Waltham Forest make the same error as Westminster

Readers with better memories than Mr Mustard will recall he recently wrote about a timing error made by the City of Westminster in their own favour, here.

It is a common error, Mr Mustard expects to write about it at least once again in the future, and today it is Waltham Forest Council in his sights. Let's go back to early May when Bobby (not his real name) received his Notice to Owner which was dated 1 May. Always prompt Bobby sent a copy to Mr Mustard who at that time was up to date so he made the formal representations on 4 May. Representations made by Mr Mustard follow a common layout with the signed authority to act embedded as an image, so it doesn't get forgotten.

Time passed, as it does, and Mr Mustard kept an eye on the balance on line and it was £80 on 10, 17, 23 and 31 May.

An email landed in Mr Mustard's inbox on 31 May with an attached letter. Here is the relevant part.

Mr Mustard decided to play for time, predicting a cock-up. He sent a whatsapp message to Bobby.

Not long later, another emailed letter landed in his inbox.

 Mr Mustard again updated his client.

Following that letter Mr Mustard expected that the Notice of Rejection would shortly arrive. It didn't. The balance did change to £40 on 11 June rather suggesting that the representations had been rejected and the 50% discount offered again, even though it doesn't need to be and many authorities are now playing hardball and not offering it, and it stayed at £40 on 16, 20 and 29 June and on 9 July. 

On 11 July Bobby sent a copy of the Notice of Rejection dated 8 July. Mr Mustard smiled, he knew the Notice was a procedural impropriety as it was unlawful. He started an Appeal to the independent tribunal on 19 July.

The Notice to Owner is defined as the Enforcement Notice. Strictly the PCN was still alive but there were no legal steps which could be taken to enforce it as it was over 6 months old.

Mr Mustard waited for the expected 'DNC' document (Do Not Contest) and on 5 August it reached the tribunal. The council sensibly threw in the towel rather than fight on and risk an application for costs for unreasonable behaviour. It was unreasonable but Mr Mustard had hardly incurred any costs in starting the Appeal and only qualifies as a lay person for £19 per hour when his time is far more valuable.

So this is the second enforcement authority in a month to have broken the law. Many processes within parking are automated with PCNs moving relentlessly forward through a series of steps. The one which should be automated to stop a council from breaking the law isn't automated. This is because most motorists wouldn't know, wouldn't dream even, that a council would break the law. The second is that it is assumed councils will be honest and follow the law, maybe that was the case decades ago when PCNs were decriminalised, not now they are a £multi million enterprise. The third is that there is no sanction from an outside supervisory body for the simple reason that there isn't an all powerful overseer.

Mr Mustard will have to fulfil part of that role.

The end, for now.