Local authorites, all ultimately publicly funded, are quite happy to waste time and money trying to move £130 from one council budget to another. Here is a decision from a London Tribunals independent adjudicator.
Helping the mentally or physically ill, the elderly & the poor to fight Council PCNs. Writing about blunders, democracy and profligacy at Barnet Council.
27 September 2022
Hackney Islington pillow fight
25 September 2022
Knowledge is Power and persistence pays off
Mr Mustard helps a loft conversion company if the boss or any of the staff get PCNs. Their contracts with customers require that they provide as many visitor vouchers as are required but still things go wrong sometimes.
This PCN was picked up in Merton:
Mr Mustard enquired as to what was said. Apparently the CEO said that the information was in the machine and although the PCN had not yet been printed there was nothing he could do other than complete the PCN. Mr Mustard was not amused. He decided to get the notes made by the CEO by making a Subject Access Request (you too can do this for your own data). He did that on the same day (5 August) as he made the informal challenge. Mr Mustard wasn't worried about the discount for early payment as he intended that nothing would be paid.
As to the notes of the conversation, which are mandatory, they didn't exist.
End.
13 September 2022
The story of a minor bus lane incursion
Mr Mustard has the pleasure to meet some of the people he helps to fight PCNs for, in this case a lady he will call Mrs Kind, who is 80 years old (indelicate to ask but sometimes it helps). Mrs Kind had been to visit a friend at Appletree Court which you can see in the photos below. For some reason, which she couldn't remember, she drifted into the bus lane (and given that there were no buses about no advantage was gained so there was no point) but the cars turning right and the people crossing the road may have influenced her choice of line.
A bus lane contravention is one of 'strict liability'
and thus the question is whether or not you entered the bus lane and one wheel within it or even a mirror overhanging the lane is enough. There is the legal principle of 'de minimis non curat lex' to consider (the law does not concern itself with trifles) which some adjudicators would apply in this case, but others wouldn't do so, that is a question of interpretation of the law which is entirely within the gift of the particular adjudicator.
The incursion into the bus lane was too trivial to warrant a PCN.
The formal Notice of Rejection contained the following reasoning:
NSL wrote that response based upon outline instructions from an employee of Barnet Council. What it didn't properly consider was the argued triviality. The rejection is based upon a circular logic, triviality is irrelevant because the contravention occurred, but in order for there to be a trivial contravention there must have been a contravention. The council is being asked to exercise its discretion and should explain why it won't duly exercise discretion, the obvious reason being they would like £130 of income.Mr Mustard wasn't worried, he hoped to find a sympathetic adjudicator, and so he started an Appeal to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. He was still saving his words.
Barnet Council ploughed blindly on. They produced the Evidence Pack for the adjudicator, containing the arguments and documents of both parties. The case summary contained the following:but the question of whether the council could prove it had considered exercising its dicretion, which was not supported by any evidence, was moot as the council made a technical blunder, they failed to file the evidence in time, a week before the hearing being specified at law.
Mr Mustard didn't bother filing the usual skeleton argument but confined himself to a preliminary point.
The cover sheet for the Evidence Pack discloses that it was sent to the Appellant on 9 June relating a 15 June hearing.
It was held in the below case, by the now Chief Adjudicator, that service filed after the 7 day deadline is inadmissible and so the same decision should be made in this case.
The in person hearing was short and basically the council's case was thrown out.
Mrs Kind lived up to her name and made a donation to the North London Hospice. That would normally be the end of it, another line in Mr Mustard's long spreadsheet of wins but he was vexed by something the council said in the formal rejection, which was:
'is not an excuse to flout'
It is only today that Mr Mustard is also vexed by the use of the word 'excuse' but he was previosuly exercised by the use of the word 'flout' which as everyone knows requires a deliberate act. Mrs Kind was probably slightly distracted on having just left her friend (and she looked to be driving safely enough in the cctv, she also parking well outside Mustard Mansions).
The first response was inadequate so he emailed again.
I further suspect that the information I requested doesn't exist within the council's files but whether I am correct in that supposition or not isn't relevant, you must either supply the data or tell me that it does not exist.
I look forward to hearing from you.
As you have pointed out, the word flout indicates that an individuals actions are intentional and while CCTV footage shows the vehicle partially contained within the bus lane for a period, it is not possible to gauge whether the driver did this intentionally.