Corporate data under FOI

 

When Mr Mustard saw this FOI information in the online register he thought it must be a mistake, he thought the data would not be disclosable but he was wrong, as he sometimes is.

He took advice from a proper expect in the area and was told this:

Take that as your cue to ask any questions you like about councils and companies.

If you get a ZipCar transferred liability Notice to Owner or postal PCN do email mrmustard@zoho.com as liability transfer is often done wrongly.

Southwark Council - bus lane PCN template error

 

A short bus lane in Southwark Bridge Road

There are a few professional PCN fighters who link up in disparate loose ways. One such is Phillip Morgan and Mr Mustard has to raise his hat to him for his work on bus lanes in Southwark.

 

Council blunders simply never stop even when all they have to do is to copy some words out of the legislation.

 

It was Phillip who spotted Southwark's major blunder in that the words on their PCN were simply not correct thus rendering a PCN a meaningless piece of paper.

Here is a copy of the Freedom of Information response he was sent in August 25:

Full credit to Southwark Council for throwing in the towel (they had to be prodded a few times before they were forced to do this) but a news report elsewhere tells Mr Mustard that the contractor picked up the tab. If a contractor can swallow a hit of half a million pounds they are being overpaid for the services supplied?

There will doubtless be another blunder along soon.

The end. 

Barnet v Barnet (except)

Mr Mustard always looks at tribunal decisions when councils are fighting themselves or each other.

What appears to Mr Mustard to be the background motive here is Barnet Council holding Mr Hoskar liable for the penalty. Mr Mustard does not know what his Contract of Employment states.

 

Mr Mustard asked Barnet Council (using the Freedom of Information legislation) for certain sections of the Evidence Pack provided to the tribunal and by the council to themselves. It was quickly provided on the second request, the first one perhaps not having got through on email. Let's go through it.

We start with the original postal PCN

That led to a representation on 18 December 24 that the vehicle was contracted out at the time and a copy of the front page of the Rental Agreement was provided (price redacted by Mr Mustard).

Following that representation liability for the penalty was transferred to Barnet Council. It should not have been.

The first reason is simple. The rental agreement is with Car Hire (Day of Swansea) Ltd which is not the company named on the PCN (albeit it may be within the same group) and therefore has no standing to make a representation.

The second is that liability can only be transferred for hire periods of less than 6 months. This agreement is for 12 months.

Liability could be transferred if there is a sufficient degree of permanence to the keepership by the renter but as we don't have all of the terms of the rental that cannot be established. Mr Mustard lost at the tribunal on that ground when he tried it for a 12 month hire.

Barnet Council therefore erred in transferring liability from CEM to itself.

Had they not done so CEM would probably (it is rare for rental companies to fight the actual contravention) have paid the PCN and charged the council for it along with an admin fee for so doing. The council would then have asked their employee to pay it.

The council duly sent itself a PCN.

The PCN was challenged on 21 January 2025, not by the council, but by the driver despite the PCN saying this:

The word 'Person' includes a Company or Council.

The challenge follows:

The challenge was as poor as the driving but more of that later.

Barnet Council could simply have ignored the unauthorised representations but most enforcement authorities write to the liable party and invite them to confirm the right of the third party or to make a representation in their own name. The council did this on 5 February and 24 February which was generous but they were writing to themselves. It turns out, based upon the part of the file which Mr Mustard holds, that a valid representation was made on 18 February.

 

The council rejected the representation on 3 March 25. On 31 March the council asked itself for more time to pay as Mr Hoskar had been absent on leave and 7 more days were granted on 1 April in which to pay at 50% which was the council being generous to itself. By the end of those 7 days the time limit for making an Appeal to the tribunal had expired.

 

Neither payment was made nor an Appeal started so on 22 April the council sent itself a charge certificate increasing the penalty to £195

 

On 17 May the tribunal accepted an out of time Appeal and thus the penalty reverted to £130. Mr Hosker must have thought he could beat the PCN. By starting an Appeal barnet Council had to pay a c.£40 fee to the tribunal which they don't see again, win or lose.

 

The outcome of the Appeal is at the top of the blog. Barnet Council lost and Barnet Council won, Mr Hosker lost. Now let's look at his driving.

Here is the situation that faced him at the moment of imminent entry to the box:

From his high vantage point the driver could see that traffic was stopped ahead, it often has to stop because of the pedestrian crossing. He should have stopped where he was. 100% he was the victim of his own bad driving choice and ended up in contravention as below:

Look what the car behind him did, he changed lanes and drove to the front of the queue. There was ample time for the cctv van to have safely done the same. A generous description is that the driving was sub-optimal and it wouldn't be unfair to say that it was inept.

