Lost in Haringey

 

Mr Mustard is often called upon to help other volunteers who, whilst giving up their free time, try to help others who need to be helped and find themselves in strange places and whilst simply trying to find their way, manage to miss a sign and incur a PCN.

So it was that the PCN from which the above is an extract was sent to James (not his real name) who was trying to deliver a consignment of food in his car to the Broadwater Farm Estate food bank. 

Although Mr Mustard purchased his first flat in a quiet turning off St Ann's Road back in about 1980 he then moved up to the delights of Potter Bar for a decade before settling in Barnet. Thus he couldn't recall The Avenue N17 or Broadwater Road.

Mr Mustard usually starts by having a look at the council's cctv record and he usually extracts a still image from it. Here is one.

From  this we can see that the car is proceeding down the stem of a T-junction. Mr Mustard then consulted a map.

From the map we can see that if the camera is placed at the junction of the two named locations, the vehicle must be in Broadwater Road.

Mr Mustard visited the location and took photographs and realised that the belief stated on the PCN could not be true. Whilst the car had entered Avenue Road for a short distance it did not commit a contravention within it, that occurring at the moment at which the car entered Broadwater Road.

 

Whenever possible, Mr Mustard writes short but undeniable representations, and he could do so in this case.

It took a couple of months whilst Haringey Council scratched their head perhaps looking for a way out but there wasn't one. Quite simply they were 100% in the wrong and so they cancelled the PCN.

 

You might wonder how the council got this wrong, not knowing the name of a location in their own borough?

 

The Traffic Order which was made was correct, it was the change of the order of the roads when creating this location in the PCN software where it all went wrong.

The creation of many traffic orders was contracted out and PCN processing is contracted out. Between the two teams somewhere was, most likely, a communication error.

 

Now, having brought to the council's attention a thumping great error which rendered unlawful every PCN issued at the stated location you would expect that the reaction of an honest council would firstly be to correct the error. Next they should have gone back through all PCNs issued at that location, cancelled them and refunded everyone.

 

If you are an affected motorist, demand a refund as the council's actions were illegal. They may not have known it at the time but they do now.

Naturally automatic refunds didn't happen. Why councils don't think they have to be honest when it comes to PCNs is a question of our age.

 

Fortunately Mr Mustard has a process by which he can try to force some honesty. Once a year any person can inspect the detailed accounts of the council, usually in July but sometimes later. Residents, as in those who are listed to vote, are also entitled to ask questions of the external auditor and ask them to go to Court to have certain items of income declared illegal. Mr Mustard is assisting one such voter but not in respect of this location alone, there was an unlawful wording in all moving traffic PCNs issued by Haringey which they only corrected in September 2023 so that is what has been attacked. It is too late for him to use this route for this location description as there are strict time limits. Nothing prevents Haringey Council from being honest, though.

 

Mr Mustard did the same in Hackney 2 years ago and whilst the auditor only suggested refunding on request Hackney Council decided it was administratively easier to simply refund everyone and did so to the tune of £268,000 and bailiff fees, which the bailiff received rather than the council, of about the same amount were also refunded.

Here's hoping for a similar outcome.

The end, for now.

Keep in touch if you struggle to pay

Here is the location in question, the same signs are back to back so this makes a virtual barrier, one the council makes a mint from by not installing rising bollards but installing a camera instead.

Mr X, whose identity Mr Mustard is at pains to hide and thus he has edited the place descriptions and removed small pieces of other information in the representation made to Islington Council but you still have the gist of the plea for mitigation - health and financial problems.

 

That was a considered request for clemency coupled with the promise of future compliance which is what councils claim to be their aim, not revenue raising. Mercy came there none.

A templated start to the rejection, the gap after 'letter' should probably say 'of dd/mm/yyyy' and besides, it was an email.

Not 100% accurate as relevant permit holders are allowed through.

The email has now been described as a letter and this paragragh was clearly a bespoke one. Some boroughs do let all blue badge holders through these restrictions as this restriction means resident blue badge holders can leave through the square but the wider group of disabled people can't do so, they will have to go around, if they know the way. If you do have genuine business on the other side of the barrier, perhaps a visit to your physio who lives and works there, it would be helpful if diversion signs were posted. AMW permits are issued to blue badge holders who live within:

 

Pish, this is over egging the danger. Police cars, ambulances, fire engines can all hell through, dustbin lorries can rumble through, cyclists should abound, blue badge residents will be driving there. Any motorist can drive into Lloyd Square turn around and leave again, there are parking bays on all four sides. Mr Mustard recommends you stick to the pavement if on foot.

The London Gazette, the Official Public Record of traffic orders, says the order is experimental and recent:

This is the most extraordinary statement which Mr Mustard has ever seen within a Notice of Rejection, a document which must have certain statutory content and then 'may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate'. What is appropriate about saying the motorist should 'keep in touch'? 

Is this meant to be a friendly gesture but why? as the writer (whose name Mr Mustard is not releasing) has the power to cancel the PCN and has not done so. It isn't as if the stated illnesses are likely to change within the 28 day deadline or that Universal Credit or PiP payments will skyrocket.

Mr Mustard thinks that we may have run over a parking officer with a conscience and perhaps they didn't like the message their boss told them to write so decided to soften it a bit but without a clear indication of Islington's policy for the impecunious then these rather odd words about keeping in touch are pointless. Islington Council didn't have a policy on the exercise of discretion when Mr Mustard asked them a year ago.

Mr Mustard has accepted the invitation to start an Appeal to the independent adjudicator for which he has a technical argument which he will tell you later, if it works.

