Barnet Council preoccupied with own point of view!

This is the sixteenth decision on an argument about the wording of the PCN which Mr Mustard first took in December. He wrote about it here. Fourteen of those decisions led to cancelled PCNs and Barnet Council correcting the wording. Two adjudicators disagreed which is their right.

If you have a moving traffic (school zig-zags issued by camera, yellow boxes, turning the wrong way or breaching a no entry) PCN issued in February 20 or earlier, it is probably not compliant and should be challenged if it has this wording on the front:

The actual fact of a contravention is not relevant if the PCN wording is non-compliant.

Clearly the adjudicators have had enough of Barnet Council contesting Appeals when in all fairness they should cancel the PCN. Being described as 'preoccupied' when you should consider the arguments in an unbiased manner without any thought as to the revenue attaching is the way an Adjudicator delicately gives out a good slapping as lawyers usually have a way with words.

If the case summary which was hard to follow was anything like some that Mr Mustard has seen it is because the council presented 3 pages of text without headings or any structure and hardly any gaps. It hurt Mr Mustard's head as well.

If Barnet Council keep fighting these PCNs, with the non-compliant wording, costs are going to start being awarded against them. If any of the motorists that Mr Mustard is helping receive costs due to his efforts he will ask for them to be donated to the North London Hospice.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PCNs - pragmatic advice - Covid-19

The above is advice, each local authority will make its own decisions about what to enforce and when. When he has a moment, Mr Mustard will start asking all local authorities in London what changes they have actually made & shame those who have not changed a thing. TfL have reacted quickly so fair play to them.

Do not enter a yellow box unless the box and your exit is clear.

Do not park on the pavement except where marked out for it.

Do not park across a dropped kerb on the corner of a road our outside a stranger's property.

Do not park on zebra crossing zig-zgas for safety's sake

Do not turn left or right where it is prohibited.

CCTV enforcement systems won't catch the virus but will catch you.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council - virus parking concessions

The above message was sent to Mr Mustard by a Barnet Councillor.

If you are out normally in the day you perhaps don't need a resident permit and these being unusual times you may be working at home and you have to put your car somewhere and you are now safe to park it within a residents bay without using a daily visitor voucher.

By a single yellow for one hour that means that if the single yellow only operates from say 10-11am you can park on it. It doesn't mean you can park for one hour on a single yellow line that operates from 10am to 5pm.

Please park sensibly and don't use more than your necessary and fair share of the available bays, you aren't going to have a party at home at this time so you shouldn't be inviting three friends round for a game of poker and annoying the people who normally park at home by taking all of the spare spaces. If the concession is abused it will doubtless be withdrawn. Please only park within the bays of the residential area in which you live, you shouldn't be making journeys to other areas unless you are an essential worker.

Please don't park on the school zig zags as schools may still be operating, stay well away from zebra crossing markings, don't block dropped kerbs or park on double yellow lines or in bus stops as PCNs are still being issued at those locations.

Please park sensibly, don't obstruct the road as ambulances need to get through nor park partially or fully on the pavement unless there is a marked bay.

When necessary Mr Mustard has in the past visited motorists at home in order to assist them. He isn't going anywhere for now so we'll have to communicate by post or electronically for at least a few weeks.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Task tsk tsk

The above isn't one of the cases represented by Mr Mustard at the tribunal, the decision simply coming to his attention on his daily reading of the register.

Never before has Mr Mustard seen such a decision, one that is directed to be placed before the parking manager so he knows what has been going on in his department (he should in any event).

The failure to attend when so directed is disrespectful to the adjuidcator and not a course of action that Mr Mustard would recommend. It is set down in law with a penal notice.

Council parking departments are not above the law. They should tread carefully and politely.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Moving traffic contraventions - invalid PCNs

History has a habit of repeating itself. In 2006 the parking PCN of Barnet Council was found in Court to be invalid as a vital date was missing.

Here we are in 2020 and Mr Mustard keeps winning at the tribunal on the grounds that a time period is wrongly stated on the moving traffic PCN.

Moving traffic PCNs are the ones issued for

- stopping in a box junction 
- turning where you shouldn't (Tilling Road being a favourite error spot)
- stopping on school entrance markings (cctv issued PCN only affected)

On 27 February after a barrage of tribunal Appeals won by Mr Mustard and with two Review requests (like a second opinion) refused without a hearing, the council amended its moving traffic PCN to read like this on the first page. He has however seen a later PCN which still has the old wording, all very odd.

It is the third paragraph which used to be wrong, as it read like this

You can see the difference, 'date of service' = good, 'date of this notice' = bad.

If you have a PCN which contains the 'date of this notice' wording you should win any appeal to the tribunal as Mr Mustard has won 11 times, especially if you ask him to act for you (which only requires that you agree to donate to the North London Hospice as a thank you for his help). Two motorists have lost but the two adjudicators concerned don't handle Mr Mustard's cases (he is reserved to be dealt with by a small coterie of experienced adjudicators) so he isn't likely to lose.

If your PCN has this wrong paragraph on the front it is beatable (no guarantees but very likely). You should write the following to the council, if you haven't yet made your formal representations:

I wish to challenge the PCN on the grounds that the wording is non-compliant as found in tribunal case no. 2190464396 and ten other decisions.

If you have a Notice of Rejection you should select the ground that 'The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case' and then write

The PCN has been found not to be compliant in the following cases:

2190464396, 219046955A, 2190517925, 2190550501, 2190550793, 2190555287, 2200024112, 2200017274, 2190521398, 2200046534 and 2200053766

and compliant in 2200041905 and 2200067454.

One must be even handed at the tribunal and not present one sided evidence.

If you want Mr Mustard to handle this for you then he will happily do so free of any charge save for a donation by you if he wins, directly to the North London Hospice.

This is a once in a lifetime chance (probably) so don't miss out.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Harrow Council - manifestly unfair

This was not a case dealt with by Mr Mustard

Luckily Mr Mustard keeps all of his files open for as long as it takes to reach a point of finality.

Harrow Council on the other hand put theirs away in a dusty cupboard for a year or two, or three, and then drag them out, dust them off and restart the process at the point where they previously stopped. Not many people would still have their paperwork for a 2016 PCN and if the motorist had moved in the meantime would find that a bailiff had been instructed unbeknownst to them and the bailiff traces a new address, has the address on the warrant changed (that strikes Mr Mustard as an abuse of process as the Order for Recovery has not been served) and then clamps the car leaving the motorist with little choice but to pay up.

There isn't a body which keeps an overarching critical friend eye on what local authorities are up to in their parking departments, as if there were, this sort of abuse of the system could be stopped in its tracks.

Mr Mustard has dealt with four such cases in the last few months and luckily none of the motorists he was helping had moved so the proper pieces of paper were dealt with in time. Instead of gaining the income from four PCNs Harrow Council are instead out of pocket for four wasted £8 court registration fees and four tribunal listing fees of c. £30 each and there is an application pending for costs, for wholly unreasonable behaviour, of just one hour at £19. This is because the council behaviour in letting a PCN go to sleep, waking it up, messing Mr Mustard about at the representations stage by saying what he wrote wasn't a representation when it patently was and then throwing in the towel as soon as the going got tough i.e. once a tribunal appeal was started. They have to learn that incompetence and ill-judged actions don't pay.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council traffic wardens give no quarter

This event happened in the Broadway, Mill Hill.

The reason that traffic wardens need body worn video to record 'code red' situations, i.e. when they are about to be thumped, is because they have been ridiculously unreasonable in the past, pouncing with indecent haste on motorists who are in the act of paying. Mr Mustard would hazard that the main reason the council did not produce the video recording is that it showed 100% that what the motorist was saying was true.

A clever motorist who screenshot his phone screen (on an Android phone hold power and volume down for a couple of seconds simultaneously or on an iPhone press the side button and volume up at the same time) and thus he had evidence of what he was doing. The council could also have obtained from PayByPhone evidence of what button presses were made using the App at the relevant time but mysteriously didn't produce that evidence either.

A smart motorist who saw the flaw in the council's argument that you can't leave your car; if the sign is 25m away and a box luton van is parked in front of you then there is zero choice, Adjudicators are sharp as tacks and apply common sense, a commodity which is severely lacking in many traffic wardens and in the council back office.

As well as not producing evidence which was in favour of the motorist the council also appear to have misrepresented his position in the case summary for the tribunal (or in the Notice of Rejection, Mr Mustard has not seen the case papers). The council often appears to be desperate when you look at the way in which they deal with tribunal cases. If they continue to be partial, adjudicators will notice and motorists will get the benefit of the doubt due to the poor reputation of Barnet Council for knowingly not being even-handed.

This action will not have endeared Barnet Council to the motorist in question. Councils have been given too much power which they use in an unfair fashion in order to raise funds to help plug the budget gap.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard