Newham Council - Bluffers & bullies

 

Mr Mustard's client muddled up his paperwork and made a declaration that was wrong. He therefore decided to pay the PCN to see the back of the problem.

Mr Mustard thought the doubtless standard warning letter was a bit passive aggressive and whilst he knows there are people who make repeated false declaration his client isn't such a person.

As ever Mr Mustard likes to deal in facts and so he asked a very simple question about the number of prosecutions.

Mr Mustard had a feeling that he knew what the answer would be and his guess turned out to be correct.

Now either there is a problem with false statements which justifies a warning or there isn't and the dire warning shouldn't be there.

Mr Mustard guesses that there is a problem but the individuals concerned will be well known to the council and the Newham Council shouldn't be throwing their weight around when motorists who hardly ever submit witness statements make a hash of a single one but save their warnings for the repeat culprits and then go after them.

Bluffers & bullies - not a good look.

The end.

Council stupidity and reversing the burden of proof

Cloning of numberplates is very common. It is an absolute pain for the innocent party who has to engage with the police, the DVLA and all the councils where the naughty car committed a contravention. It is usual for there to be multiple PCNs and rather than all representations being accepted or refused you end up with a mix, utterly stupid. Here is a letter which Barnet Council sent after one such representation and far from being bound by a made up time limit the recipient doesn't even have to reply:

As motorists tend to get nervous about not replying Mr Mustard provides some of the information and did so in this case:

 

Providing the log book and the council's own photographs should have been enough but no, the council rejected the perfect challenge in the hope that an innocent party would part with £65 they didn't owe. Not when Mr Mustard is stood behind them they won't.

Mr Mustard marched on. He started an Appeal to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals on behalf of Miss M for Mini.

Only a week later Barnet Council threw in the towel and cancelled the PCN. They had incurred a tribunal fee of c. £30 which is just money down the drain. The council were never going to win. A person whose car has been cloned, although it is helpful to provide information, is under no obligation to provide any information at all. The council have to prove the car they wish to obtain a penalty for is your one. Here is a comprehensive decision on the subject.

You can send that decision to any council when telling them your car has been cloned and you are providing a reasonably helpful amount of information. You do not have to jump through all of the council's hoops, tell them they have to prove the car in question is yours.

Once you get the first cloned PCN start taking a photo of your car every time you park it so that you then have a comprehensive record of where it was at all times i.e. you parked at home on Tuesday morning and then didn't move it until Friday afternoon (and so on) is easily evidenced by just 2 photos.

Even before then put distinctive stickers in your front and rear windows or on your numberplates, anything you like, a pokemon, your football team colours, baby on board etc etc and then the cloned vehicle will look visibly different to the real car.

Make 2025 the year that you take no nonsense.

The end.

Redbridge Council - Bullies and cowards

 

A legally parked Oakmont minibus

The sign in the bay: blue badge holders are exempt.

Mr Mustard wrote previously about miserable Redbridge Council and Oakmont Social Education which is providing valuable opportunities. What he didn't know when writing it was that there were a monumental 97 other PCNs in the wings (and this may not be the end).

Here is the first page of the list of cases decided this week, PCNs which had the council prevailed on all of them, have cost Oakmont £7760, money which would be better spent on education.

Now, the adjudicator's decision, which was probably the same for all of the PCNs which Redbridge hadn't conceded before the hearing. If Redbridge had thrown in the towel no location will show in that column.

 Mr Mustard has the following brief comments to add.

Failing to show at a tribunal when your attendance has been requested is dumb behaviour. Mr Mustard suspects that there will be some comment by the adjudicator on some future date when Redbridge do choose to appear.

 

The question of costs has not been mentioned here but they can come into play if a council has been frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable. Mr Mustard thinks the behaviour of Redbridge Council fits squarely within the last two categories.

It is completely unacceptable that the CEO (= traffic warden) recorded a blue badge as not being on display. The image Mr Mustard looked at shows the badge in a security wallet secured by a substantial chain.

 

In order to issue a PCN in the belief that the blue badge did not apply the minibus would have had to be seen arriving at the school premises, which are in The Shrubberies, without a disabled person on board and leaving similarly. That, of course, didn't happen.

 

It is an utter disgrace that these minibuses were targeted. If there had been a scintilla of truth in the thought of fraud the perpetrators would have changed their modus operandi and the senior management of Oakmont would have been too afraid to go to the tribunal, as senior management of Redbridge Council were, as it appears.

