Newham Council - misleading 'Help' offered

 

So here we have Mr M's car in a bay without a sign on 1 August 25. That makes it a free parking bay. As it happens Mr M lives in a different road within Newham which is subject to frequent vandalism of its sign and this road, Holbrook Rd, is one where Mr Mustard has fought a dozen PCN none of which have had to be paid.

Mr M thought he would point out by himself the absence of a sign and not trouble Mr Mustard and so he did this on 4 August 25.

On 3 September Newham Council rejected the informal challenge of which the gist is below:

It is specious.

They accept ('noted') that 'one of the nearest time plates was missing'. They didn't notice that this bay in their traffic order is meant to be 25m long (a resident has illegally repainted the bay in order to get access to their yard) nor that the bay only ever had one sign so once that sign is missing there is no sign.

The car was within a cpz but the zone entry signs only set the times for single yellow lines which don't have their own timeplate and they do not set the time for bays, each of which must have its own sign and may have its own type and times.

There is a legal obligation that every bay must have a sign.

Councils have an obligation to erect and maintain signage so that motorists can find out what the rules are.

Looking at the next sign, or the one on the other side of the road is very bad advice. Image 3 consecutive bays from which the signs have been stolen. Bay #1 is a motorcycle bay, bay #2 is a residents only bay, bay #3 is a bay for blue badge holders. Bay 4 is for people paying to park, the sign is of no use in informing motorists in the other 3 bays what the rules are.

At this point Mr Mustard was instructed.

On 30 September 25 a Notice to owner was sent but didn't arrive.

On 5 November 25 a Charge Certificate was issued and the balance claimed increased from £160 to £240.

This certificate is misleading nonsense. It does not need to contain reasons 1 -3 and Newham Council knew that options 2 & 3 did not apply so why include them? All a charge certificate needs to say is that the penalty has been increased by 50%

The council tell you in bold that you are stuffed.

They then go on in the next paragraph about the County Court in an attempt to frighten the recipient still further. They give you no details about the options which will be available at the Order for Recovery stage which include the ability to roll the process back, get a fresh Notice to Owner and then once more have the right to make representations. Newham Council have been selective in only presenting the bad news.

Laughably they rendered the £10 court fee as zero.

The 'strong advice' which the council give is highly selective and largely biased in their favour and it is no part of Newham Council's role to give out advice on a matter in which they have a financial interest.

Mr Mustard gave advice to Mr M that he should await the Order for Recovery but might get another document first as he was aware of the stunts that Newham pull.

Thus it was on 24 November 25 that Newham Council sent a letter purporting to offer help. Here it is: 

What utter tosh. Newham Council not thinking they could help with the cost of living crisis by cancelling the PCN that they should never have issued.

Mr Mustard decided to have a bit of sport and complete the online enquiry form knowing he would write things that Newham Council didn't want to read.

Mr Mustard only had to wait for a response although it was utterly useless.

Mr Mustard was not amused at the refusal to provide any help so given that Newham Council didn't like his first effort he crafted a much longer and harder hitting enquiry:

Did this result in a reasoned and complete response, no of course not, it received the same standard letter saying Mr Mustard couldn't use the enquiry service in this way.

Mr Mustard waited patiently.  He had put the PCN into the too difficult pile and Newham Council decided to burn £10 and register the PCN as a debt at Northampton County Court which is really just a big filing cabinet for PCNs.

It was on 8 January 26 that Mr Mustard checked online and saw that the balance had increased to £250 so the Order for Recovery had been issued. Without waiting to see it Mr Mustard filed a 'witness statement' which declared that the Notice to Owner had not been received. As the statement was in time the 50% surcharge and the £10 fee were both taken off the online balance.

On 9 February 2026 a fresh Notice to Owner was issued.

On 10 February 2026 the formal representations were made online in the following words: 

The council are under a legal duty to sign a bay.

There is no sign alongside the bay.

The motorist was therefore not on notice of the terms of any traffic order. 

The PCN is too vague. It does not state which of the types of bay is concerned, is it a residents bay or a shared use bay. A motorist is entitled to know exactly what they are accused of, not to have to undertake research. 

The council sent a letter on 24 November which not authorised by the 2022 Appeals or General Regulations and is a procedural impropriety. 

The council's behaviour has been wholly unreasonable and vexatious throughout.

The final line was a clear warning that costs would be applied for if the council rejected the representations and an appeal was necessary to the independent adjudicator.

This time some-one with at least half a brain thought about them as they were accepted and the PCN was cancelled. Their thought process was still flawed and the majority of the acceptance letter was utter tosh and churlish.

Mr Mustard wonders if the council will learn anything from this. Once Mr Mustard decides a PCN is wrong he will fight it all the way to the tribunal and if he does that the council will incur the tribunal fee of c.£32. Newham wasted the £10 in this case for the TEC registration, Mr Mustard did warn them.

The problem, and the reason councils do this, is that many unlawful PCNs get paid, often by lease companies (try not to lease, just buy yourself a smaller older car with a straightforward loan if you can) and so there is no stick to balance out the carrot. If councils issue an unlawful PCN they should have to give the amount of the penalty to the recipient. That would make councils think before they shoot.

The end. 

Havering - a mitigation free zone

 

Blue signs mean 'only' so in this case only buses and cycles may pass the sign. The words 'bus gate' on the road should help motorists to turn around and find another way to the hospital which you can see in the background.

Mr Mustard fell over the tribunal decision at random as he idles through the tribunal decisions most days.

 

Mr Mustard often struggles to convince the public that a council will, when faced with an obviously meritorious claim for kindness (use of discretion) reject it because the overwhelming need is to raise revenue. This is illegal but hard to prove.

Let us look at the decision above.

Firstly note the correct statement that if you fight a moving traffic PCN the discount does not have to be offered again if your challenge is rejected. The discount legally terminates at the end of day 14. There is a trend to not offer it again which is the opposite of what it has been for years. If you are in that situation the tribunal is a free throw of the dice.

Then note that contrary to what the PCN states there are no mitigating circumstances which Havering Council will cancel for. Thus, although you don't know it, every challenge is futile.

Ironically the only grounds they will accept were ones which only came out during the hearing, the driver was following an ambulance, one which contained her father in an emergency situation. If he ambulance driver tells you to follow them you don't choose the route the ambulance will take.

Adjudicators are human beings, unlike the heartless automatons who reject PCN challenges (not all of them but there are plenty as they aren't held to account) and find a way for justice to be dispensed. No need to bend the law to fit in this case Lord Bridge of Harwich had set the scene in the House of Lords decision quoted.

Councils are obliged to have 'due regard' to the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State, the relevant part of which follows:

That was another basis on which the Appeal could have been allowed albeit less authoritatively.

In summary, Havering Council are not acting fairly, not proportionate, not sensible nor reasonable and only become so once put on the spot which is at most 1% of the time for challenged PCNs = hardly ever.

Havering Council probably aren't the biggest fans of Mr Mustard given his record against them at the tribunal.

The score is 17-0 to Mr Mustard! (+ 5 other cases where they threw in the towel). Why don't you take your PCN fight to the tribunal against this Council?

The end.

Beware the 'flying motorbike' sign

 

Mr Mustard thinks that by now, every driver in London would be aware of the 'flying motorbike' sign given that it spread across London like a rash during covid before when, although in the Highway Code for decades, it was little used. Councils rushed to cash in when they realised how easy it was to miss this sign (you wouldn't miss a red no entry sign) and how they could stick it halfway down a well used thoroughfare and get the cash register ringing like crazy.

This morning Mr Mustard took a phone call from a lady who had driven into Holmes Road, NW5 as above and received a PCN. The signs are set back a bit, they should be more prominent, but an adjudicator would probably find them to be adequate. Looking online at the 23 PCNs which went to the indepedent tribunal for this road, the vast majority were lost. Camden are generally well organised.

When you see a 'no through road' sign you expect to be able to drive down it until physically stopped, but no, it may be a stoppage due to signage, like these

Observant readers will have spotted 'Holmes Rd' overlaid by google on the image. Yes, this is further down the same road, about 80m further down. Yes, you guessed it, the lady drove straight through this restriction as well. So that's two PCNs at £160. Ouch.

Now you have to get out of Holmes Road. Two places where you don't want to turn left to get out !

 

You really need to be sharp to drive in London these days. Forget the sat nav, start looking through the windscreen, at everything, say out loud all the signs you see and also go online and read about traffic signs a free site which will save you hundreds of £££.

Do you know what this sign means?

It means no vehicles, except cycles being pushed. There, that has saved you a few quid.

The end.

A cautious hurrah for Hammersmith & Fulham

Mr Mustard has a tribunal case relating to Imperial Road in Fulham. It is an easy restriction to miss as it just doesn't look like a road you shouldn't drive down.

Researching his case he looked at recent winning cases at the tribunal. One supported his over-signing argument and another a delay in responding to representations argument. Wednesday will tell us if either argument worked.

As a complete aside he found this in decision 2250382511:

The traffic order contains the following exemption so the Bolt / Uber deal is entirely sensible. Mr Mustard made an error, the traffic order exemption does not apply to Imperial Road but to the following streets in Schedule 2

Mr Mustard has just realised that gives him another ground of Appeal at the tribunal as the signs, below, don't tell you that you can enter for Boarding &/or Alighting or for Loading/Unloading.

The reason why the council have made the arrangement with Bolt & Uber must be because they were issuing, say, 100 PCNs a day and they were all being challenged and had to be cancelled which wasted a fee for each PCN paid to London Councils (about 50p a time) and whatever they had to pay the contractor for issuing each PCN and then cancelling it. A simple matter of administrative convenience and finance.

Mr Mustard is now wondering how far the council have made this administrative arrangement know to mini-cab companies within Hammersmith & Fulham and further afield in London generally. Mr Mustard will ask the question of the council.

In the meantime, if you have a mini-cab company in London or have to deliver within the borough (John Lewis must be there quite often and Harrods and other major department stores) you could start emailing your vehicle movements to the council using the email address of enquiries@lbhfparking.com thus destroying the belief in the mind of the council, necessary for the issuance of a PCN, that you have committed a contravention.

The end, for now.