DVLA - Keepers change

Another random decision from the PCN tribunal register

This hearing was a question of the balancing of evidence. Mr Barsenbach got off to a good start with a name and address of a buyer but had he sold it for cash to a man in the pub and not taken a name and address, or been given a false one, that does not make him liable for penalties that he did not incur. He could probably also demonstrate that he had a refund of road fund and stopped the insurance and he may have had a capital receipt into his bank account. All those things go to show who the keeper was at the relevant time.

What isn't the case is that the records held by DVLA are perfect and can be 100% relied upon by a council, or their agents, as the gospel truth. Ownerhip / keepership is a question of fact. It looks like Barnet Council tried to insist upon certain documents, which may or may not have been in the possession of the seller, or even not existed, and they have been gently corrected by the Adjudicator on this point.

Mr Mustard thinks that outsourcing and working to a price allied with trying to make a profit leads to staff who only do the same task repetitively and quite simply don't have a broad enough range of knowledge and possibly not all that much interest in the professional detail.

If Barnet Council give you trouble and try to make you jump through hoops when you have already given them adequate information, stand firm and let the adjudicator hear from you in person so he can tell that you are speaking the truth. Other evidence, like buying a new car at the same time may be of circumstantial assistance.

The end.

Discounts - not offered - a new trend

In 2024 Mr Mustard and other experts noted a number of rejections in which enforcement authorities in London stopped offering the discount when issuing official Notices of Rejection which open the door to the independent tribunal.

Motorists often complain that the penalty has doubled and he pedantically points out that is not tree, it simply hasn't halved, it was always £130, £110, £80 or whatever the case may be.

Let us start with a PCN placed on your vehicle.

You can describe the 50% discount as a sweetener, an incentive or a bribe as you like. If you are bang to rights then the discount is worth taking advantage of. It speeds up the process, saves administration costs and time and puts the PCN behind you. The statutory guidance of the Secretary of State requires if a PCN is placed on your car on the 1st of the month and your informal challenge, as it is known, reached the council by the 14th of the month (that is day 14 as the 1st is counted as day 1, a common error is to add 14 not 13) then if that challenge is rejected the 50% discount must be offered again for 14 days. The PCN will also state this.

What has usually happened, as it was easier, is that all informal challenges for at least the first 28 days (and longer if the Notice to Owner was not issued promptly), were met with a templated rejection that offered the discount again for 14 days from receipt of the letter (sometimes the date of the letter) in an attempt to 'get rid' of a PCN. It was a system that worked as most motorists don't have Mr Mustard's staying power.

When the Notice to Owner is issued discounts are officially no longer available. However, for those tougher motorists who make formal representations, which can be identical to the informal challenge, it doesn't matter if the council have said no once already, most councils still offered the discount again for another 14 days.

The reason is simple. Councils would rather have quick money and an easy life. If the motorist starts an Appeal to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals, as Mr Mustard does for nearly every PCN he fights, the council in question will have to produce the evidence pack containing all of the documents from both sides about the PCN, the traffic order, photos of signs and a written summary of the case. This will take 2 or 3 hours so is expensive. In addition, there is a fee which they have to pay to fund the tribunal setup of c.£30 for each PCN appeal started whether or not it goes ahead and win or lose. Costs are very rare so can largely be ignored.

In 2024 Mr Mustard, and other experts who swap notes and advice, noticed a trend at the formal representations stage (after the Notice to Owner) that the sum demanded in the Notice of Rejection was the 100% figure. They know that many motorists are a bit afraid of the tribunal although they don't need to be, it is an informal forum and therefore rather than doing something new the tendency in the past was to pay up the 50%. Now that some councils are asking for 100% and going to the tribunal doesn't cost the motorist anything except a little time (and from next month your hearing can be on Microsoft Teams so you don't need to go to Chancery Lane) it appears to the experts that there is no incentive to meekly pay up like a mug provided you have at least a bit of an argument (not a load of silly baloney). It will be interesting to see if more Appeals are made in 2025.

This policy change will make no difference to Mr Mustard. He tries to educate his motorists from the off that he tries to find arguments that could work at the tribunal (he is usually only 91% accurate and at least one other expert is more successful) and sets out his stall from the beginning to fight to the end. Sometimes he realises an existing argument will no longer work but picks up a new one along the way so his trip along the high wire can be a bit exciting.

The other point in favour of motorists is that if councils can't keep up with surges in Appeals they sometimes just let them go and cancel the PCN to save time. This is known as the DNC process (Do not contest). Mr Mustard had 54 DNC cases in 2024 (very few from Barnet) across his 300+ cases.

Looking now at moving traffic PCNs for yellow box junctions, banned turns etc there is only one challenge to the council before the tribunal. Again most councils used to always offer the discount again when rejected you but the law does not require them to offer it at all. Moving traffic legislation is quite blunt. If you pay within 14 days of the date on the PCN you can definitely have the discount, otherwise not. If you challenge on day 10 and get rejected on day 20 a council can insist on 100% being paid (or watch you go to Appeal). Many motorists think of these PCNs the same as parking ones as years ago there were mostly parking PCN and not much else but given the wide implementation of 'school streets' and other 'low traffic neighbourhoods' the numbers of these PCNs has mushroomed.

