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. 

Camden Council -right and wrong

 

Camden Council have processed PCNs pretty well since Mr Mustard was born in 2011. They still get some things wrong though although in this case they were right for the wrong reason and were reasonable.

The story of the three PCNs is largely covered in the rejection / acceptance letter.

Ms W also made an error in paying the wrong PCN and then paid the correct PCN as well and Camden very fairly refunded the erroneous payment on request.

Camden cancelled as a goodwill gesture, not ever wanting to be seen as having done anything wrong, but they were destined to lose at the tribunal. You can only incur one penalty in a 24 hour restriction this being the concept of a continuous contravention which has been fruitful at the tribunal every time for Mr Mustard. In fact Mr Mustard has a dropped kerb case coming up soon at the tribunal, for a Barnet address, where the car received two PCN and the first one has been paid.

Camden are very good in having an email warning system, if only other enforcement authorities did the same.

You may think that being on holiday would give rise to reasonable excuse but if your permit terms and condition include a duty to check on your car every day in a permit bay then you are advised to do so as an adjudicator will probably find against you. Also, have someone you trust who can get to your car keys when you are abroad so your car can be moved if necessary (short term car insurance can be purchased if needed) and also get them to open your post if you are going to be away for more than 2+ weeks in case a moving traffic or bus lane PCN arrives or perhaps Police or Court papers, you do not want to get timed out of any process.

The end. 

Justice for (not of) Solomon

One would think by now that the law about continuous contravention would be clear to every enforcement authority in London but no, word hasn't gone as far out as Redbridge, who gave Solomon's car a PCN on 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 October and 2 November for being parked partially on the pavement. A review of the location in question, Chadwell Avenue, RM6 shows this to be completely standard.

Mr Solomon Adegun having left 2 wheels on the footway, just like everyone else in that area, had the misfortune to be selected to be a bad example by Redbridge Council and was duly issued with 6 PCNs.

 

Having made formal representations against all 6 PCNs to Redbridge Council, who rejected them all, the heinous individuals, hoping in the process to grab £660 out of Solomon's wallet. Applying the justice of Solomon would have seen them receive £330 but that was not to be. The independent adjudicator correctly identified that the car had not moved and that Redbridge were trying to make a super profit of £550. The adjudicator stopped the nonsense, cancelled 5 of the PCNs 6 of which which cost the council c. £180 in tribunal fees and awarded them £110 so they went home losing money.

Should you know Mr Solomon Adegun, who might live in Chadwell Avenue RM6, do please put him in touch with Mr Mustard as he would like to see a photo showing how far on the pavement the car was, possibly not far, or if Solomon was singled out for special treatment. Mr Mustard can be emailed at mrmustard@zoho.com

End

Brent Council - continuous ignorance

Back in June 21 Mr Mustard wrote a blog about Brent Council trying to obtain more than one penalty charge when only one was due. They are at it again and trying for the double whammy of penalising a party who was not the vehicle owner at the relevant time. An independent adjudicator stopped their cunning game.

 

One of the 4 listed dates is incorrect, it should be the 7th according to the data above the text but that isn't important. We know there were 4 PCNs.

The adjudicator hasn't bothered to mention it as she found Ms Parkinson wasn't liable, but only one PCN can be given out for parking on a double yellow. Should the car remain there for days it can be taken to the car pound.

It is a mystery as to why DVLA reported a future keeper as the keeper prior to purchase. Not a usual error from DVLA.

The adjudicator has gently rebuked Brent Council for not allowing time to respond and given that in law they are allowed 56 days i.e. 8 weeks, they could afford to allow 6 weeks for the matter to be clarified by the DVLA although in the event they didn't do so.

There was clearly bags of evidence about the purchase which couldn't all have been invented for the purpose of avoiding 4 PCNs.

Brent lost over £100 in tribunal fees and wasted the motorist's time.

The PCNs themselves can still be chased as against the true owner as the adjudicator did not cancel them, only the Notices to Owner. Mr Mustard expects though that Brent will have given up now.

End.

Continuous contravention - Wandsworth

Here is a location where parking at an angle is allowed:

Wandsworth Council don't really understand road markings as if they did they wouldn't put a yellow box in front of the garages when they are only allowed at junctions and fire or ambulance stations etc., not on housing estates.

An unwell driver made a mistake and parked on the brick paved area in the foreground on the right and collected 3 PCNs in five days. They paid the first one and challenged the other two. Wandsworth Council decided to cancel the PCN issued on day 4 as although they were both correctly issued they had generously decided to treat them as one episode of parking on this occasion. So kind but hogwash. They refused to cancel PCN 3 which was inconsistent.

Mr Mustard took over. He pointed out that the PCN the council had agreed to cancel (the second PCN in time) still showed a balance on the council system. That was quietly corrected after a while.

This is what Mr Mustard wrote about the final PCN (you don't need to write reams).

It took 2 weeks but Wandsworth knew when they were beaten but again said that they had decided to treat the PCNs as one contravention. There isn't a choice, there either is one contravention or there isn't, it is a fact based question.

