Don't be green in yellow boxes

 

This location on the A1 just north of Apex Corner has had cctv installed to monitor the yellow box.

Mr Mustard knows that the car in the top right of the box received a PCN as probably did the car in front and possibly the cars in lanes 3 & 4 as their rear wheels were in the box. You are fine exiting Marsh Lane, it is the drivers coming south who should all stop at the top edge of the box and then only move forward once they can cross the entire box and make an escape but that would make traffic flow awful so we all have to gamble and pay the price if it goes wrong.

If Mr Mustard realised he had erred and was going to be caught he would have runed left into Marsh Lane, not done a U-turn until it was allowed and then rejoined from Marsh Lane. 

Be careful out there.

The no good goods bay

Mr D delivers goods for his employer using his own vehicle (he might have stopped now as it exposes him to PCNs which is unfair if the employer won't pick up the tab). He made a delivery in Church Rd, NW4 (Hendon central). Here is the location.

 Here is the sign

Mr D was not in a goods vehicle but that isn't a problem as there is an error in the wording of the relevant Barnet traffic order. The sign must match the traffic order so Mr Mustard took a look (it is available online here)

 

Mr Mustard was surprised and amused, there aren't usually such blunders to give him a get out of jail free card. The area where the white van was parked, where Mr D also parked his car, is defined as a Pay by Phone bay, it isn't a bay for goods vehicles to load or unload. Thus any PCN for being in a goods vehicle loading bay without loading or for not being in a goods vehicle is a dead duck.

Mr D made his own informal challenge. He supplied proof of loading but was rejected as he wasn't in a goods vehicle.

Having spotted the error Mr Mustard sent the details to the council but they don't like anyone writing back to them after they have rejected an informal challenge and in response to Mr Mustard pointing out the error in the traffic order Barnet Council rather stupidly said the PCN was issued correctly. Mr Mustard didn't mind as he knew he would win in the end.

Mr Mustard made the formal representation once the Notice to Owner arrived. The meat of his representation was:

The council's traffic order does not create a goods vehicle loading bay at the location in question, outside 77-79 Church Road, NW4. It creates a pay bay numbered 9323. The council's PCN is therefore unlawful as is the erection of the sign.

This time someone realised Mr Mustard had fired his arrow into the bullseye and the PCN was cancelled.

The heading is wrong, it should say 'Alleged contravention' until such time as an Adjudicator decides it is a contravention in law. Nice, an apology although Mr Mustard would much prefer the council spells out what they did wrong. The council then ruin it by saying the decision doesn't set a precedent when of course it does, if the rules and the sign were wrong the same cancellation should happen every time.

There haven't been many PCNs at this location but if you had one then ask the council for your money back.

Mr Mustard has just checked the traffic order. It does not seem to have been corrected yet.

The end. 

Newham Council - Bluffers & bullies

 

Mr Mustard's client muddled up his paperwork and made a declaration that was wrong. He therefore decided to pay the PCN to see the back of the problem.

Mr Mustard thought the doubtless standard warning letter was a bit passive aggressive and whilst he knows there are people who make repeated false declaration his client isn't such a person.

As ever Mr Mustard likes to deal in facts and so he asked a very simple question about the number of prosecutions.

Mr Mustard had a feeling that he knew what the answer would be and his guess turned out to be correct.

Now either there is a problem with false statements which justifies a warning or there isn't and the dire warning shouldn't be there.

Mr Mustard guesses that there is a problem but the individuals concerned will be well known to the council and the Newham Council shouldn't be throwing their weight around when motorists who hardly ever submit witness statements make a hash of a single one but save their warnings for the repeat culprits and then go after them.

Bluffers & bullies - not a good look.

The end.

Taking Camden to Town

 

Mrs D parked as above. Although previously helped by Mr Mustard, Mrs D thought she could deal with this herself. What she wrote on 3 November was clear and detailed, as follows:

 

That was a very well written, polite and calm request for discretion written by a person who perhaps doesn't know that no loading is generally held to also mean no blue badges but councils can opt to allow it, the signs don't tell you the answer. In Barnet, where Mrs D lives, the council have messed up the rules for this and a blue badge holder can defeat a PCN. Camden probably have it correctly defined in their traffic orders. That part of Camden which is south of Euston Rd is outside the scope of the blue badge scheme but this location is within the rules for blue badge use.

You have probably already guessed that Camden Council rejected the challenge.

The council blame the driver for not planning ahead when it is clear from the challenge that the situation was different on 3 November.

The information given to blue badge holders is not quite as clearcut as the council claim.

Barnet allow free parking in residents bays but the signs don't tell you that.

It would have been helpful if Camden Council had explained what and where the green badge zone is.

It doesn't matter whether Camden Council are satisfied a contravention occurred, or not. What they were asked to do was to exercise their discretion and they showed no sign of having done so with an open mind.

Note the nudge about future discount, a dire warning that it will cost you if you fight on. Mrs D agreed to make a donation to the North London Hospice and sent the Notice to Owner dated 6 January 2026 to Mr Mustard. He made the formal representations on 9 January.

Mr Mustard had Camden Council cornered and he also had a cheeky impossible question for them about reserving space on the public highway, hopefully they won't write such unhelpful guff in their future rejections.

Camden Council get 56 days by law in which to reject the formal representations and if they do not serve their response in time they are deemed to have accepted the representations and must cancel the PCN. Mr Mustard keeps an eye on the online balance. The 10th time he checked was 6 March by which time Mrs D had not received a Notice of Rejection but the balance was unchanged at £160. Mr Mustard went online on 6 March and sent Camden Council a message that pointed out the law and told them the PCN must be set to £0.00

On 12 March when he checked the balance duly was £0.00, Mrs D hadn't heard from the council by then nor had Mr Mustard. Not at all polite which is sadly a quality that often goes missing in council parking departments.

If you are a blue badge holder and was given a PCN for being on double yellows with a loading ban, it is time to ask for a refund if it was given out in Granary Street.

You are probably wondering why the informal challenge didn't pick up the council traffic order failure. It is because the assumption is that all signs which have been erected will have an underlying traffic order and 99.9% of the time that is the case so a rejection letter can reasonably be based on signage but 0.1% of the time Mr Mustard is there to spot the error. Mr Mustard expects that Camden Council will have corrected the traffic order map now.

Mrs D generously gave £80 to the North London Hospice. 

The end. 

 

 

 

Boxing clever ?

 

Mr Mustard has seen this location a few times recently as the camera is relatively new so all those people who used the junction with The Burroughs to go north up the A41 from Hendon Central tube station and then back south down the A41 on the other carriageway and have now been caught out. Whilst it is arguable that this is two right turns an adjudicator might well think otherwise as this one did. This is because causing the vehicle to face in the opposite direction is at the heart of the contravention.

Mr Mustard was rather confused by the fact that the seller registered the car in a random name (and then takes insurance, if any, in their real name and insures the random name as a named driver) because Muhammed Ali seemed rather random to him.

What this decision does show is that all of the peripheral information about insurance, DVLA registration, vehicle tax and where and when you are taking delivery when added together can prove your case so if you have it, use it, no-one else will prove your case for you.

Mr Mustard thinks that DVLA always give out the name of the new owner if the alleged contravention is on the date of sale. They should really give both lots of information to the council/TfL and leave them to decide who the keeper is and/or the time of handover should have to be declared as well as the date, given the trouble it can cause.

Please don't pay a PCN when you did not incur it.

The end.

Two in 2 minutes

 

Mr O parked in a bay with the above sign and received a code 19 PCN for being in a residents or shared use bay. Clearly the use isn't shared but it isn't a bay for residents only either so Mr Mustard would have argued the toss. It seems to be mostly in Hackney that they have residents bays and general permit bays, he has no idea why. However, he was busy working so left the client to argue for himself. This PCN, ending 651A did get cancelled.

However what also happened was that a Notice to Owner arrived for a code 19 PCN at the same location for the same vehicle but with an alleged contravention time that was 2 minutes later. A PCN had not been served on the day which is a complete defence. The number was 6520.

What happened, surmises Mr Mustard, is that the 'traffic warden' was unhappy with something on PCN 651A and cancelled it, issued 6520 and then printed out and put the wrong PCN on the vehicle.

What you may not know is that these two PCNs are consecutive, 651 and 652 as the final number is a check digit which makes it less likely that you will go wrong when entering it in a system.

The standard cancellation letter from Hackney Council is at odds with itself.

The PCN may have been correctly issued but it wasn't correctly served so that sentence is a bit slippery.

There has been an administrative error. It would be open and honest if the council said what it was.

It is a precedent if the council make a procedural error, they must cancel other such PCNs.

The point of this blog is that the more you know the better equipped you are to fight councils. Please keep doing it.

The end.

Internecine PCN warfare

 

Some motorists have a pessimistic attitude, that councils and TfL have it in for them. They shouldn't feel individually persecuted, councils have it in for everyone, including other local authorities (and possibly their contractors). Every motorist is a possible rich revenue source.

Here is a tribunal case in which Islington Council try to avoid giving Haringey Council £160 and fail.

 

 

An adjudicator decides the case based upon the evidence put in front of them. The argument put forward was 

Had there been an official diversion in place one would expect there to be diversion signs. The cctv at this location is within Frobisher Road so looks at the backs of the signs (they can be proven by library images). If Islington Council had proof of signage diverting them into Frobisher Road that would have been an exemption to the pedestrian and cycle zone. However, Frobisher Road is part of the 'Haringey ladder' and I would therefore expect any diversion to have been through a different 'rung' one without a school within it. it is easy to lose a case by not proving it. If the explanation was true it was not adequately evidenced.

Islington Council lost £160 (unless they make the employee pay) and Haringey Council lost a c.£30 tribunal fee. Both sides lost bundles of time.

The alternative is that councils let each other off but that isn't satisfactory either, as council employees piously tell us we should look out for signs, so what is sauce for the goose....

The end.