Barking & Dagenham Council got the law absolutely wrong in this case.
They had already rejected a good challenge by the motorist at the PCN stage.
Mr Mustard stepped in at the Notice to Owner stage. He used the council's online system which asks standard irrelevant questions. Whoever sent the rejection did not know what they were doing. Loading/unloading and boarding/alighting are completely different concepts.
The kerb marks would probably have been found to be inadequate as they are not bright and there should be one every 3 metres or so, so that there is always one adjacent to the vehicle.
Mr Mustard started an Appeal to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals. Just before the case was due to be heard Barking threw in the towel and cancelled the PCN.
Mr Mustard is concerned that most motorists would believe what a council writes no matter how wrong.
Sadly there is no remedy within legislation which obliged a council which contravenes the Regulations to pay a penalty. There should be in order to improve the quality of processing of representations.
The end.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.