8 Deadly sins

Mr Mustard spots unusual looking decisions on the tribunal register and has a read. Here is one such.

and here is one of the decisions in full

Now lets pinpoint the location:

 

We can see that Brackley Walk is a lane which leads to a narrow footpath and then through to another road. There is a dropped kerb to allow for easy access.

It is clear that cars are often parked there. If the land is private then you need to erect barriers to keep the public out and then the car is safe from being ticketed.

Greed is one of the deadly sins, Barnet Council appear to suffer from it. The eighth deadly sin could be to park your car on the pavement, just don't do it.

Councils can be a bit slow to cotton on. Once three PCNs have been issued for the same thing they clearly aren't a deterrent (Mr S was in any event abroad which probably explains why he had to go down the witness statement route to obtain a tribunal hearing) and become a mere revenue raising measure. £910 of penalties for a B registered car, it might be worth a lot due to rarity value or it might not.

If you do go abroad for more than 14 days the advice of Mr Mustard is to get someone you trust to open your post and send you anything important.

The penalties in this case were reduced to just one at £130 the other 6 being obviously issued to a car which hadn't moved and thus this was patently one continuous contravention. Councils think they can be trigger happy but most adjudicators will blunt their fire.

There has never been another case at the tribunal for this location nor does council data for 2018 - early 2025 show any issued at this location. That would also have given rise to a legitimate expectation argument.

The car was interesting, a Ford Granada from another age. Now exempt from needing an MOT. It changed ownership not long after these PCNs were issued and is taxed.

So remember people, don't be as greedy as a council and don't put a single wheel on the pavement unless it is marked out or signed to allow it.

The end. 

Camden Car pound Cock-up

 

If you have the misfortune to have your car towed by a council (now £280) you should be given a notice of your right to make a representation in writing (or sometimes also by email or on a portal) to the relevant enforcement authority (Camden Council in this case) to argue why the PCN and/or the tow was wrong. If the council reject those representations, which they inevitably will otherwise they have to give you £360 back (the tow fee + the discounted PCN, £80 in this case) the door then opens to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

What you should not be given is a Notice of Appeal form to start an Appeal to London Tribunals because that stage has not yet been reached.

This is what Miss EV was also given (she had accidentally parked on an EV bay as there were two spaces with the charger sat in the road in the middle of them so it looked like two separate bays and only the right hand one had a sign - Mr Mustard has told her that finding a free bay in Camden was optimistic).

The above form explains why the first email from Miss EV to Mr Mustard was so confusing, the lady had been mislead by Camden Council car Pound which is doubtless outsourced.

Mr Mustard thinks this amounts to a procedural impropriety as it is a failure to follow the Regulations about PCNs and should be an automatic cancellation at the tribunal. That will be the first argument before the unclear signage one and only one ball needs to be kicked into the net for a cancellation.

The end, for now. 

Brent Council - lawbreakers

 

Mr Mustard apologises for the recent dearth of blogs but he is busy earning a crust and is therefore rejecting the vast majority of requests for help with a PCN and not writing much on the blog. A few years ago the backlash against big brother cctv enforcement was felt by the government and they curtailed the widespread use of cctv to punish every perceived contravention. The law is now as set out above in the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State.

Last month a motorist came to Mr Mustard with a PCN and given the circumstances he decided to fight it. The driver had parked up for a few minutes in the taxi rank and there was no excuse, taxi ranks are for black cabs and Mr Mustard is in favour of them so please get off their ranks. However, he is even less fond of money-grubbing councils so the motorist got some help to fight the PCN and guidance about their future parking.

Here is a section of their PCN:

The camera isn't obviously sited, it is the other side of the road behind a tree, so much for the idea that cctv surveillance is to encourage compliance, this one is to maximise income.

