability for the penalty was transferred to Barnet Council. It should not have been.

The first reason is simple. The rental agreement is with Car Hire (Day of Swansea) Ltd which is not the company named on the PCN (albeit it may be within the same group) and therefore has no standing to make a representation.

The second is that liability can only be transferred for hire periods of less than 6 months. This agreement is for 12 months.

Liability could be transferred if there is a sufficient degree of permanence to the keepership by the renter but as we don't have all of the terms of the rental that cannot be established. Mr Mustard lost at the tribunal on that ground when he tried it for a 12 month hire.

Barnet Council therefore erred in transferring liability from CEM to itself.

Had they not done so CEM would probably (it is rare for rental companies to fight the actual contravention) have paid the PCN and charged the council for it along with an admin fee for so doing. The council would then have asked their employee to pay it.

The council duly sent itself a PCN.

The PCN was challenged on 21 January 2025, not by the council, but by the driver despite the PCN saying this:

The word 'Person' includes a Company or Council.

The challenge follows:

The challenge was as poor as the driving but more of that later.

Barnet Council could simply have ignored the unauthorised representations but most enforcement authorities write to the liable party and invite them to confirm the right of the third party or to make a representation in their own name. The council did this on 5 February and 24 February which was generous but they were writing to themselves. It turns out, based upon the part of the file which Mr Mustard holds, that a valid representation was made on 18 February.

 

The council rejected the representation on 3 March 25. On 31 March the council asked itself for more time to pay as Mr Hoskar had been absent on leave and 7 more days were granted on 1 April in which to pay at 50% which was the council being generous to itself. By the end of those 7 days the time limit for making an Appeal to the tribunal had expired.

 

Neither payment was made nor an Appeal started so on 22 April the council sent itself a charge certificate increasing the penalty to £195

 

On 17 May the tribunal accepted an out of time Appeal and thus the penalty reverted to £130. Mr Hosker must have thought he could beat the PCN. By starting an Appeal barnet Council had to pay a c.£40 fee to the tribunal which they don't see again, win or lose.

 

The outcome of the Appeal is at the top of the blog. Barnet Council lost and Barnet Council won, Mr Hosker lost. Now let's look at his driving.

Here is the situation that faced him at the moment of imminent entry to the box:

From his high vantage point the driver could see that traffic was stopped ahead, it often has to stop because of the pedestrian crossing. He should have stopped where he was. 100% he was the victim of his own bad driving choice and ended up in contravention as below:

Look what the car behind him did, he changed lanes and drove to the front of the queue. There was ample time for the cctv van to have safely done the same. A generous description is that the driving was sub-optimal and it wouldn't be unfair to say that it was inept.

The whole case has been a riot of ineptitude.

There don't seem to be as many council v council cases as there used to be but Mr Mustard will report on them when they occur.

Hounslow Council find the end of the road

 

Car drivers are in the habit of finding every possible extra parking space. This location is one that ended up at the tribunal where the PCN was cancelled for the simple reason that the alleged contravention had not occurred. The mistake the traffic warden (CEO) made is a common one or it isn't a mistake, they are just taking a flyer.

This wasn't one of Mr Mustard's cases so he doesn't have any photos for you but we can surmise that a car was parked in the middle of the carriageway fairly close to the brick wall which terminates the carriageway. Mr Mustard expects the car was within the white rectangle.

The neighbours probably have an arrangement to block each other in and move when required. An arrangement with a traffic warden is a dangerous one as they come and go and their boss might intervene.

If you are so parked both sides of your car are more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and if the car was reversed in then the front of the car is also more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway. However, providing the car is backed up to within 50cm of the wall, as it must have been in this case, it is not in contravention.

Not only should the traffic warden not have issued the PCN, the council should not have rejected the representations and nor should they have resisted the Appeal but £130 was at stake and that causes errors of judgments within councils, not just Hounslow..