Newham Council are Cheats - #36

 

 

The motorist alleged vindictiveness, he was correct. He had done nothing wrong. The law is crystal clear, councils must put a sign next to every bay (a painted legend is also a sign). For a Doctors Bay that applied 24/7 a legend painted on the ground might be seen to be sufficient but for almost everything less there must be a sign on a pole setting out who can park there and when.

 

Newham Council are breaking the law multiple times. There isn't an overseer who can stop councils from misbehaving, the law is based on the assumption that they will exercise their powers fairly, that is less and less the case these days because of the money.

 

 

Newham Council are Cheats - #35

 

In this unusual case in which a member of the public repainted the bay lines and thus effectively moved a parked car out of a bay and it thus became adjacent to a dropped kerb the council just ignored the obvious truth.

In the below photo the 'traffic warden' is coming into view. 

The back office didn't then take any notice of the traffic order which Mr Mustard put into the tribunal Appeal evidence at the start, which showed how long the bay should be.

Cheats all the way. 

Redbridge Council - not so fast

On 4 June Mr Mustard lost a tribunal appeal which related to Redbridge Council. He advised his client to pay the £110 within the 28 days allowed, which was done. The motorist also very generously made a donation to the North London Hospice.

On 9 June Mr Mustard filed a Review request at the tribunal. The Chief Adjudicator considered it and listed it for a Review hearing on 2 July. At the Review hearing the original decision was over-turned and Redbridge Council were ordered to make a refund of the £110 'without delay'.

Mr Mustard thinks that allowing 28 days is reasonable for any refund, that being the same timetable as the public gets to pay up in.

On 30 July the motorist chased Redbridge for his refund. Silence ensued, a refund didn't arrive.

He kept on chasing to no avail and then asked Mr Mustard for his advice.

Mr Mustard gave him the direct email of a manager who he had previously dealt with. That was on 17 September. A reply wasn't received but a refund was.

Perhaps the apology is 'in the post'.

Councils should put as much effort into a refund as motorists have to do into paying them promptly. If the boot had been on the other foot the council could have increased the penalty to £165. There will be no compensation for the delay by the council.

Councils should also have good manners. They would be better regarded if they did. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #34

 

 

 

Newham Council had been rumbled by the adjudicator who had made a previous decision for this location. Newham Council tried to stretch the meaning of their traffic order but it didn't work. Cheats.

Newham Council are Cheats - #33

 

This case went wrong at the first hearing but was put right by a very experienced adjudicator.

Another bay with no sign. More cheating by Newham Council which they nearly got away with.

Newham Council are Cheats - #32

 

This is point blank cheating which Newham Council should have learnt by now given the body of allowed Appeals.

Newham Council are Cheats - #31

 

This is the same situation as occurred in cheat #9 Newham Council should not be blaming the motorist when they know from other cases that their system was at fault.

It is a blatant lie that the payer can choose the amount to pay. Mr Mustard tested the payment system with an old overdue PCN of a client and got the following answer:

The payment amount is fixed by the system.

Newham Council dropped a clanger and need to 'suck it up'.

Newham Council are Cheats - #30

 

'Traffic wardens' shouldn't be wandering onto private land to issue PCNs, that may be a trespass. 

Here is the location as it probably is today

The council's remit extends only as far as the fence line which, despite the absence of a fence, is the edge of the pavement, where the broadband cabinet is.

This is what it used to look like

The cheating never stops in Newham.

Newham Council are Cheats - #29

 

Another day, more routine cheating from Newham Council starting with their traffic warden and supported by the back office.

The signs have been a problem since at least 2022

The sign on the left is for a different bay than the sign on the right which is for the cars you can see.

In the above case the removal of the car to the car pound was unlawful, a shock to the motorist, a nuisance and probably a Human Rights breach. 

Cheating is still ongoing today.

Newham Council are Cheats - #26 - #28

 

Three cheating PCNs issued to the same vehicle, one might think that a traffic warden was targeting it (whether the same traffic warden issued all three PCNs is not known). We don't therefore know whether there are three cheating traffic wardens or just the one triple cheat. Neither answer is satisfactory.

Remobing the vehicle was cheating, based on no and/or false evidence. 

The back office fail to do anything about the cheating which has gone on so they are cheats just the same, presenting misleading evidence to the adjudicator.

Newham Council are Cheats - #25

 

Newham Council were unable to provide photographs of signs because there were none, which Mr Stupu had been at pains to check.

