Haringey Council - short of yellow paint, common sense and good manners

 

Followers of Mr Mustard on twitter (@_MrMustard) saw this photograph back in October when Mr Mustard suggested the kerb marks were not substantially complaint i.e. not good enough for the legal issue of a PCN. A blue badge holder missed the one very worn pair of lines across the kerb and got ticketed for their pains. The rules for these transverse marking is they should be every 3m (but can vary from 2m to 4m so they are evenly spaced) so that there will always be at least one alongside the car.

It was wrong of the traffic warden to issue a PCN in the first place as no reasonable person would think, even if they saw the one faded pair, that the loading (and hence blue badge) restriction was still in force when you contrast the transverse marking with the pristine double yellow no waiting lines. Why weren't they repainted at the same time?

So here is the chronology with relevant extracts from the documents.

18 October - PCN placed on the car.

20 October - Informal challenge made.

The kerb marks which indicate ‘no loading’ and thus no blue badge parking are all but gone in stark contrast to the perfect double yellow lines. Given the lack of substantial compliance and thus the failure to adequately inform me of the restriction, the PCN should be cancelled (and the kerb marks repainted in order to not catch out disabled motorists).

22 October - Challenge rejected.

24 November - Notice to Owner issued.

26 November - Formal representations.

The kerb marks which indicate ‘no loading’ and thus no blue badge parking are all but gone in stark contrast to the perfect double yellow lines. Given the lack of substantial compliance and thus the failure to adequately inform me of the restriction, the PCN should be cancelled (and the kerb marks repainted in order to not catch out disabled motorists).

30 November - Notice of Rejection

8 December - Appeal started. Hearing date set for 13 January. Evidence must be served no later than 3 clear days beforehand.

The kerb marks are not substantially compliant.

31 December - Charge Certificate issued.

8 January - Extra ground added to the Appeal.

11 January - Haringey email the evidence (when postal service had been stipulated).

It contained the following:

Mr Mustard doesn't usually let an untruth go unchallenged in a case summary so his skeleton argument included the following:

(EA = Enforcement Authority = Haringey Council)

Here is what the independent adjudicator made of it

Haringey Council said the law wasn't what Mr Mustard said it was and then got told by the Adjudicator that the law they said they hadn't breached was precisely the one they had breached. Did they not understand? or did they think they could bluff Mr Mustard and more importantly the Adjudicator?

(The state of the kerb marks didn't even need to be considered as the council's case was dead in the water the moment they issued the Charge Certificate in error).

If a motorist make the tiniest mistake councils, like Haringey, pounce on them and relentlessly purse a penalty charge.

If Haringey Council make a serious error they want it to just be ignored. How can that be equitable? It certainly isn't justice, it is an abuse of their powers and bad manners. If Mr Mustard sent a demand in his old day job of debt collection to the wrong party, as he did a couple of times, and it was pointed out to him, he sent a fulsome apology to the wronged party.

When did it become acceptable in council PCN back offices to not show basic decency? An apology goes a long way.

The other question is: what lies are the council telling to motorists who don't have Mr Mustard's detailed knowledge of PCN law which leads them to pay a PCN which should really be fought?

Until councils don't have a vested interest in PCN income, they are usually going to be biased towards upholding PCNs no matter how dodgy as they want to keep the cash flowing.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard