Suspect suspension

 

A resident, let's call him Mr G, received a PCN at this location on 10 July having observed that the works were complete. What really should happen is that to be helpful to the public the workers should be empowered to take down the sign once works are complete but that doesn't happen in Barnet.

Mr Mustard advised Mr G to ask some questions of the council as he thought the sign looked a bit amateur and not in line with the version authorised by the Secretary of State.

The questions and answers were as follows:

The photos have not been published. However, what appears to have happened is that a certain period of suspension was requested but a different one was advertised. The CEO (traffic warden) isn't to know that, they rely entirely on the erected sign and assume it will be correct and clearly that isn't always the case.

Separately Mr G received another response which quite fairly cancelled the PCN as it wasn't sustainable, the advertised suspension not being the authorised one. Mr Mustard has not known this happen before.

What this tells you is that it is worth asking to see all of the records about the suspension to make sure it was properly arranged as if it wasn't the council will cancel your PCN. Properly typed up 3 sided signs bearing reference numbers are likely to be correct (but could still be wrong) and dodgy looking handwritten signs are the most susceptible to challenge.

You can submit your questions by email to foi@barnet.gov.uk

The end.

 

 

 

Hounslow Council find the end of the road

 

Car drivers are in the habit of finding every possible extra parking space. This location is one that ended up at the tribunal where the PCN was cancelled for the simple reason that the alleged contravention had not occurred. The mistake the traffic warden (CEO) made is a common one or it isn't a mistake, they are just taking a flyer.

This wasn't one of Mr Mustard's cases so he doesn't have any photos for you but we can surmise that a car was parked in the middle of the carriageway fairly close to the brick wall which terminates the carriageway. Mr Mustard expects the car was within the white rectangle.

The neighbours probably have an arrangement to block each other in and move when required. An arrangement with a traffic warden is a dangerous one as they come and go and their boss might intervene.

If you are so parked both sides of your car are more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and if the car was reversed in then the front of the car is also more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway. However, providing the car is backed up to within 50cm of the wall, as it must have been in this case, it is not in contravention.

Not only should the traffic warden not have issued the PCN, the council should not have rejected the representations and nor should they have resisted the Appeal but £130 was at stake and that causes errors of judgments within councils, not just Hounslow..

Newham Council are Cheats - #17

 

The adjudicator may well be correct in that the CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer or 'traffic warden') was present at the moment when the signs were changed or it could just have been unlucky timing but there are only 26 minutes to play with.

When signs are replaced the registration numbers of already parked vehicles should be taken so that if they are given a PCN it can be cancelled by the back office.

The morning briefing for traffic wardens should also notify them of signs which are being changed that day so that they can steer clear for the day.

The back office carried on with their apparently ignorance based cheating. 

Barking Council - wide of the mark

 

Barking & Dagenham Council got the law absolutely wrong in this case. 

They had already rejected a good challenge by the motorist at the PCN stage.

Mr Mustard stepped in at the Notice to Owner stage. He used the council's online system which asks standard irrelevant questions. Whoever sent the rejection did not know what they were doing. Loading/unloading and boarding/alighting are completely different concepts.

The kerb marks would probably have been found to be inadequate as they are not bright and there should be one every 3 metres or so, so that there is always one adjacent to the vehicle. 

Mr Mustard started an Appeal to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals. Just before the case was due to be heard Barking threw in the towel and cancelled the PCN.

Mr Mustard is concerned that most motorists would believe what a council writes no matter how wrong.

Sadly there is no remedy within legislation which obliged a council which contravenes the Regulations to pay a penalty. There should be in order to improve the quality of processing of representations.

The end. 

How the penalty unfolded

 

This is a case which Mr Mustard took to Appeal at London Tribunals. When the motorist parked the water was deeper and the driver didn't notice the dropped kerb as it was under water and as there isn't any dimpled paving.

This location leads nowhere, with the road being made into a cul-de-sac by bollards set in the carriageway to stop all but cyclists and motorcyclists from going through.

It is 6 roads to the east of Fore St and is very quiet. The point of giving a PCN to a car having made an innocent error was lost on Mr Mustard and the car could easily have been relocated instead of being towed but that would leave Enfield Council £200 down.

As it happens Mr Mustard knows the location because he helps a company on the Eley Estate and sometimes he cycles there from High Barnet and the grey path showing in the greenery is part of his route.

In this case the CEO who issued the PCN was the one who spends his day as a passenger in the tow truck. The PCN was timed at 09:19 and the car was towed at 09:24

Mr Mustard made representations to the council on four grounds

1. The drop was unclear due to standing water.

2. The PCN was not served.

3. There was no traffic management purpose.

4. The council quoted the wrong Regulations, 2007 instead of 2022.

The council rejected the representations, they didn't go into great detail about the particular facts, just spouted the usual stuff about rules. Mr Mustard had no hesitation in starting an Appeal as in a removal case the PCN has been settled in full and final at 50% and the £200 removal fee has already been paid so the worst result, of losing, doesn't cost the motorist anything extra.