 

It is clear that Oakmont know the rules and respect them or, if they err, they pay the penalty.

 

Each Appeal incurs a fee of c. £30 which is not recoverable by a council even if they win. On this bonfire of nasty PCNs the council have burnt almost £3,000

Now follows the other cases.

 

Will Redbridge Council learn something from this and be less vicious in future. Mr Mustard hopes so.

The end.

Enfield Council - perplexing the postman (or postlady).

 

The unfortunate resident of Mayfield Avenue, who will will call Mr R, who came to Mr Mustard for help, had unfortunately driven past a 'flying motorbike' sign three times in late 2020, and back again, so clocked up six PCNs on his leased vehicle. He had received six administration charges from the vehicle supplier and knew to expect six PCNs from the council. He received only five which Mr Mustard challenged at the tribunal. Two were cancelled and three were upheld so they were paid. Mr Mustard knew that sometimes a PCN gets cancelled rather than passed on to the vehicle user and so he didn't worry about the one missing PCN, Mr Mustard doesn't rock the boat in case he falls into the water.

The reason why the sixth PCN didn't reach Mr R, became apparent when he received the Charge Certificate, sent because he hadn't responded to the PCN that he hadn't received. Here, minus the name, is the document in question.

Mr Mustard spotted the omission of a street number. Perhaps the regular postman was on duty that day and knew which number, out of the 33 choices, Mr R lived at but on the delivery day for the PCN it got sent off to Belfast where poorly addressed mail gets dealt with by the Royal Mail. Whatever the reason Mr R is indebted to his postman for the dedication to delivery.

Mr Mustard went online to send Enfield Council a message as you can't phone them which would be much quicker in this sort of situation.

A possible third reason to cancel was that half the signs had been defaced.

Mr Mustard rather thought that having been told of their lack of street number error Enfield Council would cancel the PCN (they were too late to issue a new correct one). He was wrong.

A number of points arose. An enforcement authority has a wide discretion to consider representations (they don't mean 'Appeal' that is the tribunal stage) made out of time (although given the lack of service no right to make representations had actually arisen).

The issue of a charge certificate doesn't, in and of itself, stop the council from exercising their discretion to cancel a PCN which they issued and hold the fate of in their hands. It isn't the issue of a charge certificate which counts but the service of one. We were lucky this one was served as otherwise it would probably have been the bailiff that Mr R first heard from.

The right to serve a charge certificate only arises if and when a PCN has been served, in this case Mr R said he did not receive it and if he had he would have fought it at the tribunal is the logical thought.

Mr R was incensed that the council wrote 'apparently' not received. His word rebutted the presumption of service unless the council could prove he was lying. In addition, the balance of probabilities is that a piece of mail sent without an address may well not get properly delivered. Furthermore a PCN which is not properly addressed is not a valid PCN.

The council's power to register the PCN as a debt at the County Court (Traffic Enforcement Centre) is a discretionary one and subject to the approval of the Court which should not be assumed as being granted without demur and charge certificates shouldn't be issued automatically but when the council thinks one is appropriate (they are of course issued automatically, as night follows day). When registering debts an officer of the council has to certify that they have served a Charge Certificate. Given that the PCN was not served they cannot properly certify that they have served a (valid) charge certificate and so should not have threatened this step.

The council know that steps 2. and 3. are not applicable so why confuse the motorist by suggesting them? Mr R can't be expected to know PCN procedure as well as Mr Mustard does and is entitled to be treated fairly by Enfield Council, he wasn't being.

Before Mr R had received the above letter Mr Mustard saw on line that the balance had reverted to £65 so emailed the parking manager as this was an unusual case.

In a separate email Mr Mustard asked for a copy of the complete case report in case it noted down the return of the undelivered PCN. Instead he got sent copies only of the statutory documents. He then emailed the manager again saying he hadn't got what he asked for and could it be sent. Today he checked the balance on line again and saw it was now £0.00 and then this letter came in the post.

Finally a sensible decision had been taken. The moment the council became aware, as Mr Mustard told them, that the PCN was inadequately addressed they should have cancelled it. 

They seem to regard PCNs as sacrosanct once issued and this is a defective way of thinking which needs to be eliminated. You do wrong and get a penalty for £130, the council get it wrong and they want a penalty from you of £65 or £195 if you don't agree.

Mr Mustard thinks that 99% of motorists would have paid up when Enfield Council wrongly threatened them with the County Court. Sadly their illegal bullying doesn't have any costs consequences, it should.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard