30 November 2016

The drivel that councils spout (Barnet in this case)

section 86 TMA 2004
Barnet Council argue, in their submission to the tribunal, that the dropped kerb exists for the following reason:

This makes each and every dropped kerb in the borough, including the one in question which is not opposite another drop for pedestrians (and there is no tactile paving to inform the blind that it is a less unsafe place to cross) a dropped kerb for the purposes of issuing PCN, as far as Barnet Council / NSL are concerned. Unfortunately for them that does not provide a legal reason for issuing a PCN under the TMA 2004 as is printed on the PCN.

Is it really the case that wheelchair users, or parents with pushchairs, fancy leaving the safety of the pavement in order to progress along a busy carriageway (Friary Rd in this case) and then stay there as there isn't a point of easy exit opposite? No, it's drivel and designed to encourage motorists to pay rather than fight.

Mr Mustard is acting so we fight to the very end.

Reputational damage? mostly self inflicted by Barnet Council and/or their agent, NSL.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard


  1. Hi,

    Did you win this appeal?

    Having a similar PCN where they are claiming a dropped kerb no longer allowing access to a property, can now be used by pedestrians.

  2. If you send me an email at mrmustard@zoho.com I will send you a copy of the decision.


I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.