Sodded about by Southwark Council

Mr Mustard's client wasn't in a lorry but parked here perhaps because she had before when it was ok. As always he checked the rules in case there was a technical problem. The rules are map based in Southwark as they are in many boroughs these days and didn't disclose a loading bay at the location and so he challenged the PCN

 

 

The informal challenge was rejected.

Note the absence of any consideration of the traffic order in the response, the sign must tell drivers what the rules are, it can't be installed without underlying rules.

The Notice to Owner was patiently awaited and the same grounds were put forward.

This was a clearer way of expressing the challenge.

Good news that the PCN was cancelled although that was nothing to do with goodwill, why would a council show goodwill to a car driver getting in the way of a lorry driver trying to go about his work? Most people would stop there but Mr Mustard isn't happy being spoon-fed a load of tosh. If the mapping is the traffic order it cannot be both right and wrong. Mr Mustard therefore dragged the FOI/EIR team into the case. It is handy that they have to reply as getting a reply from parking once a PCN is closed is hard work.

The reply came and referred him to the source he had seen.

'Streets' is not as good as 'Traffweb' which other boroughs use.

Back went Mr Mustard for a proper response.

More nonsense followed:

There are no words setting the rules for particular locations, they are on the map, so back Mr Mustard went asking the vital question:

 

An attempt to baffle Mr Mustard by introducing yet another map system which he hadn't looked at or mentioned. It didn't work:

See how calm Mr Mustard was in the face of being led a merry dance. He asked the central question afresh and asked a very closed, yes or no, question. Finally we got there.

So finally we know, the signs are wrong and will be replaced.

Now you know the value of persistence which runs through Mr Mustard.

if you worry about the discount this is a good example of why you shouldn't. Had the motorist paid up then the council would have enjoyed an unjust enrichment of £80 (the 50% rate) and so all motorists should be trying to work out at the earliest stage exactly what their chances are and then sticking it out until they are proved correct. In this case we didn't have to go as far as the tribunal perhaps because Southwark Council know Mr Mustard well from meeting and opposing him at the tribunal (the meetings folk are fair, just their back office colleagues who are a bit below par based on this case) so that did save some time. Southwark also saved themselves from wasting the 330 tribunal fee.

If you are correct, stand your ground.

The end. 

Newham Council aren't Cheats - #1, but .......

 

What a world parking ticket enforcers live in. 

Newham Council think that extracting £130 from the wallet of a Doctor is more important than the life of a human being.

 

No Humanity in Hounslow

Councils have become overly reliant on PCN income and all humanity has been lost in the search for revenue.

Mr Mustard made the following formal representation which was basically a cry for help:

 

One would think that any person with a heart would let the one PCN go by the wayside given the fact that I am telling them that the motorist is seriously ill. No, all that matters is that you should give Hounslow Council £160, they not even offering the 50% discount again (it is optional at this stage but would have shown some empathy, fake though it would have been).

Here is what was written:

It seems that Hounslow Council don't understand that they have been asked to exercise their discretion as a goodwill gesture.

Looking at the elements of the response, we know why the PCN was issued, the details are on the Notice to Owner which prompted the representation.

The line which starts 'I have noted...' is otiose.

'Stressful' - that is something of an under-statement.

It is true that serious cancer 'has no bearing on the validity of the PCN...' but that is not what the request was for, it was for the exercise of discretion, the response lays a false trail, it is an exercise in sophistry. 

This is what the Secretary of State has to say in his Statutory Guidance to which a council must have due regard:

The guidance is clear. Hounslow Council can cancel any PCN, no matter how correct, if they want to. 

Mr Mustard thinks that being told you should think about whether to drive or not due to your serious health condition is advice that the motorist doesn't need to hear from a council whose business it isn't (it is the DVLA's role) so butt out Hounslow.

Although the rejection letter says they have 'carefully considered the representations, and any mitigating circumstances' that is clearly a standard response because it should refer to 'the mitigating circumstances' not 'any' that might have been advanced. The response is a lazy one, the motorist deserves a proper response.

The worst part of this letter, in Mr Mustard's opinion are the words:

'there is no reason for it to be cancelled'.

Just let that sink in. An extremely serious cancer isn't a good enough reason for a PCN for a minor parking contravention to be cancelled. 

The world has been turned upside down. Councils have been given too much power and they are abusing it very badly.

Hounslow Council should hang its head in shame, give itself a good talking to, revisit its policies and start behaving with some common decency.

What of course the letter should have explained is why discretion would not be exercised. That consideration starts from an assumption that the PCN is valid and so the response should explain why discretion is not being exercised. What does it take before discretion is exercised?

If the write of the letter (nameless of course) had to sit across a desk from the motorist and tell them no to their face, they wouldn't be able to do it. That is how the question of discretion should be considered.

 

Newham Council are Cheats - #37

 

Newham Council should by now have worked out what went wrong with their system, as we have seen this problem a few times, and the council have probably seen it a few hundred times as only 1% of PCNs end up at the tribunal. 

They should be assisting the adjudicator by providing full and frank details which they clearly aren't.

Reneging on a deal, including one done by the computer which acts for the council, is cheating.

The tide goes out again in Newham

 

The same Newham employee writes to the same motorist on the next day about parking in the same bay with the same car and does a complete volte face on the previous day's letter, as produced in yesterday's blog.

It seems that cheating is still the order of the day.

What the motorist said about bays having to be signed is true.

A warning notice has no legal underpinnings.

A controlled parking zone sign has no meaning within a bay, it applies only to single yellow lines (ones without their own sign). 

Has the tide turned in Newham?

 

The above is an extract from a letter dated 29 September which takes us halfway to the correct situation.

A council cannot use a 'warning notice' (under what legislation?) to prohibit a motorist from parking in a bay which has no signs or unreadable signs due to vandalism.

The motorist can take advantage of free parking if he/she so wishes.

The same motorist has another PCN in the challenge process? Any bets on whether it will be cancelled or not? 

(Spoiler alert - the tide goes out again in the next blog due to a letter of the following day to the same person).