Brent Council are still thinking about the challenge that was made a month ago, and their 56 days in which to respond are rapidly ebbing away but here it is, short, sweet and utterly devastating for the council:

The council is not empowered to issue PCNs in a taxi stand using cctv, a CEO in person must be at the location. The PCN has been issued unlawfully, please cancel it

Obviously this couldn't be a one off error, someone has authorised the installation of a camera for the purpose of issuing PCNs in what is, in fact, an illegal decision. Mr Mustard thought he had better find out how profitable the camera was so he asked some simple questions by FOI which worked well and here are the responses:

Gosh, Mr Mustard was quickly on to this, it only started on 6 March 26.

Mr Mustard has today emailed the Monitoring Officer for Brent Council whose statutory duties include ensuring that the council follows the law. Let's see how long it is before he receives a response.

Mr Mustard thinks that it would be better that instead of asking a council to police itself, when it is hungry for revenue, that an external independent Ombudsman would be more effective at controlling the rapacious instincts of councils (and private parking companies) when it comes to the issue of PCNs which are a failed system in terms of controlling parking & driving but a massive success in terms of profit making for councils to shore up their pressed finances. Over 9m council & TFL PCNs are issued in London each year, they just aren't working to prevent contraventions.

To be continued. 

 

A decade of moving traffic PCNs in London

 

Welcome to the goldmine which is PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. These are all enforced by cctv camera linked most of the time to a computer which identifies alleged contraventions (although council staff or contractors probably assume the selected clips are correct, when that isn't always the case).

The right to issue PCNs for moving traffic contraventions (banned turns, yellow box junctions and the many often part time 'no motor vehicles' streets known also as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and School Streets have proliferated since Covid in 2020) started in 2003.

Back in 2015 many of these cameras would have been watched over by real people sat watching video screens who manually recorded what appeared to be contraventions. TfL still do it that way. However advances in technology now enable locations to be watched 24/7 by cameras linked to computers that look at the movement of vehicles and can tell when they go where they shouldn't, read the numberplate, send to DVLA for details of the registered keeper and then send out a PCN, all with no direct human intervention. They don't miss the slightest error.

That is the second factor which explains the fourfold increase in moving traffic PCNs over the decade. If we assumed a 50% recovery of what were £130 PCNs the income to councils in London would be £254,000,000 (they are now £160). 

The third factor is councils who decided to start using their powers which is definitely Kensington & Chelsea, Greenwich, Sutton, Barnet & Bromley and others like Bexley which had just started.

Only four councils failed to at least double their PCN count in the decade, being Brent, Waltham Forest, Kingston & Harrow. 

You need to chuck your satnav away and look out of the windscreen like a hawk. Join the Institute of Advanced Motoring or ROSPA and improve your observation skills.

The end. 

A decade of bus lane PCN in London

 

This is a very varied picture by borough.

Overall the number of bus lane PCNs has increased by 13% in 10 years which rather indicates a high level of compliance by motorists especially given the huge increase on TfL roads. Mr Mustard knows that TfL have recently put cameras in locations which were previously not covered including the North Circular at Palmers Green which caught out a lot of drivers who had noticed the absence of a camera for many years. Clapton Common was another location with a new camera and a local motorist had a dozen PCNs there as the driver didn't bother getting out of the bus lane even when the all traffic lane was empty and drove up it several times before the first PCN arrived. Mr Mustard declined to assist. Another representative stepped up but at £40 a pop.

The really interesting part is the 20 boroughs where the number of PCNs has decreased which suggests that local residents have learnt and probably it is mostly visitors who get caught. Mr Mustard doesn't think that many bus lanes will have been removed as they tend not to be once installed.

Next, moving traffic, which will make your eyes water. 

A decade of parking PCN in London

Car ownership in London has been fairly stable for years, with a slight downward trend since 2016.

 

PCN numbers for parking would therefore follow the same trend, one would think?

As you can see, that isn't the case with parking PCN numbers going up by 54% over a decade. That however masks a huge variance. In Wandsworth the overall number of PCNs issued went down, the only borough where it did. There was industrial action by traffic wardens (CEOs) in 2022 and 2024 which it seems had quite the effect.

Go to the other end of the scale, Greenwich, where the number of parking PCNs trebled over a decade. That cannot be because people in Greenwich decided to become terrible at parking but because, possibly or probably, more controlled parking zones were introduced and more civil enforcement officers were deployed. One of Mr Mustard's readers in Greenwich may know. Greenwich Council may have become PCN crack addicts is also an option.

There were two big jumps in Greenwich, using 31 March as the year end.

From 2018 to 2019 from 38.342 to 68,195 and 

from 2024 to 2025 from 70,898 to 102,854

The end. Bus lane and moving traffic stats to follow. 

More PCN statistics

 

Above you will see a breakdown of PCN numbers in London at the start and end of a 10 year period. Mr Mustard will highlight some of the trends in future blogs but if you want to do your own analysis you can find the spreadsheet here.

Euro Car Parks and the CMA

Mr Mustard doesn't fight private parking charges (except his own for airport visits) but does keep an eye on things at a safe distance and tries to avoid parking in any private car park preferring council ones or, even better, free parking and a little walk.

His attention was drawn though to this story by another parking ticket expert and his own twitter account:

There's nothing like a bit of detail and Mr Mustard thought the reason why / excuse given by ECP didn't respond to emails was a bit ropey. Only a month ago a company which Mr Mustard helps with their council PCNs (they have to visit premises with a weight limit nearby but are usually exempt for necessary access) gave him a bailiff email. It looked a bit spammy to Mr Mustard and so he went to the website of the bailiff concerned. The email address on the website was different but rather than ignoring a demand for £1,000 Mr Mustard sent an email to the published address to check and it turned out that the email was real. The outcome was twofold, the debt claimed was paid and the bailiff company were asked to add the undisclosed address to change their systems.

Mr Mustard knows that a lot of you like a bit of detail and the full Final Enforcement Notice is available on the CMA website here or on this permanent link.

Now Mr Mustard is a Company Director, he knows he has rights and responsibilities and if he is away from the office he arranges for the company post to be opened and to be sent to him if it needs urgent attention. As a District Judge once told a Director of a company that Mr Mustard was suing, for failing to replace the cracked windscreen on a car he had purchased second-hand, 'Limited Companies don't go on holiday Mr Smith'.

Para 15 of the decision sets out how easily the veracity of the request could have been established.

Para 27b is worth a read as is 37b and 37cii. 

If you get a dodgy looking email, don't block the party until you have investigated thoroughly. 

Wickford Car Park - council in deep water difficulty

 

 

 

Hard to say what a car park is sometimes. Usually a piece of land with a defined entrance and a welcome to the car park sign but not always.

Mr J parked here 

Car in a coach bay

 

Of course he received a PCN.

Mr Mustard had two problems with the PCN. The first was that the car was not in the car park. The second is the vagueness of that class of vehicle.

A permit had been obtained 

A coach parking only sign is all well and good but it doesn't count for anything unless there is a traffic order which underpins it. Mr Mustard asked Basildon Council for it. Not us guv they said, try Essex County Council. Essex CC answered a different question about the highway but which showed the car park and the coach layby weren't governed by them. Pass the parcel went on for some time and Mr Mustard thinks he found the answer by his own efforts.

 The schedule from the traffic order:

The extent of the car park was not defined nor is there any mention of a coach parking bay. Mr Mustard suspects that this is one of those cases where the person who drew up the traffic order hadn't been to the site.

 

In the absence of a traffic order no PCN could stand. Mr Mustard challenged on the grounds of the vagueness of the PCN wording and on the following grounds for good measure:

51 days after making the formal representations Mr Mustard noted that the balance on line was zero. Mr J never received a letter to confirm the cancellation but that is clearly what happened and was inevitable. Mr Mustard only had to prevail at the tribunal on one of his 4 arguments to defeat the PCN and the council knew they were sunk.

It is always worth making a request for the traffic order for any bay or yellow line to compare with the signage or not, if it doesn't exist.

The end (and please don't park in coach, taxi, doctor bays etc). 

