TfL bully boys ?

 

This PCN is the first that Mr Mustard has seen with this new layout. If TfL find it improves the rate of payment you can be sure that other enforcement authorities in London will follow suit. To Mr Mustard's mind the red section is all wrong.

Certain information on a PCN is statutory and anything else can be added by TfL. The enforcement process items it must contain are the full price of the penalty and the 50% discounted price. It must also tell you that if you do not pay or make representations within 28 days of service (=receipt) that TfL may increase the balance by 50% and send you a charge certificate to that effect.

Given the parlous state of the payment system the PCN may not arrive very quickly and it could easily be 4,5 or 6 days before you receive it especially as first class post is no longer mandatory for this type of PCN (which is a backward step given the state of the Royal Mail). Therefore, TfL should not put a fixed date (2 October) within the PCN which could make you think you are out of time when you are still within it. Mr Mustard posted a Power of Attorney to his Solicitor recently that took 8 days to reach Godalming, by first class post. He could have cycled there and back in 2. Keep the envelope in which your PCN was sent if you want to ask Mr Mustard about the PCN.

What bothers Mr Mustard even more are the next two red sections for Debt Registration and Enforcement Agent (bailiff). No-one sensible ignores a PCN but the assumption should be that the recipient will choose to deal with it. This just looks like bullying to Mr Mustard. He needs to obtain the other 3 pages of the PCN and the 2 pages of notes before he can decide how unfair the whole thing is but his first reaction is that this is bang out of order.

If you disagree with the PCN make sure you fight it and do it now, don't be a last minute merchant.

More soon.

Just been sent the rest, look at this page. 

From the very start you are being threatened, this is completely unacceptable, you are allowed 28 days in which to act and take advice. Mr Mustard will be fighting this PCN (it has already been at the county court stage once and TfL have cheated so this should end up going away and nowhere near a bailiff) which the recipient of is happy about and will take his chances (Mr Mustard wins 90% of the time) which might cost him an extra £90 but he knows and accepts the low risk.

Yet more soon. 

Suspect suspension

 

A resident, let's call him Mr G, received a PCN at this location on 10 July having observed that the works were complete. What really should happen is that to be helpful to the public the workers should be empowered to take down the sign once works are complete but that doesn't happen in Barnet.

Mr Mustard advised Mr G to ask some questions of the council as he thought the sign looked a bit amateur and not in line with the version authorised by the Secretary of State.

The questions and answers were as follows:

The photos have not been published. However, what appears to have happened is that a certain period of suspension was requested but a different one was advertised. The CEO (traffic warden) isn't to know that, they rely entirely on the erected sign and assume it will be correct and clearly that isn't always the case.

Separately Mr G received another response which quite fairly cancelled the PCN as it wasn't sustainable, the advertised suspension not being the authorised one. Mr Mustard has not known this happen before.

What this tells you is that it is worth asking to see all of the records about the suspension to make sure it was properly arranged as if it wasn't the council will cancel your PCN. Properly typed up 3 sided signs bearing reference numbers are likely to be correct (but could still be wrong) and dodgy looking handwritten signs are the most susceptible to challenge.

You can submit your questions by email to foi@barnet.gov.uk

The end.

 

 

 

Unusual process error in Barnet

 

The above is Claverley Villas in Finchley Central. It has a single yellow line restricted from 2 to 3pm to stop all day parking and local business people park on it a lot and maybe move to avoid the hour or just take a chance. One such local professional person spotted the warden at 2:05pm on 16 February got his keys and scarpered rapidly. A PCN was not placed on the car or in his hand.

Let us call him Mr Bolt. The next thing he knew of a PCN having been issued was the receipt of a Charge Certificate dated 27 April. He had not received a Notice to Owner.

It was open to the council to send a PCN in the post due to the driving away but it seems the 'traffic warden' (CEO) must have recorded it as served at the scene.

If you want to fight there is nothing to do with a Charge Certificate except to wait for the Order for Recovery. That arrived at the end of May. The door is opened at that point to filing a witness statement that the Notice to Owner (or postal PCN) was not received. A signed witness statement was duly filed on 29 May that a Notice to Owner was not received. 

The Traffic Enforcement centre cancels the Charge Certificate and authorises the council to serve a fresh Notice to Owner. It duly arrived dated 16 June 26. Mr Mustard looked at it and was confused. It alleged that the vehicle in question was parked in a restricted street (i.e. one with a yellow line) being Claverley Villas but on 6 March 2026 at 09:51

There were two errors there, the council had no photos taken on 6 March and it isn't a contravention to park on that single yellow at 09:51

Someone had used some fancy footwork at the council and got two different processes mixed together. Mr Mustard was pushing at an open door when he made the representation denying the date and time. Barnet Council rapidly caved in.

Funny stuff, detail, it has to be correct. This was a new error which Mr Mustard had not seen in his 17 years of fighting PCNs. 

 

Newham Council are Cheats - #54

 

This is, pardon my French, a clusterfcuk

What Mr Dada has demonstrated is the advantage of good planning and preparation and presenting a clear, simple argument which is well documented. That makes it easy for the adjudicator to find in your favour.

This isn't one of Mr Mustard's cases but there is enough description for him to identify the bay in question.

Looking on google the far bay is also one without a sign which must be cluster 1.

The adjudicator noted the presence of single yellow lines which bookend cluster 3 in the middle of this square. They should not be there as they can only be placed at the edge of a carriageway.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, Newham need to do better. Mr Mustard presumes this is to stop motorists parking in invisible spaces 6 or zero (i.e. at each end of the 5 bays) but no lines are required to enforce if someone parks that way, they will have their entire vehicle more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a marked out bay so a PCN can be issued for that.

Back to the PCN in question. There being no sign adjacent to the bay in which Mr Dada parked he was at liberty to park there for free and a warning PCN would have been unfair. What Newham should do when they erect the new sign is to make a note of all vehicles in those 5 spaces at that time and not ticket them until they have left and returned (if they do, making note of tyre valve positions facilitates that knowledge).

The traffic warden (CEO) having taken a photo of a sign from a different bay had cheated and the back office had reinforced this by rejecting a perfectly valid representation and then contesting the Appeal at the tribunal. Cheats all of them and found out. 

The end, but not of cheating.

Newham Council are Cheats - #53

 

Well done Ms Reid you were a thorn (sorry) in the council's side.

This not being one of Mr Mustard's cases he doesn't know exactly where the car was parked but can hazard a rough guess from what google street view shows him.

The image above shows a bay without a sign. That makes it a free bay as the rules for every bay can be different and as the onus is on the council to erect and maintain adequate signage.

The next bay along has a sign but is separated by a disabled bay (which would be better with a sign and/or 'DISABLED' painted on the carriageway where it still can be seen after parking in that bay and by a section of pavement so the sign in this bay doesn't apply to the other bay or any other bay.

 There is no sign to say you can't park here, best for stretch limo owners.

 

 

Yet another location in Newham which has suffered from sign vandalism.

The PCN was unlawfully issued by the CEO, that is cheating.

The representations were clearly rejected by the back office, that too was cheating.

The tribunal is independent and free to the motorist, if your case is legally correct it should prevail.

The end. 

Newham Council are cheats - #52

 

Platinum are a company whose registered office backs onto Nursery Lane and so the explanation as to why their car was on a single yellow line is perfectly plausible. 

Now if we look at the location, it is a narrow cul-de-sac and so because of the numerous comings and goings that will doubtless take place from neighbouring properties this isn't a place at which you can leave a vehicle parked for more than a minute or two.

Newham Council may have breathed a sigh of relief that this series of cheats blogs had come to an end earlier in the year but that was only because Mr Mustard had bigger fish to fry in real life. He is now on top of his work again and so has time for public awareness campaigns. This series will only eventually stop when the council start to behave with the utmost probity. 

