Barnet Council - digging a big hole

The above is one of Mr Mustard's successes, he found an error in the moving traffic PCN late in 2018 and it has been tested out at the tribunal 18 times so far with only two adjudicators refusing to follow the first decision and they didn't have Mr Mustard in front of them with his list of previously allowed decisions. That is fair enough, adjudicator decisions do not set precedents but may be persuasive. Now that the chief adjudicator has agreed with the argument Mr Mustard suspects that all adjudicators will in future make the same decision to allow Appeals and they are entitled to not follow their own previous refusals.

Mr Mustard is pleased that the adjudicator has picked up the recent woeful state of case summaries, this is what the tribunal manual says a Case Summary should contain, and one would expect headings for each section to make things easy.

Here is the section that really hurt the head in this very case:

What will happen if Barnet Council keep submitting case summaries that are unacceptable is that they will probably not be read by the Adjudicator and the council will be at greater risk of losing the Appeal. The Case Summary is also sent to the motorist concerned, they are going to be unable to fathom out what the council's argument is and that is clearly unfair - every person is entitled to a fair trial (a tribunal hearing counts as a simplified form of a trial) and the Appeal can be allowed under the Human Rights Act if the council's behaviour falls so far short of what is acceptable.

This is a good time to challenge your moving traffic PCN if it contains the complained of wording

No need to thank me, just donate to the North London Hospice.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Case summary confusion

As part of the evidence pack which enforcement authorities have to submit to London Tribunals at least 3 clear days in advance of the hearing, is a case summary which is meant to give the adjudicator an overview of the case, address all the issues raised, summarise the council's case, make submissions & comment on the representations made by the Appellant. 

It should, of course, be even-handed as it is the duty of the council to assist the tribunal, not to mislead.

Mr Mustard finds Barnet Council's case summaries to be verbose, inaccurate and partial.

Looking at the extract above, for a case coming up next week, the first thing to note is the council have failed to check it before submission. They comment both upon fact that the appellant (the registered keeper of the car & the driver in this instance) was collecting their child from their school (and there isn't a school in the road in question) and that they were dropping off elderly relatives. Both statements are not true, the second one is.

The council omit the part of the TMO (Traffic Management Order) which allows 2 minutes for anyone to be collected or dropped off. One of the passengers being dropped off is a blue badge holder so by (current) definition has mobility problems, or is blind. For such passengers there isn't a 2 minute limit.

The council apply a ridiculous and unsafe rule for boarding and alighting of children, that you cannot leave the vehicle unattended. There are keep clear zig zag markings outside most schools so you can't get that near especially with the parental competition for space at drop off and pick-up times. At what age is it safe to sit in your car whilst your child exits the school gates and comes to find you, when they don't know if they should go left or right or across the road? Mr Mustard isn't a parent so asked one and the answer was not until year 6, when the child will most likely be 11.

It doesn't matter how credible the council think the traffic warden (CEO) is. What matters is what the adjudicator thinks, as one told them a long time ago, as it is their job to weight up the evidence in an Appeal, not the council's.

There wasn't any catering going on, as the council suggest.

The second observation time is before the initial observation time!

This is an example of how you need to read the evidence pack slowly & carefully and point out the flaws in the council's case, which even if not fatal to it, may undermine it enough for you to get the benefit of the doubt when the adjudicator would otherwise be unsure of what decision to make.

Mr Mustard doesn't mind that Barnet Council write utter tripe so often, it helps him to win.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Incredible (but true - only the fact of writing it)

The City Hall of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico

Mr Mustard has read numerous Case Summaries in Evidence Packs sent to PATAS and copied to the people who are appealing their parking tickets. They often contain the phrase "The Civil Enforcement Officer is a credible witness" which usually gets a hollow laugh from Mr Mustard who has found some cheating by CEOs in his time. Everything written in the case summary must be borne out by actual supporting evidence and it would be quite difficult to prove a CEO was credible without him or her turning up at PATAS and proving it, which never happens. It is a waste of ink to write it.

Unfortunately for Barnet Council, NSL, who write these works of fiction Case Summaries went one further recently when they made the unsubstantiated suggestion that the motorist was not to be believed, which is more or less the same as saying he is a liar. Unfortunately, and rather stupidly, they chose to try this new line out on a man of the cloth with disastrous consequences. Here is what the PATAS adjudicator, Mamta Parekh said (Mr Mustard has not had the pleasure of appearing in front of this adjudicator and looks forward to it happening one day):

Rabbi L. attended the personal hearing listed for today. I found him to be a very honest and credible witness.

He said that it was a very dark and rainy night and he and his passengers parked in Brent Street where he was aware that there were no restrictions on a Saturday evening. He stated that he had not noticed any suspension signs but had nevertheless been willing to pay at the discounted rate, but was unable to do so as he had not received the original penalty charge notice. It must have blown / been washed away in the heavy downpour which may not have happened had the CEO placed the same under the windscreen (wiper?)

He was therefore very aggrieved at the manner in which the local authority failed to take into account his representations and the insulting tone of their correspondence, and which I will refer to further below.

I accept the appellant's evidence that he had not received the original penalty charge notice and that it must have somehow become removed from the vehicle. However this would not affect the appellant's liability for the penalty charge if found to be validly issued.

I have considered the evidence carefully. I am not satisfied that the suspension sign was adequate. It would appear that the contents of the suspension sign were written in pen which writing also appears to have washed away in the rain so that the contents are no longer legible. I am therefore not satisfied that the contravention did occur and allow this appeal.

I would add that I am somewhat shocked at the local authority's correspondence where they say that the appellant is not a credible witness without any foundation whatsoever to make such a comment, and which has caused considerable offense (sic) to the appellant who is a Minister of Religion. The Adjudicator has the opportunity to hear live evidence upon which to make judgments as to credibility. It is not for the local authority to make such comments and I do not expect to see such language or conduct from the local authority again.

This is a sign of desperation creeping in. Barnet Council (NSL) are obliged to consider your representations fully & fairly, with an open mind, even handedly and without thinking about the money they won't collect if they cancel. Instead they write letters which are designed to put you off from appealing.

Let's hope that the above Barnet Council / NSL letter was indeed a one-off. If however you, dear reader, have such a letter then Mr Mustard would be pleased to see it and to assist you with your appeal to PATAS and he would suggest that we specifically ask for the case to be listed in front of the same adjudicator. Won't that be fun apart from the fact that you have been called a liar and a cheat. Together, we can make the council eat their words and some humble pie.

That washed away suspension sign argument might be one you could use as well, if it happens to you.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard