Merton - malicious multiples

Sometimes a set of decisions in the public register of PCN Appeal decisions catches Mr Mustard's eye and this is one such case 

There are 11 PCNs in play worth a total of £1,430 although as Merton Council have accepted £65 for the one PCN which they did win and they would have settled for £715 even if they won the lot. Merton Council had to shell out about £300 in fees for the tribunal. School streets are big money earners as only 1% of motorists will go as far as the tribunal, most people will meekly pay up.

This is the location plan:

The 'flying motorbike' sign in one which no-one seems to know although given how much money they have now generated all over London Mr Mustard suspects the sign is much better known now than it used to be.

It is easy to avoid this school street, you can drive around 3 sides of a square although Mr Mustard suspects that most of the people caught were driving their kids to school or else delivery drivers.

Firstly, was it really necessary for Merton Council to issue and pursue all 11 PCNs to the bitter end (although the ending was sweet for the motorist). What are they trying to achieve? In theory the council want compliance to make the street quieter. In practice they look like they are revenue raising.

Secondly, what is interesting is that Merton Council rejected representations which hadn't been made. That is arguable depending on the wording of what was said, reference having been made to further anticipated PCNs. Had Merton Council not rejected the representations as if made against each and every PCN, which were clearly disputed, Merton Council could after 28 days have put them all up from £130 to £195. This was a tricky situation.

Thirdly, it is noted that the school run is now done on foot so the motorist has only paid one penalty at 50% which is fair enough, the council have their wish for more active travel and the distance which was being driven probably wasn't that high as it is now being walked. This is a win/win apart from for council tax payers but they are winning overall. Money doesn't have to come into this. A council could agree to waive all the PCNs in return for the motorist agreeing to not drive to school in future. Carrot rather than stick.

There were two other multiple PCN cases at this location Mr Mustard found when he searched. Mr Obeng was renting out a vehicle but his paperwork didn't meet the requirements for the transfer of liability. Nothing stops him from demanding payment from the hirer.

The other case was a Mr Nowakowski.

The failure to spot the signs seven times counted against the driver (he handled 14 similar PCNs for a person once who had turned right where they shouldn't - were they looking or were they asleep at the wheel on their commute? - they blamed Waze but they were driving!).

A different adjudicator on a different day with a different motorist might have made an entirely different decision. If an Adjudicator finds, as a fact, that a contravention occurred they must refuse the Appeal. They cannot, for a moving traffic case, even make a recommendation that the overall penalty be lowered. Mr Nowakowski isn't without fault (officially) but is paying out £455 a proportionate penalty when compared to fines imposed in the Magistrates' Courts for other wrongs - if you know, please tell us in the comments section.

End.