A costly bank statement

 

Mr Mustard had his attention drawn to this tribunal case by another expert. Both play with a straight bat with the tribunal as anything else would undermine your future credibility. Mr Mustard has accidentally said things which turned out not to be true and if that comes to light he puts his hand up during the hearing to admit he was wrong and to explain why or even in a later hearing with the same adjudicator. That is why his unsupported word as to facts can be accepted.

Not so in this case. One problem for the motorist is that if there were a league table of enforcement authorities and their diligence with PCNs Camden Council would generally be in the top 3.

The initial Appeal hearing did not go well for the motorist (often in the Court system an Appeal is against an earlier Court decision but in PCN circles it is an Appeal against the council's refusal to cancel).

The payment was thought of as a user error. The story could have stopped there with £160 to be paid. The motorist decided to ask for a 'Review'. These are rarely granted as that is how the system is designed because one hearing is proportionate to the penalty at issue. That hearing went badly for the motorist.

A back pedalling motorist isn't a good look. It looks like a narrow escape to me. Camden Council however, had done a lot of work and although costs are, by law, rarely awarded, they had put a lot of work in and wanted a contribution. There therefore had to be yet another hearing and the motorist was still keen to be heard:

The motorist's behaviour was found to be 'wholly unreasonable' which is one of the legal tests, frivolous or vexatious being the others.

Trying to hoodwink an adjudicator is pretty stupid, they do hundreds of PCN Appeals. They also have to be legally qualified and have been so for 5 years before they are eligible to become an adjudicator, they have doubtless assessed lots of evidence during their careers and won't easily be fooled. Just tell the truth and pay your PCN if you are bang to rights.

The end.

Removed from an EV bay but I can explain

 

Miss EV parked her large petrol car in what turned out to be an EV bay. You can see how, it looks to be two bays each side of a charger unit. There is a subtle white line which shows this to be one bay, not many would spot that. There is a sign on the right hand bay as you look from the middle of the road and apparently nothing in the left hand bay.

That led to a PCN, the car being removed to the car pound and a payment of £360 to get the car back.

The other bay being free Mr Mustard wonders if removal was really necessary.

The first contact was as follows:

I wonder if you might be able to help me with a parking claim? I got your number from a friend who you helped a few times.

I recently had my car towed from a parking bay where the parking restrictions were not marked in any way. I paid to get my car released and was told that I could appeal. On the council website it states that no appeals will be considered until the car is released from the car pound. However, since I have done this and paid the fine, it is now registered as a ‘closed’ case and is not offering me any way of appealing.

This is a flaw in some council systems as payment blocks off access to the online system, you have to write in. Someone hasn't thought this through.

Mr Mustard was confused but once he saw and sorted out the paperwork he knew what had gone wrong and made representations accordingly:

Procedural impropriety 

When this lady came to me for help she was confused about how to make representations or Appeal. This was because when she attended at the car pound as well as being given a notice telling her she could make representations she was also given a Notice of Appeal, as below:

(The official use section should not be blank)

That is a clear procedural impropriety being a failure to follow the 2022 Regulations.

Procedural impropriety #2 

The council have not fully communicated all of the requirements of Regulation 11 (4) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations. 

No contravention. 

To the man (or woman) in the street the bay in question looks to be unsigned because there is a full length build out from that bay before the next one and only the right hand side one has a sign. 

Accordingly in view of the inadequate signage the contravention is denied.

Removal was on 11 April, the car was recovered the same day and the formal representations were posted ('signed for' as they have to arrive to count) on 23 April.

Mr Mustard set the 56 day clock ticking as that was the deadline for Camden to reply otherwise they had to refund. They did take until 19 May but what they did write was carefully considered and sensible, they refunded, probably having done what Mr Mustard does, try to work out in advance what an adjudicator might decide.

In summary someone at the car pound made a right blunder, why they even have Appeal Forms there is a mystery as they are sent out with Notices of Rejection so unless someone in the back office there also considers representations they shouldn't have such forms.

If you have been towed you should always try and find some ground on which to make a representation, Camden don't make many errors but this one was a whopper. Even without the paperwork error Mr Mustard thought he had a better than 50/50 chance of winning on the bay layout and that is enough to have a go with.

A donation was made to the North London Hospice by Miss EV.