Barnet Council - your number's up

 

Older readers will get the reference to 'come in number x'

This was an odd case although Mr Mustard has now seen a second instance of it in a different borough.

For starters the PCN was for the wrong contravention, it was for code 01 but should have been for code 02 as loading was also banned.

The motorist, Mr D, sent Mr Mustard a copy of the PCN placed on his car windscreen which ended with the numbers 6618. That could not be found on the council computer and so Mr Mustard just kept an eye out to see what would happen next.

A month later Mr D received a Notice to Owner bearing a number ending 6607 for the same set of facts (date, vehicle, location etc).

What you need to know now is that PCNs are issued in sequential series by individual traffic wardens and that the last digit of a PCN is a check digit so the PCNs in this case were 660-7 and 661-8 and thus they had been consecutively issued at the same time.

What had therefore happened was that the traffic warden had decided something was wrong with 660-7 and issued a fresh PCN 661-8 intended to cancel 660-7 but accidentally cancelled 661-8 (or the computer took over and did it).

It was therefore an easy win as 661-8 was never served and Mr Mustard had proof that 660-7 was served.

Mr Mustard made out three arguments in his formal representations to the council.

1    Finchley Road as a description of the location is too vague (the keeper and driver may be different).

2    Loading is banned so the alleged contravention is incorrect.

3    The PCN was not served.

The Notice of Rejection didn't tackle points 1 and 2 and said that the PCN was either placed on the windscreen or given to the driver. It also waffled on about CPZ entry signage which was irrelevant as there was a local sign.

Thus it was an easy decision to start an Appeal at London Tribunals at which time a fourth Ground of Appeal was added which was the Notice of Rejection dated 14 August offered a 50% discount for 14 days from service and 2 days earlier it had already been removed. A council must be as good as their word.

There was no need for a hearing. Faced with an opponent with 4 straight arrows in his quiver the council cancelled the PCN.

The end. 

A mystery move by Barnet Council?

 

A lady, let's call her Miss K as the road in question was Kingsmead, EN5 (Mr Mustard used to live near it but had never heard of it) contacted Mr Mustard as below:

Thank you for agreeing to have a look at my PCN. I have attached photos of the notice from the Council’s online website.

There are 2 questions I would like your advice on:

1. Can I contest the PCN?

I had parked in a cul-de-sac; a quiet road, which had no road markings or parking restriction signs and (I had hoped) not blocked a driveway.

2. Can I contest the moving of my vehicle without any information left or sent to me about the whereabouts of it?

What was terrifying about the whole episode was that I thought my car had been stolen as all the other cars parked in the vicinity had not been touched. My house keys were in the car with the service book which had my home address (a silly thing to do, I know), which was extremely upsetting. My initial reaction was to call the police, but found some builders on a site nearby who subsequently told me a car was moved around midday. I then called the car pound number listed on the council website who tracked it to a nearby road. Although undamaged, it was partially placed on the curb, which in itself could be a parking offence according to the council!

Your time and advice on this matter is much appreciated .

Kind regards, 

Mr Mustard wonders if someone else moved the vehicle as this was in November when NSL were hearing to the exit door and removals were rarely done in Barnet at that time and less so relocations although the fact of the PCN being on the windscreen makes a council move more likely.

Mr Mustard duly made the 'informal challenge' the one in immediate response to the PCN on the windscreen. He kept it simple:

The alleged contravention requires part of the car to be adjacent to a place where the footway and carriageway are level and that is clearly not the case here.

He helpfully provided an annotated image:

It took only 3 days for Barnet Council to cancel the PCN. It was a PCN which a traffic warden should never have issued.

Residents get quite precious about 'their' driveway entrances and parking this tight to one, especially in a narrow road makes it more difficult and dangerous to reverse your car our (although one should reverse in but that's another story). At the very least you would be well advised to only park next to the full height kerb i.e. to where the back of the wheel was and Mr Mustard tries to leave 2m of room. Residents phone up the council if they are annoyed and ask for enforcement which means the nearest traffic warden will be sent round and for an easy life they just issue a PCN.

The end.