Greenwich 1 - Lambeth 0

Here is an image of a white car being driven the wrong side of a keep left bollard in Vanbrugh hill, Greenwich. A naughty and stupid piece of driving, you'll see the cctv a bit further on. Who is driving the car? someone with the permission of the London Borough of Lambeth, oh dear, do as I say not as I do.

Mr Mustard learnt about this case because the PCN ended up at the independent tribunal and here is the decision of the adjudicator.

This presented Mr Mustard with the long awaited opportunity to show you what a tribunal evidence pack looks like. It is produced by the 'prosecuting' borough, in this case Greenwich and includes Lambeth's evidence

Here is the video, a hideously bad, arrogant and dangerous move.

The end

Barnet Council issue 162 unlawful PCNs

 Here is the tribunal decision for no. 163

 

(Actually there aren't 162 unlawful PCNs as the ones issued to the motorcycle have, out of fairness, to be subtracted and Mr Mustard doesn't know how many that is but the number of unlawful PCNs must be over 80 and is probably over 100).

As the adjudicator observed the council should have stopped issuing unlawful PCNs and removed the vehicle to the pound. Mr Mustard suspects they didn't bother because they thought a broken down 20 year old van wouldn't sell for enough to cover their costs, which shouldn't be a traffic management consideration.

Mr Mustard recommends you don't leave your broken down vehicle in contravention for 6 months because the stress of 163 PCNs would be too much for most, it is the number that Mr Mustard deals with during 6 months although those are all different so slower to deal with. Far better to get some mates round, move the broken down vehicle by pushing it and then buying them a few beers.

162 PCNs at £130 each comes to £21,060 which is clearly excessive for one parking action. 

It appears that either Barnet Council hasn't got its parking contractor NSL under control or they colluded in this corporate stupidity.

The end.

Parallel crossings

 

Mr Mustard saw the above tweets last week and realised that he too was one of those drivers and cyclists (he is both and also a pedestrian) who hadn't, perhaps, kept up with the legal meaning of these new style crossings despite regularly buying the latest Highway Code when he is alerted to a new edition. It sort of didn't matter as whether on two wheels or four Mr Mustard is attentive at such a junction and gives way all the time to others rather than have a scrape and be filling in insurance claim forms.

Mr Mustard didn't think that cyclists had priority because of one simple fact, the give way line on the cycle track. Mr Mustard decided to see what the law says and this is to be found on pages 476/7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. This is available free on line or like Mr Mustard you can lash out £65 for a hard copy. Here are the relevant drawings

 

Just for completeness the square markings each side of the cycle crossing are diagram 1055.3 

These Elephants' Footprints, as they are known, merely delineate the lane, they don't have a give way meaning.

The zig zag lines come with complicated rules but luckily the Highway Code contains a simple interpretation:

 

The crossing Mr Mustard is most familiar with on his bicycle is the one in Montagu Road in Edmonton which looks like this:

He has found that as he cautiously approaches it is never long before a vehicle stops and lets him go for which they always get a friendly wave (Mr Mustard doesn't want to start a debate as to whether or not you should thank a driver for following the law but when he isn't chewing the ear off councils about unfair PCNs Mr Mustard is quite a friendly soul so he opts to wave as he thinks it makes the world a better place).

Mr Mustard's conclusion for the crossing in Hackney is that all people approaching should look, slow down, be prepared to give way and then cross when it is safe to do so. 

Avoid argument, insurance company paperwork, increased insurance premiums, broken bones or hospital food.

The end.

Words weighing heavily on Wandsworth Council

Here is a tribunal decision about 2 PCNs which Mr Mustard only looked at as he had a family connection to the road.

 

Here is a map of the area. The B229 is Burntwood Lane.

The refusal of Wandsworth Council to cancel a PCN to a company just trying to do its job, is thoroughly miserable and flies in the face of common sense. Just look at the size of this vehicle, total weight of up to 44 tonnes.

The routes available to a lorry of that size in streets this narrow are limited.

Well done to C K Transport for fighting as far as the tribunal. It causes councils huge amounts of work and seeing them hoist on the petard of their own traffic order is most amusing as are the opening words of the adjudicator that he'll carry on without the rep. as they are going to win.

The end.

The Unfairway - Barnet

 

Here we have a tribunal decision for stopping on the yellow zig zag markings outside a school. The motorist was unhappy about the PCN and the adjudicator agreed it was unjust and cancelled it, using nice legal words about mischief and focussing on the traffic management purpose.

