Loading - the 'peculiar proposition' of Barnet Council

 

Delivery riders, in the gig economy, don't make massive sums of money and a £130 PCN might wipe them out for the day.

It would have been better if the rider had parked on the adjacent single yellow but he didn't (he will in future) and as it happens he didn't, in law, do anything wrong.

The scooter of the traffic warden, as it happens, was parked much more badly as it completely stopped access to the disabled bay and it was parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway, a contravention from which it is not exempt. It also acts as a bad example to the public.

Mr Mustard started the fight of three rounds. First, the informal challenge as soon as the PCN had been issued.

Mr Mustard knew the PCN could be beaten but has to overcome the belief in the mind of the rider, and the worry about the 50% discount, that a council must be telling the truth and believe that he will win in the end. This rider knew Mr Mustard of old so went with the advice received.

 

Mr Mustard knew that the council stance was weak. What is unloading if not the delivery of food from a restaurant to a home for money? The fact that the traffic warden ('CEO') didn't see unloading doesn't mean it didn't happen and besides, he only observed from 1:38 p.m. to 1:38 p.m. so 'not at all'; the CEO arrived on his scooter, issued a PCN in 40 seconds or so and left. At that time the rider was inside the adjoining flats effecting the delivery.

 

The Notice to Owner arrived and the second challenge was made. Councils often rely to these saying they have already considered it which is true but you are legally obliged to make the second challenge (if you don't want to pay up) and the facts are still the same so don't think you need something new for the council to consider, they have to reconsider the same arguments.

As predictable as the sun rising in the morning Barnet Council rejected the argument for a second time (Given the regular drubbing which councils get at the hands of Mr Mustard at London Tribunals he wonders why they bother to fight him? as the tribunal fee is £30 or so which is a dead loss to the council as he wins 4 out of 5 cases so the maximum council income is £130 and the outgoings are £150)

So kind, you did nothing wrong but you can give the council £65 if you are a mug.

Mr Mustard duly started the appeal to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. For the third time the same argument was advanced.

Barnet Council decided to produce the evidence pack of 100+ pages. When he went through it Mr Mustard found that the Notice to owner was dated 9 December but not posted until 10 December. That is a breach of law and so he added that as a preliminary point to the tribunal file. Thus he had two strong arguments.

The hearing day arrived and it was quick conference call and the adjudicator cancelled the PCN. 

The adjudicator was critical of the council and in saying they had advanced a 'peculiar proposition' was was giving the council a legally phrased slap in the face. Mr Mustard has read the Jane Packer case, and the previous masterclass on loading from 1999 (Norell v City of Westminster). Both are to be found on the key cases section of the tribunal and the council should keep themselves up to date on key decisions and follow them and not try to collect money under false pretences.

Please forward this blog to any food delivery riders (or drivers) that you know but also suggest they stay out of disabled bays, bus stops, goods vehicle only loading bays etc.

 

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.