The whole case has been a riot of ineptitude.

There don't seem to be as many council v council cases as there used to be but Mr Mustard will report on them when they occur.

Hounslow Council find the end of the road

 

Car drivers are in the habit of finding every possible extra parking space. This location is one that ended up at the tribunal where the PCN was cancelled for the simple reason that the alleged contravention had not occurred. The mistake the traffic warden (CEO) made is a common one or it isn't a mistake, they are just taking a flyer.

This wasn't one of Mr Mustard's cases so he doesn't have any photos for you but we can surmise that a car was parked in the middle of the carriageway fairly close to the brick wall which terminates the carriageway. Mr Mustard expects the car was within the white rectangle.

The neighbours probably have an arrangement to block each other in and move when required. An arrangement with a traffic warden is a dangerous one as they come and go and their boss might intervene.

If you are so parked both sides of your car are more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and if the car was reversed in then the front of the car is also more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway. However, providing the car is backed up to within 50cm of the wall, as it must have been in this case, it is not in contravention.

Not only should the traffic warden not have issued the PCN, the council should not have rejected the representations and nor should they have resisted the Appeal but £130 was at stake and that causes errors of judgments within councils, not just Hounslow..

Hounslow Council - No comment = no penalties

 

Of a morning Mr Mustard makes himself a proper cup of tea, using leaves, and settles down to a quick perusal of the tribunal register for the previous day. When he sees an entry like the one above he is likely to click on one of the entries because it took a long time to decide and because of the multiplicity of PCN.

Mr Mustard is unfailingly polite to all adjudicators and given that Mr Teper is a former head of a Barrister's chambers and sat as a judge you aren't going to get anything dubious past him. Hounslow Council really got this wrong.

Hounslow Council were trying to obtain £3,200 from this lady. As she started 20 Appeals the council have had to pay out c.£600 in fees to the tribunal to hear the cases. Their stupidity and discourtesy in not responding to the tribunal and adjudicator has caused a massive loss to the borough.

This will be a useful decision to quote from in future multiple penalty cases (although not a precedent but merely legally persuasive). 

This is a location at which Mr Mustard has not been instructed although when he went online to view it he found it was near the former Brentford FC ground. This was the signage when the google street car went past

Mr Mustard doesn't have the images or video for the days in question. Whichever way the car came only one sign would be visible as they are angled. You also have to take in a cpz entry sign with standard hours and extra event day hours. By the time you have finished reading that you may miss the 'flying motorbike' sign.

Hopefully Hounslow Council will learn some manners for the future. Adjudicators don't forget much.

City of Westminster* and PayByPhone

*This blog will also apply in part to other enforcement authorities.

The sign at the heart of the PCN.

The motorist, 'J', tried to pay by phoning and texting.

He didn't get anywhere and, of course, received a PCN for not paying.

Mr Mustard tested the explanation, texted the number and got an unhelpful response.

If a sign offer the ability to pay by text message the enforcement authority must make sure that it works. Equally, if they offer the ability to pay by phoning a contact centre that must also work and for the same hours as for which payment is expected.

 

Mr Mustard made the representations which included both lots of phone records above.

The good news is that the PCN was cancelled. The bad news is that what was written in response made no sense.

There are seven short paragraphs, imagine they are numbered from 1 to 7.

 

1    A polite introduction. 

2    A pointless sentence.

3    Undisputed so a waste of time.

4    No it wasn't, where did they get this from? 'J' knew where he was as he was in front of the sign. Mr Mustard knew the location in question and put it in his text.

5    Good to use goodwill but offered on a false basis, Westminster's system was at fault. Mr Mustard has tried it again just now, he gets the same message pushing him to the App. Shut up about precedents and fix your system please Westminster.

6    No session was paid for so this is irrelevant standard text and the motorist knew the correct number in any event. No mention of how you get a refund for the unwanted session.

7    Nothing about the responsibility of the City of Westminster to provide systems that work.

Should you end up with a PCN at London Tribunals an adjudicator might take the view that given the App isn't shown on the sign it doesn't matter if it goes wrong as you shouldn't be using it in any event (notwithstanding that it is probably the method used about 90% of the time). 

Mr Mustard would be arguing that neither the phone number nor text messaging works and based upon those being the only methods stated on the sign nothing else is of any relevance. Doubtless the City of Westminster will claim that you should have parked somewhere else but given that they control the whole of Westminster the same flaws would apply and so the suggestion is ridiculous.