The grounds of Appeal follow:

The exact wording of the not served argument was follows:

The reason that Mr Mustard included that argument was because the plastic wallet was so flat that it seemed unlikely that it contained anything.

 

Enfield Council's evidence was

At the in person hearing of the Appeal Mr Mustard handed up to the Adjudicator the original PCN which his client had posted to him under the clear instructions to use a large envelope and not fold the PCN. The benefit of keeping all PCN paperwork in an unadulterated condition will become clear to you in a moment. The adjudicator agreed (having already decided to cancel the PCN on another ground of less interest) that a piece of paper which has to be folded twice to be placed within a small plastic envelope would show signs of creasing:

Mr Mustard knew to look for this as he had noticed it in another borough and from memory it may have been when he actually saw a car being towed.

Should you be unlucky enough to have your car removed please keep all of the paperwork exactly as it is given to you at the car pound, places which are a bit incompetent, and which may save you £265.

This motorist who turned up on the day to the tribunal as she was free was delighted to get her £265 back and spent c.£3 of it on a pint of Greene King IPA for Mr Mustard in the local 'spoons' where they repaired after the hearing along with another representative who had his own cases that day.

The end.

Dirty number plate problem

Here is Islington Council's photo of a contravening vehicle GO-ing where it shouldn't

To preserre the innocent motorist's identity Mr Mustard has redacted the number plate.

He made a short formal representation that there had been a number plate read error.

As parking management at Islington are always happy to hear from and respond to Mr Mustard he also sent them an email with some questions which he would like to have had answers to, as follows:

Unusually Mr Mustard did not hear back. As this is the only case of this type to land on his desk Mr Mustard just let it go. He will link to this case if another similar one comes along.

He did receive a proper and polite cancellation so Mr Peugeot was happy.

 

The nagging unhappiness in Mr Mustard's brain is that when a council sends out a postal PCN they need to have a belief that the person sent the PCN is the registered keeper. In this case clearly when told by DVLA of the name and address of an orange Peugeot they should have compared this information to their cctv images and realised they could not hold this belief. They are not the only council not checking. If the car had been leased the lease company might have just paid up as some (wrongly) do.

The end.

 

Haringey Council - a triumph for common sense

The rather long and complicated sign - who has time to read a novella upon parking:

The PCN informal challenge:

There were obvious typing and grammar errors in Mr Mustard's submission but they didn't dilute the thrust of the challenges. Of course the sign was in two dimensions! Mr Mustard meant one sided.

There was no error in Haringey's response. They saw that they had got themselves into very hot water and would, if they denied this challenge and the next one, inevitably end up at the tribunal where they would receive six of the best.

A very nice acceptance letter followed:

So often cancellation letters are mealy mouthed and say things such as the same outcome won't necessarily be the case if the same situation occurs when it patently will so well done Haringey for owning your errors. Let's hope the sign department learn from this.

In Mr Mustard's opinion any suspension of this type in Haringey is susceptible to challenge.

The end.

Tower Hamlets play fair

Mr Mustard's friend had a blue badge passenger in the car. He knew that was OK in Barnet and Enfield* to park in a residents bay and therefore assumed it would be ok in Tower Hamlets. It wasn't. Mr Mustard thought about the matter and sent in the following informal challenge. (* do put Mr Mustard right if he is wrong about this).

Tower Hamlets were quite quick and replied after 2 weeks.

The content of the letter, which was sent attached to an email, was somewhat contradicted by the covering email.

If there was a scoring system for this PCN Tower Hamlets would get a 9 out of 10, so well done them for cancelling for a first error which should not get repeated. This is how it should be.

This does highlight though the problem for a blue badge driver who really needs to research where he/she can stop for free before he/she makes a journey across London. It wouldn't need much, a blue badge logo on all bays where blue badges could be used would be a simple addition and bring clarity to all. Tower Hamlets sadly didn't answer the simple question posed by Mr Mustard, once they have cancelled a PCN they don't want to spend more time on it.

The end.

Haringey overdo it and then do the right thing.

 

Errors jump off the page at Mr Mustard. The addition error above was obvious and so was how the error had occurred. Mr Mustard decided to find out how many times this had happened so he asked questions of the council.

For all PCN Orders for Recovery issued by the council since 1 April 2023 please provide me with a spreadsheet which lists the values of any sum indicated as payable on the Order for recovery which was not £204 or £129 (the expected amounts based upon unpaid PCNs which were issued for the standard amounts of £80 and £130).

You will gather than what I am looking for is any case in the current council year where the amount demanded is unexpected/unusual/wrong as it was in a case I dealt with recently.

The reply was a complete one.

