Phone payment signage ambiguity

 

The machine referred to has been bagged over so has no effect and the signs on the meter are not authorised by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 in any event.

This was another decision which Mr Mustard read randomly.

 

A decision by any adjudicator, including the Chief Adjudicator, is not binding on any other adjudicator or even on themselves i.e. they are not precedents but they may be legally persuasive. This means you can state that your circumstances are the same and on all fours with that adjudicator decision so ask the current adjudicator to follow it. It is their choice if they do so or not, they may differentiate your case on the facts. You can use it to support your representations to the council which will show them you have a certain knowledge, likely to go to the tribunal and cost them a fee and they may thus be more inclined to cancel.

The end.

Enfield take the wrong line

 

Mr Mustard usually finds that if there are multiple PCNs at Appeal there is an interesting story behind them and so it was in this case.

Here is the 'offending' vehicle in 2011

and a bit later in February 2022 by which time it has sprouted a trailer.

and again in 2024 by which time there are bay markings which stop just short of the front of the vehicle.

Clearly Mrs Sattar has had some expert help as she refers to TSRGD.

Mr Mustard doesn't know if a council can order a resident to move a vehicle but clearly it hasn't worked. Giving out 5 PCNs to a vehicle isn't the solution in this particular situation, if one PCN didn't prompt a change of heart it wasn't likely that 5 would. Two of them were issued less than 24 hours before the previous one which councils don't normally do.

Mr Mustard can see that the motorist doesn't want lines painting to complete the residents parking bay (as his vehicle is probably too long and/or heavy to qualify for a permit) but unless he never moves the vehicle, so why have it?, they will be on the day he eventually uses the vehicle as the council should simply drive that way every day (or ask the dustman to report once a week?) and then paint the lines when the vehicle has moved.

One does wonder sometimes about the problem solving abilities of the council.

Bay markings have to be a minimum of 1.8m wide which is tight for modern day cars and so they may be painted a little wider if the road will take them. Disabled bays must be 2.7m wide. The standard bay is to drawing 1028.4 and there is no maximum width. If Mr Mustard was faced with this problem he would paint this one bay 2.7 or 3m wide, whatever is necessary to clear the truck and put a sign at both ends and in the middle.

He suspects the truck would then move. He would then paint a standard width bay and burn off the wider markings. Simples.

If not it is then reasonable to start ticketing each day for it not having a residents permit and the truck will have to move to another place where parking is not restricted as those PCNs will stick.

The end.

Clock this

The below is the blue badge and clock which was on display.

The clock in question was supplied by Motability many years ago although they are usually supplied by a council with the blue badge and are meant to be blue in colour and are usually a light shade. This clock has been used for years without a problem (and will now be replaced, you can buy clocks on ebay if you are in a rush).

If the cover is removed this is what is left:

Mr Mustard can't see that it matters the colour of the outside of the clock, it isn't there to look pretty but to indicate the time of arrival, within 15 minutes.

The first challenge was rejected:

It is incorrect. A parking clock was displayed but it was of the wrong colour which is what the rejection should have said.

The motorist didn't wait for the Notice to Owner but wrote in again as many people do and it must annoy the council as they have to take time in responding (it can be argued that you can write in more than once before the Notice to Owner is issued as the back of the PCN says that representations before the Notice to Owner will be considered. The statement is not in the singular).

A second rejection was received.

Another error, the clock was correctly set.

In due course the Notice to Owner arrived, was challenged and at the third time of asking Barnet Council cancelled having wasted everyone's time.

What this nonsense tells you is that persistence pays.

The end.

 

AirBnB per person pricing

Mr Mustard didn't know this despite using AirBnB 30+ times.

He took a month off and went abroad over Xmas and New Year. At different times there were 1,3,4 or 5 people in the 3 bedroomed flat. The price was the same regardless of the number who were staying.

One thing he had learnt due to a suggestion made by his partner, was that if you book a month instead of a shorter period you sometimes get a discount and it might be as high as 50%. Therefore if you only want 3 weeks somewhere, check the price for a month and if less, book it and simply leave earlier and you have made a saving.

When he then looked to have another long trip away he knew he would be alone some of the time, with his partner some of the time and possibly another friend would come out for a few days to do some cycling or her son would also arrive for a few days. To start with he looked at there being 2 people in a two double bedded flat and was quoted £2,503. Sometimes there would be 3 people and then having seen a varying price Mr Mustard set the enquiry to 4 people even though there would never be more than 3 in the flat. At this location there is a per person per diem tourist tax so he would also be overpaying for that.

Mr Mustard then had a look around the AirBnB website and found that this was a pricing model which AirBnB offered whereby a host could charge an extra £10 per night per person above a base number.

As Mr Mustard didn't know his final arrangements he wanted to be upfront with the host and so he messaged them.

Hi Florence. I was thinking of booking this apartment for a month. I noticed that the price varied according to how many people are staying despite the advert being for 4 people. This surprised me as I would have the same space all the time. For the first week my partner will be with me and then she will go back to the uk to work. For 5 days she will come back with her son and then again go back to work. Therefore for half of the time there will be one person, for a week 2 people and for a few days 3 people. I proposed therefore to pay the rate for 2 people. Is that ok? Thank you

He received a response quite quickly.

Thank you for your message and clarification. Yes no problem if you are only 3 people for 3 or 4 days we leave it like that but If there is a change I will have to make you pay the difference, i.e. €10 per day per person beyond two people.
We look forward to entrusting you with the keys to my apartment. Kind regards,

No reduction is offered for the days when only one person is in residence. Mr Mustard doesn't think the costs of the flat will be much different between there being one person or 4 people in residence. What he didn't like was that the pricing structure is not explicitly mentioned in the description of the place and that he blundered over it by chance. The host can have whatever pricing policy they like but it should be open and transparent.

You have probably already guessed that Mr Mustard hasn't booked the particular flat and he looked around in the same town and found a one bed flat with a sofa bed (as well as the double bed) which would meet his needs. There are no extra charges if you use the sofa bed and the 1 bed flat is 52 sq m whereas the 2 bed was about 50 sq m so he is getting the same amount of space and is paying half of the 2 bed flat rate for 2 people. Result.

Mr Mustard hopes this blog may help you one day not be over-charged when you are under-occupying.

The end.

Too many vehicles

This looks like it is a nice place to live although the presence of the security car shows us that it is an area which may be prone to burglary.

Mr Mustard doesn't expect his readers will be overly sympathetic to this situation if they are struggling to pay their own bills and a £130 PCN would stop them eating properly as they are then short on their budget.

 

Mr Mustard can see why an adjudicator would decide the PCN is valid. No observation time is required on a single yellow. Should you argue that you are loading/unloading or boarding/alighting a person who needs assistance then the lack of observation time would work against the council. Having more cars than your carriage drive can accommodate isn't a defence. Stopping on the road to obtain access through a secure gate would probably lead to a cancelled PCN if the time taken wasn't too long but that isn't the case here.

The adjudicator is spot on, he cannot 'let off' a motorist, his job is to apply the law, which will be bent in suitable circumstances but not on this day.

The end.

Barnet Council are unfair

 

This is a decision which Mr Mustard found on the register.

 

Whilst Mr Mustard understands the benefits of school streets the over-riding consideration, based on what rejection letters say, seems to be the penalty charge revenue. You can't easily contact the council to obtain an exemption and given that only permanent employees of schools are eligible for a permit according to council policy it wouldn't help in any event.

I contrast this approach with that overseas, such as in Bordeaux which Mr Mustard recently visited. Restricted roads there are impossible to drive into as they have rising bollards and adjacent to that is an intercom on which you can explain your need for access and, if accepted, the bollard is lowered for you.

Could it be that because such arrangements cost money instead of raising it, British style, councils don't use rising bollards? Surely not.

The end.

The Hackney Council wrestling club

You have all seen and probably been annoyed by council vehicles parked on the pavement which you know is wrong and a case of do what I say not as I do.

A Hackney Council vehicle illegally parked on the pavement.

In this case Hackney Council issued a PCN to Hackney Council. Could councils have budget pressures because they are wasting money? This would suggest so.

The internal wrestling match went the distance with the PCN being challenged and a formal Notice of Rejection being issued. Hackney Council then started an Appeal against the actions of Hackney Council for which Hackney Council paid a fee of about £30 and following the creation of an evidence pack by Hackney Council of probably 50 pages Hackney Council won and Hackney council lost. A score draw of a sort. In the alternative, a definition of futility.

Here is the decision.

 

Looking at the width of the road there was no need to put the van's wheels on the pavement in the first place as the road is wide enough for cars at least to pass in both directions simultaneously.

A lesson for all readers. Stay off the pavement in your car, it is for pedestrians & wheelchairs users (and sometimes cyclists).

The end.