If you look at the location in question (Mr Mustard doesn't know exactly where this alleged contravention occurred) you can get a feeling for what happened.

To get into that parking space, reversing first as is usual, you have to stop briefly on the right hand half of the carriageway, the section to which the yellow markings apply. It would be the same if you stopped to allow the car in front to park, you can't smash into it to avoid stopping. That is an entirely different situation to someone stopping on the markings to take a phone call or to drop their children off.

Common sense has prevailed. Why doesn't Barnet Council have some, here is a selection of possible reasons:-

- a computer selects cctv clips of possible contraventions, the computer doesn't have a brain.

- the person who is meant to check the clip either doesn't bother or isn't concentrating

- the person who decides whether to accept a representation or not is either a bit dense or doesn't care

- it's all about the money.

If you think your PCN is unfair take it to the tribunal after you get a formal Notice of Rejection. You get a fairer hearing than from Barnet Council as the qualified lawyer who decides your case is independent and not motivated by the revenue stream.

The end.

Barnet Council profiting from protest

Mr Mustard thinks that his readers will be well aware of the protest outside the Phoenix Cinema on 23 May 24.

This led to the High Road being closed to southbound traffic (and probably the other way also as the crowd got bigger).

As vehicles couldn't get through, some turned right where they shouldn't. It isn't clear yet to Mr Mustard how they came to go that way, whether the police on foot directed vehicles that way or if some signs had been hurriedly erected. Barnet Council issued PCNs by post for contraventing the no right turn into East End Road.

The above image is a still taken from a short cctv clip in which 5 cars drove against the sign. You can see that buses are queued up waiting for the road to clear or other instructions from base.

Mr Mustard needs your help.

Do you have any photos or dashcam footage to show how vehicles were diverted, if they were as Barnet Council won't relent and cancel a PCN. Evidence is needed to show that the vehicles were exempt from the no right turn as they were if they were instructed by a policeman/woman in uniform or by diversion signs.

Please email them to mrmustard@zoho.com

Obviously common sense is that the PCNs aren't needed from a traffic management point of view as there is no danger from doing a right turn when there isn't any oncoming traffic but the council don't let common sense get in the way of raising a fortune.

Thanks

The end.

Automated unlawfulness - Redbridge Council

Here is a recent tribunal decision about a PCN

Councils make enormous use of automation to keep their industrial quantities of PCNs on track, or in this case to run it into the buffers. This is not as rare as you might think. A Notice of Rejection informs the recipient that unless payment or an Appeal is made within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice of Rejection that a Charge Certificate may be served. Thus the public know what should happen but probably don't realise the effect of the council failing. Actual service is the date when the Notice drops through your letterbox and deemed service is 2 working days after the Notice was actually posted (which may not be the date on the Notice if councils are slapdash or something went wrong). The state of postal deliveries is well known at present, they could be better.

In this case the Notice of Rejection was, it appears, posted on 17 June.

That was a Monday.

In the absence of evidence about actual service it was deemed served on Wednesday 19 June.

That date, 19 June counts as day 1.

Thus day 28 will be a Tuesday and the motorist had up until midnight on Tuesday 16 July to start an in time Appeal (adjudicators have discretion to accept late appeals if there is an acceptable to them reason).

An Appeal was started on 14 July but would take one or two days to be registered (the tribunal are usually very efficient) and so just as they were about to be told about the Appeal, which freezes further processing until 28 days after the hearing decision has been served, Redbridge Council had, two days too early, already issued a Charge Certificate. Although they can't serve a charge certificate the mere issuing of it early would count against them as the council don't yet have the right to serve.

If this happens to you always point it out to the adjudicator and produce the Charge Certificate you were sent as that is absolute proof of it. That should then be the end of your PCN. You can quote the above decision number as being legally persuasive (adjudication decisions are not precedents).

How could a Notice of Rejection be issued in error? Mr Mustard hears you ask. 

Of course it should never happen. There are various scenarios which include the next progression date being manually wrongly set, the wrong next progression status being applied or the software having the wrong number of numbers set for the next stage. This happened in Islington not long ago and as that is a council which listens to Mr Mustard he suggested they add a few more days to the standstill interval in the automatic process in a certain situation and they agreed. Win, win. Mr Mustard doesn't have the same good relationship with Redbridge who are near the bottom of the table, in his opinion, when it comes to the parking process and complying with the law.

In summary, don't be mugged by a council, learn everything you can about PCNs and you will save money.

The end.

 

 

 

Helpful Haringey

 

In complete contrast to Redbridge Council about whom Mr Mustard just blogged he brings you helpful Haringey Council.

The Notice of Rejection sent to his client, who had driven through Woodlands Park Road N15 which is now for resident access only, went missing. The Haringey PCN portal is good in showing you the key steps a PCN has gone through so Mr Mustard knew when it was issued.

His client was happy, on Mr Mustard's advice, to pay the PCN but naturally he wanted to limit his losses to £65. Time wasn't pressing so Mr Mustard put a note on the PCN portal:

This was responded to yesterday in a straightforward and helpful manner.

This is a win:win situation.

If Haringey hadn't offered the discount again Haringey Council knew that Mr Mustard would, most probably, proceed to the independent tribunal. He can't beat everything and moving traffic PCNs are hard to beat, but the 6 times that Mr Mustard has started an adjudication this year Haringey Council have thrown in the towel without even stepping into the ring so would probably do it again. (They are probably still a bit sore from the 2023 decision which saw the wording of their moving traffic PCNs put to the sword and a challenge to the legality of the consequent income in their Accounts. The PCN is now compliant).

This way Haringey Council get £65 in for certain and don't have to pay out a £30 tribunal process fee, which they can't recover unless Mr Mustard is frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable, which the tribunal have not in over a decade, ever found him to be. The council also don't have to pay out £10 to register the PCN as a debt with the Traffic & Enforcement Centre (part of the County Court but really just a glorified register) only for that fee to be lost when a statutory declaration is processed. They save the time of dealing with all the paperwork and can mark one more PCN off as complete and paid. They have recovered an ample penalty for the error and now have compliance as to the future at that location from this motorist.

The motorist has lost £65 but saved the same amount, learnt about signs and won't drive that way again (if he forgets he is on his own, Mr Mustard is a bit more stroppy these days with people who don't learn).

Well done Haringey Council.

The end

 

Redbridge Council - making up their own rules.

 

There is a series of steps in terms of documents which motorists are sent to respond to when they receive a PCN for an alleged parking contravention. The documents are listed in the 'Do nothing' column above. PATAS is now called London Tribunals. £110 is now £130 (the above chart is a decade old).

The documents are all defined in the 2022 General Regulations and the 2022 Appeals Regulations. They are statutory instruments 2022 no. 71 and 2022 no. 675. They are legislation made by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Lord Chancellor following powers granted to them under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and other enabling legislation.

On one of Mr Mustard's cases his client received a document which isn't listed in the legislation. Mr Mustard thinks that is improper behaviour on the part of Redbridge Council as the legislation is an end to end process which has been carefully defined to take a PCN from the initial issue through a well worn series of steps up to the 'bailiff' (enforcement agent) where it usually ends. The legislation does not envisage enforcement authorities, such as Redbridge Council, taking extra steps, as in this case. Mr Mustard didn't ask them to justify why they did it as he expected the answer to be that the legislation doesn't forbid the issuing of an extra letter between the Charge Certificate and the Order for Recovery.

Such a letter undermines Mr Mustard's authority when he has carefully explained the legally sanctioned process to a motorist and then a council does something different. It makes motorists think Mr Mustard doesn't know what he is doing. Here is the letter:

This standard letter starts with a misleading sentence that the recipient has not complied with a Charge Certificate. There are two steps you can take in response to a charge certificate. The first step, if something has gone wrong with the PCN process, such as a statutory document not having been received, then the motorist should simply wait for the next document, the Order for Recovery, which means that a witness statement can then be made and a, say, missing Notice to Owner, can be issued afresh. 

The second step is that you could pay at that point to close the PCN (you might want to do this is you have missed a deadline and wouldn't lawfully be able to sign a witness statement).

Thus if you don't wish to pay as it isn't applicable to your situation the action which equates to complying with the charge certificate is to do nothing at all. Redbridge Council don't know what situation you are in.

Mr Mustard asked eight questions about this letter to learn more about it and they follow along with the answers.

This answer wasn't precise as to the number of days before the 'Final reminder' (the untitled letter at the top of this blog) is sent. in Mr Mustard's case it was 24 days.

Noted.

That is a lot of letters. Mr Mustard has assumed they are sent out on a regular cycle but they may not be, it may need a council employee to remember to do it.

Redbridge are prolific issuers of PCNs. In 2022-23 they issued 238,284 so almost 20,000 a month. These statistics imply that a quarter of the PCNs they issue each month are not paid or successfully challenged. No wonder they want to avoid registering all of these with the Traffic & Enforcement Centre (part of the County Court but really just a register of unpaid PCNs). Each one they register costs £10.

Let's say it costs £1 to send out a letter. That means they spent £4,951 but they delayed the payment of £49,510 in TEC fees (assuming they intended to register every PCN as a debt which from what Mr Mustard has seen isn't the case, they get their bailiffs to vet the list and try to select only PCNs they will be able to collect on). In theory they saved £44,559 but the real amount is lower.

There was also some extra income brought in by this doubtful letter.

The 80 pence is a bit odd as sums being claimed were all £120 and £195.

A hit rate of 5% isn't that high but a goodly sum was dragged in. If those people had paid up at the start the most the PCNs would have come to is 275 * £65 =  £17,875 (and some were £40).

Never ignore a PCN as it quickly becomes expensive.

Indeed it is (or a mile marker whilst you wait for the next document).

This answer was odd. The wording of the supposedly ignored letter (Mr Mustard's client never ignores PCN documents) was the same wording as the one received. Mr Mustard thinks the start of the letter is just plain wrong, much like the letter itself. 

Mr Mustard thinks that the CCC is the Customer Contact Centre or similar. It isn't part of the parking department so needs a tight script to work from. This makes it unlikely that any error the council has made would be spotted although it is possible as the script confirms at the end.

The bottom of page 1 and the first 2/3rds page 2 relate to our situation. Mr Mustard notes that they force you to go round the witness statement / statutory declaration procedure if you wish to pay at a discount. Some other councils, if there is a good reason why you couldn't pay at a discount, such as not receiving the PCN on your car, will let you pay at the discounted rate at that time as it is quick, is still good income and removes one from the list of open PCNs, which is huge. The bird in the hand policy. Redbridge know that many people will not manage to navigate the process properly and they will get even more money.

Mr Mustard notes that the CC will refer the case to the parking department by completing an internal 'parking enquiry form'. More on that in a minute.

Now that is odd. The final reminder closes by offering the opportunity to pay by instalments. That is to invite people who want to pay to phone up under false pretences and have their hopes dashed.

The Redbridge Council runaround

Mr Mustard often makes Subject Access Requests on behalf of motorists when he doesn't have the full picture about a PCN, usually because the motorist started their own case and didn't keep copies of everything.

On 3 May he made such a request.

The documents provided were a passport and driving licence.

That was more than adequate proof of identity and address but Redbridge wanted to play silly buggers, a game in which Mr Mustard is a grandmaster.

 

The acknowledgment of 8 May demanded proof of ownership of the vehicle. In fact the motorist didn't own the vehicle, it is leased.

If the motorist had been the registered keeper (and the V5C states in big type that it isn't proof of ownership) then Redbridge Council already knew who the registered keeper was, as they asked DVLA before sending the Notice to Owner in the post ('owner' is described in the legislation as the keeper) so why ask for information they already have. As it happens, having sent a Notice to Owner to the lease company the council were given the name and address of the motorist in question so didn't need to see the lease either. Sometimes, for speed, Mr Mustard indulges silly buggers but on this occasion he had time to play with and replied the same day:

Jump forward to 21 May and more nonsense lands in Mr Mustard's inbox:

Mr Mustard fired off a response 11 minutes later:

23 May and more tosh arrives:

4 minutes this time for Mr Mustard to keep hammering away, using irrefutable logic:

Following further radio silence and rested from a week's cycling Mr Mustard decided to increase the pressure:

On 27 June without a hint of apology or a word of explanation the information originally requested on 3 May was received. It was late. Mr Mustard doesn't suppose Redbridge recorded it that way in their performance statistics.

 

What wasn't included, as lease companies don't routinely supply long leases, only the applicable dates, (Hire companies do supply short term hire agreements as the rules for transfer are different) was a copy of the lease agreement which Redbridge claimed, in their email of 21 May, to already hold. Liars.

 

The requested computer printout wasn't included either but it is too late to follow that up now. The PCN is still being fought and is the subject of an independent adjudication hearing next month.

The end.