Finally, before you say the driver is an idiot who doesn't know his road signs, we are all conditioned by what we see. If you shop at Sainsburys in North Finchley and travel there by car, you have, for years, been driving into Ravensdale Avenue from the High Road as that is the only way you can turn into the supermarket car park. Look out of your windscreen and what do you see?

That is correct, no motor vehicle should enter Ravensdale Avenue, the plate below is an error, not being a permitted variant, the round sign already banning all vehicles, whether above or below the stated weight. No-one who lives in this street should be driving home. The same sign, without the weight plate, is at the other end of the road so zero traffic should enter from the eastern end. If Barnet Council can't even keep their signs correct, what chance the motoring public especially if you have entered Ravensdale Avenue a hundred times without receiving a penalty charge notice.

End.
 

Merton - Pandemic parking enforcement

Here we go then with the same FOI questions as you saw Ealing answer. First of all, full marks to Merton Council for such a prompt answer.

Merton only issue about half as many PCNs as Barnet so presumably have about half as many traffic wardens (CEOs). A pleasingly low sick absence level. Not pleasing that they have not transferred any traffic wardens onto other duties in these exceptional times.

Just the same as Ealing, with the notable exception of enforcement around schools, so almost business as usual.

A worrying lack, just as in Barnet, of personal protective equipment (PPE) for traffic wardens. Traffic wardens could have the virus, not know and transmit it via a PCN.

'School safety zones' are becoming more common although they don't exist in the Traffic signs manual, 2019 edition. They are marketing speak for sections of road which you can't drive down at certain times of day.

The website is misleading, as the Traffic Order says nothing about the restriction only operating in term time and Mr Mustard wouldn't know the term times for Merton if he was passing through. The sign below also doesn't say anything about operational dates. The council may not enforce outside term times but if so they should cover the signs over.

This is a sign from Frinton Road.

Rather oddly, if you enter between 9.30am and 2.45 pm you also mustn't stop on the yellow zig zag markings outside of the school as they restrict stopping from 8am to 5pm. A completely illogical arrangement (unless it has been changed since April 19 when the google car went down the road).

This sign, the 'flying motorbike' sign (and which means 'no motor vehicles' of any type including vans, buses, lorries etc) will have a delayed action in creating a safe space as in Mr Mustard's experience, borne out of talking to motorists who were just about to wrongly pass the same sign in Connell Crescent, Ealing, it is one of the least known signs in the Highway Code. Thus it takes many months for compliance and better safety to be established by the blunt instrument of receiving a PCN in the post during which time the council wrings its hands in sorrow, wonders why their scheme isn't working effectively and coincidentally pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds from PCNs. A council which implements a scheme which they know from other boroughs' statistics won't work instantly and fully is morally repugnant.

Anyway, regardless of how effective the sign is, Merton are, perfectly properly, not enforcing these signs during lockdown, and there shouldn't be many vehicles about anyway. They will probably catch the same motorists later so what would be better, from a public education point of view, would be to send zero value PCNs and an explanation of the sign and their locations in order to help achieve the road safety objective.

So that is 2 points to Merton who have hardly backed off parking enforcement.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Harrow Highways sign fiasco

Mr Mustard had to go to Christchurch Avenue to look at a route restricted to "buses and cycles only" where a client had transgressed by driving past the blue signs that you can see below. This location is just along the road from the Harrow Leisure Centre.

Whilst standing there studying the signs with Bald Eagle of NoToMob fame Mr Mustard realised that every bus driver on the H9 route is, whilst following the route set by London Sovereign buses and which doubtless has to be agreed with the council and the police, driving straight past a "No Motor Vehicles" sign (the access is for local residents just past the bus stop, you can see their cars behind the bus stop). A bus is, of course, a "motor vehicle".

Luckily for bus drivers everywhere the No Motor Vehicles sign is not enforced. If it were the fiasco would have been spotted sooner. Isn't it amazing though that there have been hundreds of contraventions at this location and no motorist, nor the council itself, appears to have spotted the anomaly.

How can Harrow Council penalise any driver for contravening a "No Motor Vehicles" sign somewhere else in the borough when the Highways Department have in place such a sign at this location which clearly does not apply. Mr Mustard wonders if they used to be there on their own before the blue signs were erected?

Furthermore, cars can't drive more than a few yards past the Controlled Parking Zone sign and buses are not likely to stop on a single yellow to park, so they are also superfluous. The CPZ sign coming towards you is necessary (you can't see it but it is visible as you exit the roundabout) as taxis are allowed to exit the roundabout but not to enter it for a reason which is beyond Mr Mustard.

The whole buses & cycles only restriction looks to be completely irrelevant as the natural route is via Masons Avenue (although the Tchibo coffee delivery van man's satnav took him down Christchurch Ave. He had a lucky escape as Mr Mustard flagged him down and he was grateful). Mr Mustard and Bald Eagle must have been there for 30 minutes or so and that van was the only vehicle which tried to get it wrong.

Photographs of other impossible sign combinations are always welcome at this email address.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Prohibition on motor vehicles - such an easy mistake to make

This is such an easy mistake to make, especially at 30mph. The main road you can see is the A40 heading wast towards the Hangar Lane gyratory. Mr Mustard is about to enter the Boden shop which is behind him and buy three bright floral shirts. The road to the left is Connell Crescent, W5 and is narrow and has historically been used as a bit of a rat run, and to park in for the nearby station, and the two signs like this one

put paid to the rat running from 3pm to 7pm on weekdays (the times and days are on the rectangular sign below)

Do look out for this sign and do not enter during the banned times because as sure as eggs is eggs the camera will get you. Mr Mustard has been consulted twice in two days about this location.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard