Barnet Council ignore their own error

 

Miss P went to Mill Hill Broadway. She parked in bay 9499 but she paid for the wrong vehicle. She received a PCN

Mr Mustard looked at all of the photos which the 'traffic warden' had taken. He knew they weren't of Station Road, NW7 but of The Broadway at Mill Hill.

Dental Wellness of Mill Hill are visible in the background, their address is 46 The Broadway, NW7. Mr Mustard checked location 9499 on the PayByPhone App, the location was 67 The Broadway.

Mr Mustard smiled, the PCN was a dead duck.

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge, as the first challenge in response to a PCN is called.

One problem with contracting out to so-called experts is that they aren't anywhere near Barnet (APCOA have an office in Wigan) so don't know Mill Hill from Millwall. They could have checked the bay location in the same way as Mr Mustard did but that would have taken diligence, which went missing.

The rejection ignores the difficult fact about location which 100% must be accurate and focusses on the lack of payment which wasn't challenged. APCOA, the sub-contractor, knew that Mr Mustard was acting so they should also know they were merely putting off the inevitable.

As he often does when contractors go wrong Mr Mustard emailed a parking manager at Barnet Council. 

Usually the manager responds in 24 - 48 hours but not this time. Mr Mustard was content to let the process run its course.

The Notice to Owner arrived. The location had been slightly amended since the PCN was issued, which is irregular. It now said 'Station Road, NW7 , Mill Hill' but that didn't make the address correct and so the same blank denial was put forward as formal representations.

It only took 4 days and the council responded

This time the council admit their error, which is as it should be. There was no explanation as to why the same challenge was rejected at the earlier stage, it wouldn't be the need to raise money would it?

The does not set a precedent line is a waste of ink, every location the council get wrong is a good ground for cancellation.

The end. 

 

 

Mind the gap

 

Residents get very precious about 'their' dropped kerb even if they don't have a car, aren't expecting any visitors or planning to go out. They call the council, Barnet in this case, and say they want enforcement and a Civil Enforcement Officer ('traffic warden') duly trots, cycles or scoots round. Inevitably they issue a PCN to appease the resident even if no contravention has occurred.

So it was on 31 March 2026 in Kingsmead, a location Mr Mustard had never heard of even though it is near High Barnet tube and Mr Mustard has lived in New or High Barnet since 1993.

This is what the traffic warden found:

That looks bad but there should always be a photo taken at 90 degrees to the drop so we can be sure as to the position.

The car must be clear of a line drawn across the road from the weed you can see, that is where the taper kerb, which slopes down to meet the carriageway, ends and only if you pass that point are you in contravention.

It would be courteous to leave a larger gap but that isn't a contravention plus the road is wide and quiet, being a cul-de-sac so not dangerous to join. The CEO should not have issued a PCN to this car. If they didn't meekly issue PCNs every time, residents might phone less often.

Miss T made her own informal challenge. It was rejected. She had read Mr Mustard's earlier blog on the subject. Mr Mustard reviewed the rejection, which included this:

Mr Mustard didn't like it. It isn't any (as in all) footway that can be enforced, only in 3 circumstances: vehicle access, for pedestrians to cross the road or access to a cycle lane.

The writer was hallucinating, there is no tactile paving (aka dimpled paving) in the council's photos nor would there be as this is access to a private drive not a place where the blind are advised to cross the carriageway.

Sympathy, my foot.

Mr Mustard occasionally bothers a parking manager with his viewpoint on low standards of work and this was one such case. He pointed out the lack of a contravention and that the back office were just churning out made up rejections.  Three days later Miss T received another letter:

Amazing how, with a dollop of added mustard, the situation can change so quickly.

If you are being badly treated, in addition to following the process and challenging everything at the correct time, start making complaints.

The end. 

 

 

 

Pothole PCNs

 

This width restriction / bus gate has been in Netherlands Road, Oakleigh Park for as long as Mr Mustard can remember. It used to be controlled by a barrier, the mounting box for which still sits in place but it kept being broken and parts had to come from abroad so Barnet Council changed it from a money spending exercise to a money making one by installing a camera.

In December 25, the daughter of a motorist who Mr Mustard only has to help now and then, came to Mr Mustard with a PCN for having driven through the bus gate. She hadn't, she had stuck to the left of carriageway, gone though the width restriction and then veered to the right to avoid the potholes you can see. The cctv didn't know whether she was coming or going and selected the footage for a human being to check and then issue a PCN if deserved. The human being got it wrong.

Mr Mustard challenged the PCN and after a while it got set to £zero.

In March 26 another motorist came to him, with the same problem

Potholes still there, same cctv system, probably the same incompetent human being checking the clips or going off to make tea whilst the footage runs. Same challenge made but this time Mr Mustard also emailed a parking manager, who he bothers occasionally about the worst excesses. he got a same day response as he usually does and the PCN was toast.

As Mr Mustard pointed out to the manager though if a car is short term hired or long term leased the fate of the PCN can be taken out of the hands of the driver and an administration fee be levied to add insult to injury.

Amusingly every time the mother of the first motorist above and Mr Mustard both now veer to the middle of the road as they exit the width restriction (except today when there was a bus going through!). Mr Mustard has driven in that eccentric way 50 times so far. Never a PCN when you want one.

The end. 

 

 

The no good goods bay

Mr D delivers goods for his employer using his own vehicle (he might have stopped now as it exposes him to PCNs which is unfair if the employer won't pick up the tab). He made a delivery in Church Rd, NW4 (Hendon central). Here is the location.

 Here is the sign

Mr D was not in a goods vehicle but that isn't a problem as there is an error in the wording of the relevant Barnet traffic order. The sign must match the traffic order so Mr Mustard took a look (it is available online here)

 

Mr Mustard was surprised and amused, there aren't usually such blunders to give him a get out of jail free card. The area where the white van was parked, where Mr D also parked his car, is defined as a Pay by Phone bay, it isn't a bay for goods vehicles to load or unload. Thus any PCN for being in a goods vehicle loading bay without loading or for not being in a goods vehicle is a dead duck.

Mr D made his own informal challenge. He supplied proof of loading but was rejected as he wasn't in a goods vehicle.

Having spotted the error Mr Mustard sent the details to the council but they don't like anyone writing back to them after they have rejected an informal challenge and in response to Mr Mustard pointing out the error in the traffic order Barnet Council rather stupidly said the PCN was issued correctly. Mr Mustard didn't mind as he knew he would win in the end.

Mr Mustard made the formal representation once the Notice to Owner arrived. The meat of his representation was:

The council's traffic order does not create a goods vehicle loading bay at the location in question, outside 77-79 Church Road, NW4. It creates a pay bay numbered 9323. The council's PCN is therefore unlawful as is the erection of the sign.

This time someone realised Mr Mustard had fired his arrow into the bullseye and the PCN was cancelled.

The heading is wrong, it should say 'Alleged contravention' until such time as an Adjudicator decides it is a contravention in law. Nice, an apology although Mr Mustard would much prefer the council spells out what they did wrong. The council then ruin it by saying the decision doesn't set a precedent when of course it does, if the rules and the sign were wrong the same cancellation should happen every time.

There haven't been many PCNs at this location but if you had one then ask the council for your money back.

Mr Mustard has just checked the traffic order. It does not seem to have been corrected yet.

The end. 

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. 

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.