You might also be wondering, as is Mr Mustard why there aren't double yellow lines on both sides of the lane and no loading marks as any parked vehicle will cause an obstruction. Only Newham Council in their 'wisdom' can answer that question.

This looks like the sort of PCN that Mr Mustard calls a hit-and-run one as a 'traffic warden' (CEO) seems to drop out of the sky, issues a PCN and scarpers like a kid playing knock down ginger. The complaint in this case is that the CEO operated at a distance and only approached the car after having printed out the PCN. There is nothing unlawful about that even though the public may regard it as unsporting or even cheating. If a CEO can read your number plate from 100m and has a belief that you are in contravention he can record the necessary information and then slap the PCN on the vehicle and leave and it is entirely lawful. 

There doesn't have to be a single photograph but here there wasn't a photograph of a sign and as they are often missing or defaced (especially in Newham) then should a motorist put a council to proof at adjudication a council will be in difficulty. They can rely on library signs although they mustn't be too old. Often google street view is relied upon and Mr Mustard has driven virtually down this lane and not found a single sign.

Mr Mustard suspected that this is a location inside a controlled parking zone and after going for another virtual drive away from the location along Upton Lane he found some dated images of CPZ entry signs (and some temporary Event signs) which tell you the rules for unsigned single yellow lines which you might meet further along your journey. Those zone entry signs are at least a quarter of a mile away around a couple of turns which the public will likely regard as a cheating system (many drivers don't understand this point, Mr Mustard doubts it forms part of the driving test or training, please tell him if he is wrong).

There is a lot to take in on those signs whilst moving and repeater signage would be useful but that would make the entry signs obsolete. Mr Mustard's view is that it would be a more compliant world without cpzs. Of course, if the car had been out on hire and was then moved by a Platinum driver who came to work on the train, he/she wouldn't have been on notice of the restriction in any event.

The end.

Barnet Council double lash up

 

Mr R was a bit surprised to receive the above PCN when he parked in a location he knew well, on a single yellow line but outside the restricted times, and thought he could sort it out himself given that it was an obvious error.

Mr R made his own informal challenge and was, to his even greater surprise, rejected. At that point he came to Mr Mustard. Here is the absolute load of tosh which was the rejection letter and the usual generous offer to accept £80 for a penalty that is not due (why would you pay that?):

 Here is the car in question and the bay sign.

You can just see a hint of a single yellow line in front of the car.

Next is an image from google street view which clearly shows the vehicle was to the left of the sign and the disabled bay is to the right. The photos taken by the CEO ('traffic warden'), whether by accident or design, didn't include any which showed the painted legend 'DISABLED' on the carriageway.

Here is an older google image which also makes the situation clear. These images can of course be looked at by back office staff of the council (or its contractor APCOA).

All of the parking restrictions in the borough of Barnet are recorded on a map based system which is freely available to the public here and this shows exactly where the disabled bay is located. A traffic warden in doubt could equally look at that and it ought to be on his hand held equipment based upon the co-ordinates of where he is standing at that time.

Note that the rejection letter states that the car was parked outside no. 10 and clearly the disabled bay is outside no. 12

The problem was quickly fixed by Mr Mustard logging the formal representations and sending two complaints to the parking manager who, to his credit, always responds pretty quickly and usually agrees with Mr Mustard. What other choice did he have here? The two complaints were about the actions of both the CEO and the back office and the PCN was cancelled a week later. For a nervous type this could all have been too much and Mr Mustard knows that completely wrong PCNs do get paid by people who can't afford to pay 100% if they are wrong, who think the council must be correct despite the evidence of their own eyes, or whose knees buckle at the slightest hint of trouble. Mr Mustard isn't one of those types.

The two big questions about this PCN are:

1. How the heck did the CEO get this wrong ? 

2. Does the back office reject all informal challenges without looking at the facts as they know many people will give up at that stage ?

Is there cynical behaviour inside the council PCN factories ? You decide.

The end.