There was only one batch of PCNs affected by this incorrect value; the PCNs were registered at TEC with the correct amount; the batch became stuck halfway through the process and before we were successfully able to create the Notice of Debt Registration batch there were two more attempts to resolve the matter which led to the  adding up the 3 x £9.00 charge. Once this error was identified the PCNs were cancelled and any payments received were refunded accordingly.

Mr Mustard will reproduce below the spreadsheet he was sent. If your PCN is listed and you have not been repaid in full as per the council response, you need to contact the council for a refund.

512 PCNs at £204 (Mr Mustard presumes the council did not pay the fees to the Court three times) gives a maximum loss of £104,448 although the probable loss is likely to be lower, c £50,000 as lots of PCNs never get recovered.

Well done to Haringey Council for refunding in this situation. Mr Mustard doesn't know the trigger for that but doesn't need to be credited with being the driving force, even if he was.

The end.

 

The right Royal Borough of Greenwich

 

Last November Mr Mustard was asked to help contest a PCN issued for being on a single yellow line in Burnley St in Greenwich. You will note the absence of a time plate adjacent to the yellow line after which you should take the hint that you are probably in a CPZ (controlled parking zone). You will have driven past a zone entry sign somewhere, which sets the rules.

Mr Mustard sometimes writes very short challenges, this one, sent in November 21 said:

'The restriction was not communicated by adequate signage'.

It was in April 22 that the response came. Mr Mustard now knows that there was a backlog in responding to informal challenges at that time in Greenwich. Formal representations, made in response to the Notice to Owner, have to be responded to within 56 days otherwise the council has to cancel.

By contrast, the informal rejection was long.

Note that twice the recipient is told that if they don't pay now the discount will be gone. Well, Mr Mustard doesn't care about that as he doesn't intend that the motorist should pay anything in this case. Not taking the 'issue' (why not say PCN?) through the Appeals process loses the opportunity to pay zero. It was, naturally, a templated response, written using the help of 'LetterSmarti' per Greenwich's records. Mr Mustard read it very carefully and then asked some questions. Here they are, with answers and some further comment by Mr Mustard.

This response is patent nonsense. Saying the signage is inadequate is a fundamental challenge to the validity of the PCN, it isn't a request to be let off.

As the challenge made was about signage one would have thought the council would be checking what notes were made about signage. Mr Mustard has those notes which include 'Greenwich Town Centre CPZ' but the FOI response didn't tell him that. It is actually CPZ 'G' in any event.

Mr Mustard sees councils who falsely regret they haven't cancelled a PCN  or who empathise when they are doing the exact opposite. They should be banned from such annoying false utterances.

 

A precise and correct response, so rare.

This response was, to put it politely, patent nonsese. The PCN was for being 'Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours' which means you were alleged to be on a single or double yellow line without a loading restriction (as otherwise the PCN would refer to loading/unloading). At this point a smart council would realise they are facing a worthy opponent who is going to identify all their errors and use them. Greenwich Council aren't smart.

As for the attempt to semantically explain away the difference between a restriction and a prohibition on loading, there is only one sort of traffic order which ever applies to loading/unloading which is to ban it and that is covered by both supposedly distinct words. This part of the FOI response was written by a weasel.

Now this was thoroughly unhelpful. 'Kerbside' which kerb? there are lots of them in Greenwich. Here is one example which Mr Mustard found without wasting any shoe leather:

The sign, which is at the edge of the Greenwich Town Centre CPZ does not have any loading restriction marked upon it and that is probably why the 'as above' non answer was given.

Finally, Greenwich have to admit they made an error. If you make an error that will be a penalty of £130, if Greenwich council make one it makes no material difference. Oh yes it does as the response, which has a financial impact, was materially wrong. One can only conclude that either LetterSmarti or the writer isn't very smart. At this point a sensible parking officer would have cancelled the PCN but no, they can't do that, they will spend the rest of the day crying into their tea if they cancel something, they are never wrong, except they are!

By the way, is is 900m from the single yellow line to the applicable sign. CPZs need to go, every line should have a clear adjacent sign.

Oh dear, another embarrassing response because the real answer, which is clear for us all to see, is zero repeater plates.

Hard to answer other than in the affirmative that there are no signs at the location as there aren't any.

After giving Greenwich Council plenty of reasons to cancel, Mr Mustard opened the door for them to do so. They did not walk through it which of course meant they were in for a longer fight as Mr Mustard was confident that he would prevail at the independent tribunal as he had other aces in his hand. 

Greenwich Council had just dealt Mr Mustard an extra card. The PCN was issued on street on 21 November 2021. The legislation says that a Notice to Owner must be issued within 6 months which would be 21 May 2022. Greenwich Council were offering to break the law. Mr Mustard smiled and put the file away and waited for time to pass. The PCN has now been cancelled which will be a story for another day, it does concern the 6 months but he doesn't think Greenwich have realised their error yet.

The end.