Redbridge - not clear, intra vires and communicated.

The three pavement parking PCNs which were given out one after the other to three cars parked like the above one, in a road which had these signs everywhere:

have now been cancelled after the formal representations were made, the almost identical informal challenges having all been rejected based upon a misreading of the law by Redbridge Council (see previous blog). Redbridge probably finally worked out, thanks to other emails by Mr Mustard which contained complaints and his explanation of the law on signs, that if they rejected him again they would be facing him at the tribunal and as well as not being paid for the PCNs, if and when they lost, they would be out of pocket for three tribunal fees of £30 each.

Mr Mustard has been in front of a particular adjudicator who sometimes sums up the situation about PCNs as being that the contravention must be 'clear, intra vires and communicated' (intra vires = lawful by dint of having the legal power to issue the PCN). Mr Mustard tries to learn from what adjudicators have to say.

Here is what Redbridge had to say after having right royally messed up.

The first sentence should read 'that was affixed'.

No information as to when the consultation was carried out, how and when the residents of this particular road were consulted, if and when they were notified of the outcome, whether cyclists were consulted as cars are allowed to park in the cycle lane, and how drivers were told that the tarmac area was the extent of the section to park (in). An entire paragraph saying nothing of real use or relevance. What Redbridge haven't explained is how a driver knew, by signs, that he/she had to confine their wheels to the tarmac. Drivers from other boroughs would have no idea this was the council policy and only the most observant residents of Redbridge might work it out.

Mr Mustard had already explained to Redbridge Council that the sign means that all of a vehicle except for two wheels are allowed to be over the pavement. If a pavement is too narrow to allow for most of a car to be parked on the pavement then, following the council's own policy about free space for pedestrians, they shouldn't have allowed pavement parking at that location. Not everyone will know that RTA stands for Road Traffic Accident. Mr Mustard feels sure the council would disclaim liability for any accident regardless of how far a car was on the pavement.

The decision to cancel was really forced upon Redbridge as they were wrong. Note the complete lack of contrition or apology for having wrongly trained their traffic wardens and for wrongly having rejected perfectly valid informal challenges and for having put three law abiding residents through three months of worry.

Note also the defiance and the pre-judging of future PCNs 'which will not be cancelled' - that all depends upon Redbridge painting legally valid lines and erecting matching signs (don't hold your breath). In addition, enforcement authorities such as Redbridge aren't meant to pre-judge the outcome of a representation against a PCN, they are meant to judge it on its merits and without any thought to the income which derives from it. Redbridge Council don't appear to hold the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State in high regard in this respect.

Drivers everywhere, the ones who have to visit Redbridge, Mr Mustard should have made your life simpler as Redbridge will now make it crystal clear where pavement parking is to be allowed.

Mr Mustard thinks Redbridge Council may well feature in the blog again in the future if pavement parking is a measure of their (in)competence.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard