Load(ing) of baloney from Barnet Council

If loading on single or double yellow lines is prohibited then that will be indicated by single or double kerb stripes across the kerb and for part time single mark restrictions by a sign on a pole, viz:

Mr Mustard came across a tribunal decision concerning loading when he was idly looking through the public register the other day. It was for loading in Beverley Gardens on 29 February 2024. Probably here, or on the opposite side:

It is slightly surprising that loading isn't banned at a junction but is isn't so you can park your vehicle there and get on with unloading without, in theory being bothered by a 'traffic warden'. Theory and practice can be different. Here is the gist of the written decision 2240238199:

Barnet Council have twisted themselves in knots to refuse the representations. They have not banned loading and they don't appear to have disputed that loading was taking place but say you can't park on yellow lines to load or unload. Poppycock.

The council's traffic order says this:

and further on in the Order the time is limited to 40 minutes.

The Highway Code is a document the council love to quote from (although it is a mix of guidance and repitition of the law) and they should have taken heed of rule 247

but it was inconvenient so omitted?

There weren't any yellow markings on the kerb or upright signs so the motorist did nothing wrong and had evidence of his delivery by way of an invoice. Councils should not abuse their power by rejecting perfectly valid representations. If this happens to you, trust in the adjudication process and go to Appeal, adjudicators make impartial decisions.

It wouldn't be the money would it that causes councils to depart from the law & get things wrong in their own favour?

The end.

How can such an error be made? Haringey Council

Mr Mustard can't remember what prompted him In January 2024 to ask for data from Haringey but they are unlikely to be the only local authority getting this wrong.

What he asked them was:

In the circumstance that a registered keeper files an in time witness statement at the Traffic Enforcement Centre a revoking order follows and the council has the right to issue a fresh Notice to Owner.

These events are noted in the parking software as 'Revoking Order Received'.

For all Revoking Orders received from 1 April 23 onwards to date please provide me with a spreadsheet which lists for each relevant PCN the Revoking Order date of receipt and the date of issue of the fresh Notice to Owner.

My question relates only to parking PCNs and only to Revoking Orders issued because a Notice to owner was not received not for any of the other three reasons why a witness statement can be filed.

Haringey sent him the response in due time and in full. There were a few hundred such events and 10 of them stood out as they exceeded the legal limit of 28 days. The following are the PCN numbers in question.

Mr Mustard imagines that Haringey residents will have received most of these PCNs so do tell them to check if they have paid any of these and ask Haringey Council for their money back as the council have broken the law. A Notice to owner sent beyond the prescribed time limit is not a legal Notice to Owner and no penalty falls due as a consequence.

Councils must know when a department is running late and should have processes in place to either make sure the fresh Notices go out in time or the PCN is written off.

Councils in London, get your house in Order as after the year end on 31 March 2025 Mr Mustard is going to put his armchair audit hat on, check your actions and take steps to force refunds if you have illegal income in your books.

The end, for now.

Typical not typographical

Mr Mustard keeps an eye on the register of PCN Appeals decided at the tribunal. He looks at random cases. Case 2240242447 was not a Mr Mustard case and the written decision was as follows:

The explanation as to how this error came to be made is presented, it appears to Mr Mustard, as if it was a one-off error, a slip of the finger on the keyboard. When it comes to parking Barnet Council won't let you make a little error but their own don't bother them.

Odd that, as Mr Mustard knew he had seen the 'typo' before but not bothered to exploit it, as he didn't think it was a killer point on its own but for for that case, that adjudicator, that day, it was enough. 

Mr Mustard is pretty sure that the error is baked into the Notice of Rejection templte as here is a recent one he looked at:

By all means add this into your Appeal in case you get the same adjudicator or one who is prepared to follow the same argument.

The end.

Day 56 - deemed acceptance of formal representations for a parking PCN.

 

Extract of 2022 Appeals Regulations

The above Regulations are only about parking (not moving traffic e.g. yellow boxes or bus lanes) and applies to 'formal' representations which are those made in response to

- a Notice to Owner

- a postal drive away or physical prevention PCN sent by post

- after recovering your car from the pound to which it was removed.

Mr Mustard has a control sheet for every PCN he fights (an old school sheet of paper) onto which the outline facts of the case are noted. Thus he has the dates of the formal representations and the Notice of Rejection adjacent to each other and his experienced eye picks up cases which are near to or above 56 days. He had such a case in Westminster in May 24 and so no matter how bad the parking might have been (the elderly driver had paid for the wrong vehicle so not a heinous crime) Westminster had timed themselves out of the game. They can't complain, they get 56 days and a motorist never gets more than 28. Here are the grounds of Appeal to the tribunal.

Nine days after starting the Appeal the City of Westminster decided not to fight the Appeal but to cancel the PCN. That was sensible.

Mr Mustard wasn't finished. He thought he couldn't be the one in a million for whom the process had gone wrong and so he asked for some data under the Freedom of Information legislation.

Westminster replied fully and furnished Mr Mustard with a spreadsheet containing 407,284 entries (they included both under and over 54 days). Having distilled it down to late entries Mr Mustard sent a follow up to the parking department which told them, in measured terms, that they had done wrong.

Parking management at Westminster are always polite to Mr Mustard (some council parking managers aren't keen on Mr Mustard because he picks up their errors and causes them extra work but a department which enforces the law must follow the law) and he had to give them a gentle nudge. Shortly thereafter he received a full response.

Mr Mustard decided to double-check the position regarding 'bailiff' charges as although he expected they were being refunded he does like clarity. His question was really to see who picks up the bill for refunding the bailiff charges and it seems it is the bailiff. Don't cry for them, the companies make £millions (the individual bailiffs a pretty penny if they work hard).

There was a swift response to the follow-up:

Good news for the 145 motorists affected. If you are one of them please donate some of your refund to the North London Hospice as a thank you for Mr Mustard's unknown help.

This just leaves the unasked question as to why there isn't a software rule in place which automatically cancels PCNs in accordance with the law once a formal representation reaches the age of 55 days as no Notice of Rejection can then be served in time. PCN software is set up to automate the process as far as possible to the benefit of the enforcement authority. It should also contain parameters which ensure that authorities, endowed with huge power, do not abuse it and break the law.

Mr Mustard expects that quite a few parking managers read the blog. He will be checking all authorities in London in the year to March 2025 to make sure they have not erred like Westminster did. He will expect them to take the same corrective action mirroring the professional approach taken by Westminster.

The end.

 

Barnet Council - out of the goodness of their heart

 

Sometimes it is hard not to laugh. The large cynical part of Mr Mustard thinks that the above response is utter tosh, if the resident had themselves written in asking for a discretionary cancelleation Mr Mustard thinks it would not have taken place. Your responses by way of comment below, on twitter or by email to mrmustard@zoho.com will tell Mr Mustard if he is correctly being cynical or not.

 

If you have a recently expired permit and a PCN then you can now write in your challenge asking to be given the same discretionary cancellation as for AG45904922

The end.

Barking & Dagenham Council - a dog's dinner

A motorist received two letters, one of rejection and one of acceptance, of even date (an old phrase meaning the same date) in one of which the door to the tribunal was opened so he (very lazy to use the words 'Dear Sir/Madam' unless you can't make your mind up which you are) could continue to contest the PCN at the tribunal and on the other hand could forget all about it as no longer being the liable party (the vehicle had not been rented out).

 

Mr Mustard had an argument about the Traffic Order which had previously won at the tribunal so wasn't worried about the actual alleged contravention (all council letters about PCNs should refer to alleged contraventions until after a tribunal hearing confirms a PCN as valid, until then they are not set in stone although many councils treat them as sacrosanct and cast iron penalties and probably have a little cry when they have to cancel one).

Mr Mustard's client having been left befuddled by two letters dated 8 July 24, Mr Mustard started an Appeal to the tribunal on 15 July 24 on the basis of the contradictory responses and the council threw the towel in and cancelled the PCN on 24 July.

It was 10 years ago that Mr Mustard chatted to another regular representative at the tribunal, who he became friends with after seeing him each week at the tribunal, and expressed his surprise that councils kept lashing up the process. The consensus was that all errors ought to be corrected and those escape routes closed off from challenge but each time a route to success closes another one seems to open. Mr Mustard has come to the conclusion that the piecemeal way in which enforcement takes place and the extensive use of automation and lowly paid staff to process millions of PCNs on a conveyor belt are root causes. Long may it continue.

The end.

 

Haringey overdo it and then do the right thing.

 

Errors jump off the page at Mr Mustard. The addition error above was obvious and so was how the error had occurred. Mr Mustard decided to find out how many times this had happened so he asked questions of the council.

For all PCN Orders for Recovery issued by the council since 1 April 2023 please provide me with a spreadsheet which lists the values of any sum indicated as payable on the Order for recovery which was not £204 or £129 (the expected amounts based upon unpaid PCNs which were issued for the standard amounts of £80 and £130).

You will gather than what I am looking for is any case in the current council year where the amount demanded is unexpected/unusual/wrong as it was in a case I dealt with recently.

The reply was a complete one.

There was only one batch of PCNs affected by this incorrect value; the PCNs were registered at TEC with the correct amount; the batch became stuck halfway through the process and before we were successfully able to create the Notice of Debt Registration batch there were two more attempts to resolve the matter which led to the  adding up the 3 x £9.00 charge. Once this error was identified the PCNs were cancelled and any payments received were refunded accordingly.

Mr Mustard will reproduce below the spreadsheet he was sent. If your PCN is listed and you have not been repaid in full as per the council response, you need to contact the council for a refund.

512 PCNs at £204 (Mr Mustard presumes the council did not pay the fees to the Court three times) gives a maximum loss of £104,448 although the probable loss is likely to be lower, c £50,000 as lots of PCNs never get recovered.

Well done to Haringey Council for refunding in this situation. Mr Mustard doesn't know the trigger for that but doesn't need to be credited with being the driving force, even if he was.

The end.