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. 

Hapless Havering (Council)

 

This adjudication decision from London Tribunals (case 2250674991 & heard on 17 June) is, although couched in polite terms, a proper telling off.

Now as it happens Mr Mustard represented this same client the week before for the same weight limit at the same location (one visit to erect scaffolding and one to dismantle it explains the two visits) and the same thing happened to that PCN, a Charge Certificate was generated after the balance had been increased to £240 (although in the previous case not actually posted but that is another story) whilst a tribunal decision was pending as Havering have programmed their computer to send a Charge Certificate on day 29 which in normal times is too soon as the motorist gets 28 days from receipt in which to act and although 2 days are made as a service allowance Mr Musatrd posted an important letter to his solicitor and that took 8 days to get to Godalming from Barnet.

Mr Mustard knows that other experts are also experiencing the same Charge Certificate probably particularly with Havering but also with other councils, probably ones who rely on the same software or outsourcer.

What this experience tells you is if you have a Notice of Rejection from Havering Council which doesn't offer you the 50% discount you might as well go to the tribunal even if your case is hopeless as havering are hapless and will probably mess up. Just look how they were described

- Wholly improper

- Unlawful

- Oppressive

A local authority should be ashamed to be described in this way and holding an enquiry to fix where they are going wrong. However, they are too busy raising revenue to stop and do that, probably.

The end. 

 

 

Newham Council - missing manners

 

 

The same road as in the previous blog, this time for Mr H who has probably annoyed Newham Council by persistently parking in free bays and over-turning every single PCN, we are into double figures.

11 July - parked as above, given a PCN.

17 July - Mr H made his own challenge, that there was no sign.

14 August - Newham Council rejected it on the same nonsense basis as in other rejections.

Mr Mustard took over at this juncture. He took a different tack, a complaint, sent to Newham Council in the post, on 17 August. It socked it to Newham Council who get far too few such complaints.

 

 

What happened next? Nothing, it is discourteous and doubtless breaches some council policy on speed of reply but Mr Mustard knew that the council wouldn't want to commit an admission of their unlawful acts to paper so were never likely to answer in any meaningful way. What they did do was to put the PCN on hold and that played into the hands of Mr Mustard. He waited until 14 February and then wrote this:

Suddenly, Newham Council leapt into action and sent a most polite response, probably relieved that this was all over:

Mr Mustard likes to see the PCN value online set to zero so he knows the PCN won't come alive again later on. 

Councils should all respond to complaints about PCNs even though they try to tell you that you should follow the enforcement process but when a council is doing wrong you should both follow the process and tell them what they are doing wrong as the enforcement process does not contain a complaint mechanism.

More people should complain rather than accept bad council behaviour.

Feel free to crib any useful points from what Mr Mustard has written.

The end.

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 a few days 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.