Let's start the story near the end, with the Grounds of Appeal to the independent tribunal.

The council response to the possibility of an independent qualified and experience lawyer looking at the evidence was to throw in the towel and DNC (Do not Contest) the Appeal.

This was curiously at odds with the reaction of the council when a challenge was made on the same basis, that a bay without a sign = free parking.

Here are some snippets from their rejection notice.

'Comments' were not made, a 'representation' was made. They were considered as carefully as a careless and carefree person would consider them.

No, the argument was that there was no signage although that could hardly be less clear. A common ploy is to reject an argument that wasn't made in order to try and give your rejection some authenticity. How can a sign which is not there be visible is quite the stretch.

The CEO's photographs do not show the car, the bay and the sign all in one photograph, because they can't. There was not a sign in place in the bay in question. The council cannot prove the contravention.

It is unfortunate that the council are terrible liars. There was no restriction in place because one was not communicated by a sign. Ultimately the onus is on the council, as stated in traffic Regulations, to erect and maintain signs. Barnet council often seem to forget any duties on themselves which although not onerous they find to be too much to manage.

Rarely has so much nonsense been fitted into three lines. Who is doing the 'deeming' ? why, it's Barnet Council, who aren't being independent here. There is such thing as a professional witness, but 'traffic wardens' don't come into that definition. Who is doing the 'considering', the council in this case and they aren't independent, they have a financial interest in the outcome. Mr Mustard has seen a tribunal decision in which the adjudicator laid into this point and said it was her job to decide on the weight of the evidence and the truthfulness of the witness.

Not true, the car was seen in a bay with no sign = a free bay. By 'nearby' the council mean in a different bay which is of no relevance to where the car was parked, each and every bay must have a sign of its own as there could be 10 bays in a street all with different rules.

No valid grounds were found because the person writing was blind to reason and fact. There is a huge shove in the final paragraph which tries to make the motorist worry that if they go to Appeal at the tribunal it will cost them more. The thing is though that unless you do risk the full value of the penalty you will never beat one so you need to make your mind up at the start as to how strong you think your case is.

What is wrong in this case is that the council didn't want their work to be the subject of independent scrutiny and if they don't have faith in their case they shouldn't be writing the utter tosh that they did write. The problem is though that the public trusts councils and whilst the rest of the council might well be worthy of that trust, many parking departments aren't and there is also the influence of outside contractors for whom this is just a job, not a vocation, to serve the public.

Mr Mustard's advice is to get your ducks in a row, learn everything you can about parking, and take no nonsense. Budget for the whole PCN value and fight the PCN if you think it is wrong. You have to develop some staying power as you might end up in a fight over three rounds but that is how Mr Mustard wins so often, by battling through every round. Every PCN taken to the tribunal which the council loses is c. £30 down the drain for the council in tribunal fees. If they get stuck with enough of them they might think a bit harder about accepting more representations at the earlier stage.

The end.