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.