Newham Council are Cheats.

Newham Council are Cheats - #24

 

Here we go again.

A CEO (Civil Enforcement officer, or traffic warden as was) records 's&l ok' which stands for 'signs and lines ok'. That was a lie. The motorist had their own proof of signage being absent and it is clear that the traffic warden photographed a sign from another bay, which does not apply, every bay can have different rules so assuming is dangerous.

Checking on google street view we see that the first bay on the left was missing its sign in 2022 with the sign in the second bay being ok. That makes the first bay free and the traffic warden a cheat and supported by the back office who ignore inconvenient facts and reject perfect challenges.

 Newham Council are Cheats.

Newham Council are Cheats = #23

 

Not clearly warning motorists of a suspended area and then removing their vehicle, there being no evidence to show what vehicles were there when the sign went up, looks like cheating to Mr Mustard.

Newham Council are Cheats - #22

 

Usual cheating from Newham Council - a warning notice, even a zero value warning PCN, has zero legal application to a future event of parking, even by the same driver (the council don't know if the same person was driving on both occasions) nor does it replace the legal requirement for signs, given that the rules of the bay in, say, October, could be different in November.

Their time would be better spent in fixing signs. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #21

 

More unlawful vehicle removal of a vehicle parked in a bay devoid of signage.

Newham Council are criminal cheats. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #20

 

In this case Newham Council made up a rule about the time it takes a lady to load not one but two 20kg bags of rice plus other purchases, for which she needed the assistance of the shopkeeper. Whilst the council might claim there was continuous observation, and that isn't clear from the available information, their photos are always devoid of dates and times so whether or not the CEO wandered round the corner to deal with other cars at the same time is unknown.

Making up rules is cheating.

Newham Council clearly (& wrongly) made a point that paying isn't loading but they need to read the key cases on loading on the tribunal website, coincidentally by this very adjudicator, of Jane Packer Flowers and Bosworth & Others (sitting in that case with a second adjudicator) which set out very useful guidance for motorists and councils alike. 

These are the relevant words about pre-ordering a chair but not having paid for it until collection:

'The fact that he had not pre-paid for it would not, in our view, be fatal to a correct use of the loading bay.'

Never mind a bag of rice, you need a sack of salt when reading rejection letters from Newham Council.

Newham Council are Cheats - #19

 

If there is a danger that you will be deprived of your car there should be a large clear sign on the way into the car park and consistent signage throughout (this car park is a small surface car park). Other councils provide an out of hours release service for a fee. That would be more reasonable than forcing someone to find their own way home, possibly late at night, all the way to Canterbury. That is far enough but they could have been from somewhere they couldn't easily get to and be faced with a hotel bill instead.

Presenting misleading information was cheating the motorist.

Newham Council are Cheats - #18

 

Mr Mustard thinks that Newham Council are being conveniently stupid in order to facilitate their PCN issuing frenzy and stop motorists from having free parking (cash or permit free).

Many adjudicators have now spelt out the law, that a parking bay must have a sign. The prior issue of a warning notice is no substitute for the legally required sign. 

Mr Mustard has now found this on the Newham Council website

This is compeltely wrong. The law is that the motorist is obliged to adhere to the rules set out in the traffic order which the council are under a duty to bring the provisions of to your attention by signs.

The driver is under no duty whatsoever to get a mobile phone out, even assuming they have one or have one with them, to start researching the rules which the council must tell you by signage.

Don't tell a CEO of a missing sign, they themselves should be reporting them but instead they are likely to issue a PCN and mark the vehicle down for removal.

Newham Council admit they are Cheats, they tell the public that they are.

Newham Council are Cheats - #17

 

The adjudicator may well be correct in that the CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer or 'traffic warden') was present at the moment when the signs were changed or it could just have been unlucky timing but there are only 26 minutes to play with.

When signs are replaced the registration numbers of already parked vehicles should be taken so that if they are given a PCN it can be cancelled by the back office.

The morning briefing for traffic wardens should also notify them of signs which are being changed that day so that they can steer clear for the day.

The back office carried on with their apparently ignorance based cheating. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #16

 

Yet another case in which the CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer or 'traffic warden') cheated by taking photographs of irrelevant signs in order to try and support a penalty charge. The resident's local knowledge was useful, the bogus sign photographed was always likely to be nearby.

It led to another unlawful vehicle removal.

Newham Council are cheats.