Please do let Me Mustard know in the comments section if you do manage to pay in Westminster by either phoning up or texting.

The end.

Barnet Council - churlish

 

It was good that the council didn't, as often happens, claim that something that wasn't clear, was clear. It wasn't argued by Mr Mustard that the double yellow lines were not clear, only that the kerb markings, which signify a loading ban, were not clear.

The final line is the churlish one, do it again with the same facts and the council will not cancel. They usually write 'may' not cancel which would be more accurate as they should not fetter their future judgment. They just can't resist thumbing the public in the eye when the failing is not by the motorist but by the council in not repainting the kerb marks at the same time as the double yellows.

The goodwill wasn't evident at the informal challenge stage when the same imperfect kerb marks were found to be enforceable.

The traffic warden (civil enforcement officer) should never have issued the PCN because of the state of the kerb marks which they are meant to check before they decide if a contravention has, in their opinion, occurred or not.

What this sequence of events tells you is don't let the council rejecting your first challenge put you off from advancing the same argument for a second time and then for a third time at the tribunal. If you think you are in the right just persist, as Calvin Coolidge had it:

The end.

Camden Council -right and wrong

 

Camden Council have processed PCNs pretty well since Mr Mustard was born in 2011. They still get some things wrong though although in this case they were right for the wrong reason and were reasonable.

The story of the three PCNs is largely covered in the rejection / acceptance letter.

Ms W also made an error in paying the wrong PCN and then paid the correct PCN as well and Camden very fairly refunded the erroneous payment on request.

Camden cancelled as a goodwill gesture, not ever wanting to be seen as having done anything wrong, but they were destined to lose at the tribunal. You can only incur one penalty in a 24 hour restriction this being the concept of a continuous contravention which has been fruitful at the tribunal every time for Mr Mustard. In fact Mr Mustard has a dropped kerb case coming up soon at the tribunal, for a Barnet address, where the car received two PCN and the first one has been paid.

Camden are very good in having an email warning system, if only other enforcement authorities did the same.

You may think that being on holiday would give rise to reasonable excuse but if your permit terms and condition include a duty to check on your car every day in a permit bay then you are advised to do so as an adjudicator will probably find against you. Also, have someone you trust who can get to your car keys when you are abroad so your car can be moved if necessary (short term car insurance can be purchased if needed) and also get them to open your post if you are going to be away for more than 2+ weeks in case a moving traffic or bus lane PCN arrives or perhaps Police or Court papers, you do not want to get timed out of any process.

The end. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #43

 

The above tribunal decision is one of the most coruscating criticisms that Mr Mustard has ever seen. Mr Mustard doesn't comment much on adjudicators but Mr Walsh was premier league (Mr Mustard won 2 cases and lost 1 before him and wishes he was still there) and has deservedly been elevated to the position of District Judge in Willesden Magistrates Court.

What this case amply demonstrates is the wilful blindness which Mr Mustard has long suspected exists PCN enforcement offices (council and contractors) and the reject everything philosophy which he thinks exists.

Many of the public still naively believe that a council will be fair but it isn't necessarily so, the urgent need to revenue raise has elbowed public service and fairness out of the way in many councils.

It was no surprise that an order for costs was sought and granted even though they rarely are.

Just before that long read here is the sign that was there and the sign the council blindly assumed was there:

 

Make yourself a cup of tea and settle into a comfy chair.

 

Newham Council tried to get out cheap at £50 which considering they tried to extract an unlawful £130 was pretty mean of them. 

The council are described in this decision as dishonest & deceptive a characterisation which Mr Mustard agrees with and which is often the case.

Now a general warning for all taxi drivers, black can and private hire alike, this rather odd restriction applies overnight from 10pm to 3am so after collecting someone from the City Airport the driver needs to choose a route which avoids this particular dual carriageway.

 

and this is how it looks on the ground, being unable to exit a roundabout is unusual, a red no entry sign would be clearer

Remember: not all councils can be trusted to be unbiased in their consideration of your arguments. Adjudicators can be trusted as they don't receive the penalty if they do find against you.

The end, thank you for your patience. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #42

 

That is a comprehensive decision but given that a picture is worth a 1,000 words here are 2,000 to show you the parlous state of the line in Gower Road

 

The test for lines is that they are 'substantially compliant'. Lines like these look like they have been left to wear away and abandoned. Definitely unloved by the council and impossible to see at night.

The issue of a PCN was cheating, removing the car to the pound was cheating, rejecting representations was cheating and fighting the Appeal was cheating. Mr Mustard is not at all surprised that such worn out lines were found to be lacking.