So if they have strayed into a bus lane in an ambulance (and the camera at this location is cynically & deliberately set to only capture the final 10m but craftily not show the end of the lane) just don't send them a PCN and if the computer does so just cancel it when challenged.
They aren't the only miserable council in London. The following tribunal decision was about a Barnet Council PCN.
When an adjudicator says a council should not have fought an Appeal that is strong criticism.
The end.
This Appeal was about a lorry exceeding the Greater London 18 tonne weight limit without a permit. The penalty is £550 so is well worth fighting. The company in question has a lot of lorries and so Ivan has been retained to help fight the PCNs on a commercial basis.
That means that if there has been vexatious, frivolous or wholly unreasonable behaviour a costs application can be made as the company has incurred some. Mr Mustard no longer requests costs as his clients don't incur any, their outlay being a voluntary charity donation to the North London Hospice.
The main reason why Mr Mustard has brought this decision to your attention, another one that he read at random, is because of the final paragraph in which London Councils, the umbrella body for all the London boroughs, seem to have suggested that the adjudicator, a qualified lawyer, and a long serving adjudicator, will be told what to do by an Appellant's representative.
The main reason why Ivan wins about 97% of the time (a few % above Mr Mustard) is that he has an outstanding knowledge of parking and traffic law and puts huge time and effort into presenting his cases. The duty of a representative is not to be partisan but to assist the Adjudicator and the same goes for enforcement authorities. If therefore there are prior decisions both for and against your particular argument, if you present one you should present the other. They aren't precedents in any event although they may be legally persuasive. An adjudicator can decide two apparently identical cases in different ways.
Telling the Adjudicator what to decide is a stupid idea, you might be back in front of them next week and you want your borderline cases to go your way so best be polite and helpful at all times. Mr Mustard tries to be the same when he loses as when he wins.
What London Councils have shown here is a typical attitude of enforcement authorities that having issued a PCN, no matter how unjustified, it must be paid, they cannot possibly be wrong. Well, news for them, they can.
The end.
It is clear that whilst a technical contravention has occurred this is clearly a case in which discretion should have been applied and the PCN cancelled. This type of miserable, petty minded, mean, common sense free, money grubbing PCN just gets councils a bad name. It certainly doesn't bring the council closer to its residents. The resident did his best to comply and should not have been treated in this way. It is churlish in the extreme.
Motorists who are represented win a greater percentage of their tribunal Appeals. To get good free help start a thread here.
The end.
Having just written about Barnet Council not allowing time to pay Mr Mustard had this case come to his attention.
This is the part time no right turn into LIDL which has made cheap food rather expensive for so many people.
You will note that the argument that you can't see properly to drive equates to a poke in the eye for oneself. Not seeing signs six times is also not a good look.
The council didn't have to fight all six PCNs, they could have let 4 or 5 go by the wayside and still got the message across that one should not turn right at this juncture.
The hands of the adjudicator are tied, the contraventions either occurred or they didn't. The nudge is as helpful a step as the adjudicator can take within their own powers. Whether the council will listen or not is to be seen but Mr Mustard doubts they will take much notice. If however the motorist has a blue badge their car should not be removed by the bailiff so they may struggle to recover these penalties.
Every LIDL doesn't help.
The end.
Don't blame the Adjudicator, their job is to apply the law. If this had been a parking PCN the adjudicator could have recommended that Barnet Council exercise discretion and cancel or not pursue the PCN. That power is not available to an adjudicator for moving traffic PCNs.
The exercise of discretion over their PCNs is the sole province of Barnet Council. Councillors are kept out of, or don't try and get involved in, the day to day process and this case sadly and perfectly demonstrates why they should be more involved. Don't leave the day to day decisions to 'officers' (staff or contractors) who may be blinded by the revenue raising imperative.
Mr Mustard is sure that Barnet Council (and others) hate the regular kicking they get from Mr Mustard. When they stop being utterly mean and miserable he will have nothing bad to write about (and there have been a few occasions when he has written about kindness). Will that day ever arrive?
The end.
Never assume that a council will be helpful or reasonable. There is nothing within the legislation which imposes a duty on councils to consider accepting instalments and in this case they could have done so without a huge administrative burden. Had they accepted the offer, which appeared to need time to pay until the end of January, and the motorist not paid as promised, the council could have moved straight to a charge certificate at 150% of the penalty value, so £195.
Adjudicators are not allowed by law to exercise discretion, only the council can. The adjudicator, if such a challenge had been mounted, might have found that signage was inadequate at this location which happens about 50% of the time and then the motorist wouldn't have had to pay anything so they missed a trick there.
By fighting the PCN at the tribunal the motorist has got themselves time to pay but only at the full penalty value of £130 not the £65 they offered. Somewhat usurious.
The end
A pragmatic decision by the adjudicator which Mr Mustard will save to bring out in the future if he meets another case with similar facts. Councils try to punish motorists for really minor errors, this one with a penalty of £80. The adjudicator has stopped their cunning plan by bringing into play the long established doctrine of 'de mininmis non curat lex'. Courts don't use Latin so much these days but it roughly means that the law is not concerned with trifling matters.
Barnet Council should have exercised their discretion, at least the first time, but money talks. This time the motorist paid nothing and the council wasted c. £30 in tribunal fees.
The end.
Mr Mustard has his eye on Newham Council and so the following decision came to his attention.
In many boroughs councils also photograph the seats and footwells so that any claim that a voucher for payment, a blue badge or as in this case a carer's permit were on display can be considered in the light of possible supporting evidence.
There is no traffic management purpose to towing a vehicle from a bay in a street which seems to have plenty of space.
It does, of course, raise lots of lovely money.
Worse is to come!
The end.
 |
| Khartoum Road |
Another random decision which Mr Mustard came across.
One cannot look in two directions at once and there isn't much time whilst moving to look for other signs and given that the right hand one was, in effect, covered why would you expect the left hand one to be any different? The left hand sign is much harder to make out when turning right. The full sign is as follows and you need a few seconds to take it all in.
This PCN should never have been issued never mind defended at the tribunal.
As it hppens Mr Mustard has just started an Appeal to the tribunal for a parking PCN in Khartoum Rd in which the sole sign was defaced. There is clearly a problem in this corner of Ilford; the solution is not to penalise the innocent but to catch the guilty.
The end.