If we finally consider London bus lane PCNs you get sent a PCN and then if still unpaid an Enforcement Notice. Again if you don't pay the PCN within 14 days the discount could be gone. The Enforcement Notice, just like the Notice to Owner in parking, does not include a discount offer. The informal rejection and the Notice of Rejection may include a discount offer but they don't have to (unless the council documents says otherwise in which case out of fairness the offer must be honoured).

Now, finally, to the trend which has been witnessed.

Mr Mustard had a look through recent Notices of Rejection and found that the following councils did not offer the discount as an incentive to pay up rather than start a tribunal Appeal. Mr Mustard started Appeals for them all as he is confident in his arguments.

Enfield

Islington

Camden

Redbridge

Haringey

Brent

Mr Mustard will add other councils to this list as he notices them. It isn't necessarily the case that these councils won't sometimes offer a discount, it may depend how strong they think the case is, a sort of cost benefit analsysis. What Mr Mustard hasn't done is ask any questions about council policy. He will do so when he finds some time.

Mr Mustard's advice is simple. Do all your work at the start and decide if you want to fight or fold. If you want to fight, put all of your energy into it, no half measures.

The end

On your bike Camden Council

 

Boy did this scooter cause some trouble. It looks like it was being used by a food delivery rider who was often reckless about their route.

 

The first Mr Mustard knew of it was when the lady in question, let us call her Carla, told Mr Mustard that she had 39 PCNs for a scooter she hadn't owned, that she didn't have a driving licence for a 2 wheeler and that she didn't want it to cause problems for her in her work as a police officer. Mr Mustard has known Carla for her entire life and so was easily able to advocate for her with parking management.

 

This wasn't a run of the mill case of cloning as the registration in use wasn't hers nor was it a case of malicious registration when someone borrows your personal details in order to wrongly register a vehicle. The truth was stranger still.

 

Firstly, it turned out that only 11 PCNs had been redirected to Carla but that still comes to £1,430 which is a bit of a worry. There was a brief but effective exchange of emails. Mr Mustard had set off on the wrong premise about numbers and his client had blindsided him by taking action without telling him (full disclosure is helpful). As Mr Mustard has changed the names to protect the innocent it is unlikely that there is only one Carla Smith in the country so the reader will have to use their imagination for this part of the story.

 

The first email to Camden quickly hit the target as Mr Mustard has a good relationship with one of their employees and so he is listened to and known to know what he is doing, plus Camden had right royally messed up so the sooner they admit to it and put it right the easier their ride will be.

What this told Mr Mustard was that Camden Council had plucked an address off another file for a different vehicle at a different address but for a similar name and thus decided they were one and the same. They just can't do that.

Now that the merry-go-round has stopped, the career of Carla is not on the line, and Mr Mustard knows what has happened he asks for compensation as he is pretty sure Camden have flouted various rules. As he thinks there are 39 PCNs he asks for £1,000 but that was a bit rich

Carla agrees to the £100, a good result for everyone. Clearly Camden now know they have been naughty and hopefully they won't make such a stupid error again. It was no surprise they didn't want Mr Mustard's help as he would be pointing out all of their other errors.

Mr Mustard left writing this blog for a year to see if other awful behaviour came out of the wood work but it hasn't. Camden Council must have improved their act.

The end.

Council stupidity and reversing the burden of proof

Cloning of numberplates is very common. It is an absolute pain for the innocent party who has to engage with the police, the DVLA and all the councils where the naughty car committed a contravention. It is usual for there to be multiple PCNs and rather than all representations being accepted or refused you end up with a mix, utterly stupid. Here is a letter which Barnet Council sent after one such representation and far from being bound by a made up time limit the recipient doesn't even have to reply:

As motorists tend to get nervous about not replying Mr Mustard provides some of the information and did so in this case:

 

Providing the log book and the council's own photographs should have been enough but no, the council rejected the perfect challenge in the hope that an innocent party would part with £65 they didn't owe. Not when Mr Mustard is stood behind them they won't.

Mr Mustard marched on. He started an Appeal to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals on behalf of Miss M for Mini.

Only a week later Barnet Council threw in the towel and cancelled the PCN. They had incurred a tribunal fee of c. £30 which is just money down the drain. The council were never going to win. A person whose car has been cloned, although it is helpful to provide information, is under no obligation to provide any information at all. The council have to prove the car they wish to obtain a penalty for is your one. Here is a comprehensive decision on the subject.

You can send that decision to any council when telling them your car has been cloned and you are providing a reasonably helpful amount of information. You do not have to jump through all of the council's hoops, tell them they have to prove the car in question is yours.

Once you get the first cloned PCN start taking a photo of your car every time you park it so that you then have a comprehensive record of where it was at all times i.e. you parked at home on Tuesday morning and then didn't move it until Friday afternoon (and so on) is easily evidenced by just 2 photos.

Even before then put distinctive stickers in your front and rear windows or on your numberplates, anything you like, a pokemon, your football team colours, baby on board etc etc and then the cloned vehicle will look visibly different to the real car.

Make 2025 the year that you take no nonsense.

The end.

Redbridge Council - they care more about a PCN than a pedestrian

 

Another tribunal decision which Mr Mustard happened upon by chance.

 

What the adjudicator didn't point out was that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 include an exemption for stopping on a bus stop, as follows:

That is because the Adjudicator was applying obvious logic as otherwise a motorist at risk of getting a PCN might simply keep going and charge down or run over a pedestrian which is clearly stupid and dangerous. The person who refused the representation and the one who contested the Appeal (which may be one and the same person) need to take a long hard look at themselves and at the rules which are available free on line.

The trouble is that there is no real mechanism for dealing with councils who reject perfect representations. Most motorists when faced with a council rejection will pay up. Only 1% of motorists take their PCN as far as the tribunal. Thus an incentive is built into the systems for councils to lie, cheat and scheme.

Change is necessary.

The end.

Chicken Run in Haringey

 

Mr Mustard reads random decisions of the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals. He didn't expect to find a Highways company in the register but there they were.

 

One wonders what Marlborough were thinking. The council has cctv, it clearly shows the vehicle stopped in the bus lane for >2 minutes and the driver and passenger do not reappear out of the Chick-King shop in that time. Why didn't Marlborough watch the cctv before starting their Appeal?

Had they done so they might have noticed that the cctv starts at 14:08 and so there isn't any evidence of them being in the bus lane at 14:07 (although they probably were) so had the council been put to proof by denying the alleged contravention, the council would probably have thrown in the towel.

Too late now. Too much fried chicken is bad for you and expensive. £130.

The end.

Ealing Council - believing anything to save time and/or money

Here is a car committing a contravention whilst bearing cloned numberplates

 For the displayed numberplate DVLA provided the following data 

Mr Mustard make some enquiries of Ealing Council in order to see the extent to which they make sure they are sending a PCN to the keeper of the vehicle seen in their cctv.

 

What we can see from this is that between receiving the DVLA data and issuing the PCN there is no sanity check to make sure that the car in view is at least a grey Mini (It could still be a clone as a dodgy Mini owner will try to use the numberplate of another Mini but that would be reasonable behaviour by the council).

There are two reasons why Ealing Council should be checking the reasonableness of DVLA provided data. The first one is the legal basis. The legislation says this about the contents of a PCN

To meet this requirement the council must believe that the vehicle captured by their camera is the one for which they have obtained DVLA data and clearly that is not the case here.

Secondly, as pointed out by one of Mr Mustard's careful readers, the KADOE (Keeper at date of event contact with DVLA) requires that a check be carried out. The standard wording from an old contract follows

Ealing Council have inadequate audit processes in place and need to up their game. From now on Mr Mustard is going to report every obviously cloned car to DVLA when a council has not noticed the bleeding obvious and therefore breached their contract.

The end.

 

Barnet - generous but wrong

 

Mr Mustard dines out on council blunders. He should always be hungry but never is as there seem to be unlimited ways in which councils, not just Barnet, go wrong. This may be a function of outsourcing or the never ending search for more automation with correspondingly lower human input. Mr Mustard doesn't do automation as he isn't dealing with 150,000 PCNs a year (luckily) and the 350 he does do all get his personal attention.

 

The above was a new error from Barnet, from a letter dated 28 December 2024, in that they offer 56 days in which to pay £130 but then go on to say if you don't pay £130 within 28 days they will increase it to £195. Patently unfair.

 

All public bodies have to be procedurally fair and Mr Mustard doesn't think Barnet Council will bother fighting the Appeal he has started at London Tribunals. If he is wrong about that he has two other arrows in his quiver and he may find more once he sees the complete evidence pack.

The end.

Harrow Council - lawbreakers

 

No extra charge for the spelling error, send should be sent

Harrow Council have the dubious honour of being the subject of the first blog of 2025.

They aren't the only council who haven't bothered to programme their software to stop them from sending an unlawful Notice of Rejection for a parking PCN. Barnet and Westminster both featured in the blog in 2024 for this unlawfulness and doubtless other enforcement authorities will lash up in the same way in 2025.

The image above repeats the Grounds of Appeal which Mr Mustard sent to London Tribunals, the home of the independent adjudicators.

Harrow could see the writing on the wall and decided to save themselves further administrative time in compiling the evidence pack when the outcome was inevitable (and Mr Mustard had two spare arrows in his quiver) and file a DNC notice (Do not Contest).

It was pleasing to see some honesty from Harrow in that they said exactly why they were throwing in the towel. Hopefully they have learnt from this and set their computer up accordingly.

The end