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. 

8 Deadly sins

Mr Mustard spots unusual looking decisions on the tribunal register and has a read. Here is one such.

and here is one of the decisions in full

Now lets pinpoint the location:

 

We can see that Brackley Walk is a lane which leads to a narrow footpath and then through to another road. There is a dropped kerb to allow for easy access.

It is clear that cars are often parked there. If the land is private then you need to erect barriers to keep the public out and then the car is safe from being ticketed.

Greed is one of the deadly sins, Barnet Council appear to suffer from it. The eighth deadly sin could be to park your car on the pavement, just don't do it.

Councils can be a bit slow to cotton on. Once three PCNs have been issued for the same thing they clearly aren't a deterrent (Mr S was in any event abroad which probably explains why he had to go down the witness statement route to obtain a tribunal hearing) and become a mere revenue raising measure. £910 of penalties for a B registered car, it might be worth a lot due to rarity value or it might not.

If you do go abroad for more than 14 days the advice of Mr Mustard is to get someone you trust to open your post and send you anything important.

The penalties in this case were reduced to just one at £130 the other 6 being obviously issued to a car which hadn't moved and thus this was patently one continuous contravention. Councils think they can be trigger happy but most adjudicators will blunt their fire.

There has never been another case at the tribunal for this location nor does council data for 2018 - early 2025 show any issued at this location. That would also have given rise to a legitimate expectation argument.

The car was interesting, a Ford Granada from another age. Now exempt from needing an MOT. It changed ownership not long after these PCNs were issued and is taxed.

So remember people, don't be as greedy as a council and don't put a single wheel on the pavement unless it is marked out or signed to allow it.

The end. 

Camden Car pound Cock-up

 

If you have the misfortune to have your car towed by a council (now £280) you should be given a notice of your right to make a representation in writing (or sometimes also by email or on a portal) to the relevant enforcement authority (Camden Council in this case) to argue why the PCN and/or the tow was wrong. If the council reject those representations, which they inevitably will otherwise they have to give you £360 back (the tow fee + the discounted PCN, £80 in this case) the door then opens to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

What you should not be given is a Notice of Appeal form to start an Appeal to London Tribunals because that stage has not yet been reached.

This is what Miss EV was also given (she had accidentally parked on an EV bay as there were two spaces with the charger sat in the road in the middle of them so it looked like two separate bays and only the right hand one had a sign - Mr Mustard has told her that finding a free bay in Camden was optimistic).

The above form explains why the first email from Miss EV to Mr Mustard was so confusing, the lady had been mislead by Camden Council car Pound which is doubtless outsourced.

Mr Mustard thinks this amounts to a procedural impropriety as it is a failure to follow the Regulations about PCNs and should be an automatic cancellation at the tribunal. That will be the first argument before the unclear signage one and only one ball needs to be kicked into the net for a cancellation.

The end, for now. 

Brent Council - lawbreakers

 

Mr Mustard apologises for the recent dearth of blogs but he is busy earning a crust and is therefore rejecting the vast majority of requests for help with a PCN and not writing much on the blog. A few years ago the backlash against big brother cctv enforcement was felt by the government and they curtailed the widespread use of cctv to punish every perceived contravention. The law is now as set out above in the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State.

Last month a motorist came to Mr Mustard with a PCN and given the circumstances he decided to fight it. The driver had parked up for a few minutes in the taxi rank and there was no excuse, taxi ranks are for black cabs and Mr Mustard is in favour of them so please get off their ranks. However, he is even less fond of money-grubbing councils so the motorist got some help to fight the PCN and guidance about their future parking.

Here is a section of their PCN:

The camera isn't obviously sited, it is the other side of the road behind a tree, so much for the idea that cctv surveillance is to encourage compliance, this one is to maximise income.

Brent Council are still thinking about the challenge that was made a month ago, and their 56 days in which to respond are rapidly ebbing away but here it is, short, sweet and utterly devastating for the council:

The council is not empowered to issue PCNs in a taxi stand using cctv, a CEO in person must be at the location. The PCN has been issued unlawfully, please cancel it

Obviously this couldn't be a one off error, someone has authorised the installation of a camera for the purpose of issuing PCNs in what is, in fact, an illegal decision. Mr Mustard thought he had better find out how profitable the camera was so he asked some simple questions by FOI which worked well and here are the responses:

Gosh, Mr Mustard was quickly on to this, it only started on 6 March 26.

Mr Mustard has today emailed the Monitoring Officer for Brent Council whose statutory duties include ensuring that the council follows the law. Let's see how long it is before he receives a response.

Mr Mustard thinks that it would be better that instead of asking a council to police itself, when it is hungry for revenue, that an external independent Ombudsman would be more effective at controlling the rapacious instincts of councils (and private parking companies) when it comes to the issue of PCNs which are a failed system in terms of controlling parking & driving but a massive success in terms of profit making for councils to shore up their pressed finances. Over 9m council & TFL PCNs are issued in London each year, they just aren't working to prevent contraventions.

To be continued. 

 

A decade of moving traffic PCNs in London

 

Welcome to the goldmine which is PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. These are all enforced by cctv camera linked most of the time to a computer which identifies alleged contraventions (although council staff or contractors probably assume the selected clips are correct, when that isn't always the case).

The right to issue PCNs for moving traffic contraventions (banned turns, yellow box junctions and the many often part time 'no motor vehicles' streets known also as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and School Streets have proliferated since Covid in 2020) started in 2003.

Back in 2015 many of these cameras would have been watched over by real people sat watching video screens who manually recorded what appeared to be contraventions. TfL still do it that way. However advances in technology now enable locations to be watched 24/7 by cameras linked to computers that look at the movement of vehicles and can tell when they go where they shouldn't, read the numberplate, send to DVLA for details of the registered keeper and then send out a PCN, all with no direct human intervention. They don't miss the slightest error.

That is the second factor which explains the fourfold increase in moving traffic PCNs over the decade. If we assumed a 50% recovery of what were £130 PCNs the income to councils in London would be £254,000,000 (they are now £160). 

The third factor is councils who decided to start using their powers which is definitely Kensington & Chelsea, Greenwich, Sutton, Barnet & Bromley and others like Bexley which had just started.

Only four councils failed to at least double their PCN count in the decade, being Brent, Waltham Forest, Kingston & Harrow. 

You need to chuck your satnav away and look out of the windscreen like a hawk. Join the Institute of Advanced Motoring or ROSPA and improve your observation skills.

The end. 

A decade of bus lane PCN in London

 

This is a very varied picture by borough.

Overall the number of bus lane PCNs has increased by 13% in 10 years which rather indicates a high level of compliance by motorists especially given the huge increase on TfL roads. Mr Mustard knows that TfL have recently put cameras in locations which were previously not covered including the North Circular at Palmers Green which caught out a lot of drivers who had noticed the absence of a camera for many years. Clapton Common was another location with a new camera and a local motorist had a dozen PCNs there as the driver didn't bother getting out of the bus lane even when the all traffic lane was empty and drove up it several times before the first PCN arrived. Mr Mustard declined to assist. Another representative stepped up but at £40 a pop.

The really interesting part is the 20 boroughs where the number of PCNs has decreased which suggests that local residents have learnt and probably it is mostly visitors who get caught. Mr Mustard doesn't think that many bus lanes will have been removed as they tend not to be once installed.

Next, moving traffic, which will make your eyes water.