Here is an extract from the tribunal decision referred to:

Clearly, the second and third PCNs were not appropriate. Traffic wardens issued PCNs when they knew, or ought to have known, that they were not valid.

The back office pretend to be kind but they are spouting hogwash in order to try and play the situation to their advantage. They need to stop.

You just can't trust the parking departments of many councils.

End.

Continuous contravention - Croydon Council

Looking back Mr Mustard sees that he has written about continuous contraventions, ones that subsist for a number of days, and has mentioned Bromley & North Essex Parking Partnership in November 21, Merton in August 21, Edinburgh in July 21 and Brent in June 21. He also has copies of tribunal decisions against Hillingdon, Haringey, Barnet and Lambeth. Mr Mustard is currently fighting a PCN in Wandsworth on the basis that the council can't have 3 PCNs for a double yellow line contravention (the driver was ill) over 4 days, the first PCN having been paid at 50% and the second one supposedly cancelled by the council but still shows as due on line.

One would think by now that the rule of law had got through the skull of the slowest parking employee but no, here we go again, Croydon this time. Two wheels were on the edge of the pavement, where they didn't even need to be and the lesson has been learnt.

Mr Mustard suggested the wording of formal representations which was that there was indeed a contravention, the first PCN had been paid and the second and third should be cancelled.

The PCNs had been issued as follows:

day 1 at noon

day 2 at 11am

day 4 at 11am

Croydon cancelled the day 2 PCN as being issued less than 24 hours since the first PCN but wanted the day 4 PCN paid. Off Mr Mustard went to the tribunal on the grounds of continuous contravention. Once he had the evidence pack he produced, as usual, a skeleton argument which boils the whole case down to the main points the adjudicator needs to consider, which in this case was only the one. Filing skeleton arguments helps the tribunal to run more efficiently.

If the adjudicator's daily diary permits they read the papers before Mr Mustard gets into the hearing room and that happened in this case such that the Adjudicator on reaching this case simply said it was allowed. A brief decision was all that was required.

So we must ask ourselves, Mr Mustard knew the law and the adjudicator knew the law. Why didn't Croydon Council? Would it be because most people don't know the law so they can get away with daylight robbery most of the time?

End.

Malfeasance in Merton (London Borough of)

 

Mr Mustard likes to start his morning with a cup of tea and a perusal of the register of the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators. His main focus is on Barnet cases but Mr Mustard's eye can be caught by other boroughs and this was one such example, or rather, 14 such examples. Here is the text of the adjudicator's reasoning and decision.

Yet another enforcement authority pushing the long discredited theory that they can issue a PCN once every 24 hours where there is a continuous prohibition on parking and in this case there were two of them (not the best parking but that doesn't mean you should be scalped for 14 times £110 = £1,540). This authority tried, reading between the lines, to argue that each new day heralded a new prohibition thanks to the wording of 0.00 to 24:00 hours in the Traffic Management Order ('TMO'). Whilst the adjudicator calmly contradicted that proposition by pointing out the black letter law of the TMO said 'at any time' it shows you what slippery snakes are employed in the parking department of Merton Council, just as in other boroughs about whom Mr Mustard has written on the subject of continuous contraventions.

It is curious that enforcement authorities don't take the opportunity to increase their knowledge by doing as Mr Mustard and other self taught PCN experts so, which is to read the decisions of adjudicators who are experiences lawyers and the final arbiter (unless you fancy an expensive judicial review) of the law in this arena viper's nest.

Take what an enforcement authority says to their own benefit with a pinch of salt and do your own research on the internet or put your case on PePiPoo (silly name but an excellent site) and get good free advice from a selection of lay people who live and breathe PCNs.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

NEPP - yet another grasping parking ticket issuer

 

The motorist made an error and had his rear wheel on double yellows. One PCN is perfectly acceptable in the circumstances but three is extortionate. It didn't make for a good weekend.

Days and times of issue

Clearly the motorist, let us call him Mr C, didn't see his car as otherwise he would have moved it after the first PCN.

There is no excuse for the traffic wardens, the second and third of whom should not have issued a PCN having seen their colleagues work affixed to the windscreen. It is no wonder that the public think that traffic wardens get paid for issuing more tickets when meritless illegal PCNs are given out.

Just so you know NEPP is the North Essex Parking Partnership which operates on behalf of Colchester Borough Counci, Braintree, Epping Forest, Harlow, Tendring & Uttlesford councils. They should be experts in PCN issue and processing. They aren't.

Mr Mustard advised Mr C to pay the first PCN in time at 50% and challenge the other two on these grounds.

As you did not move the car there was one continuous contravention so only one PCN is due.

Usually another PCN is not issued until 24 hours after the previous one.

Both of these representations were rejected. NEPP were wrong to do so. It's as if all they are interested in is money.

The PCNs ended up being processed at different speeds. This is what NEPP said later

Saturday PCN

Formal Representation received on 14th January.

Accepted on 13th February on grounds that this was served within 24 hours of the initial PCN

Sunday PCN

The third would not automatically be cancelled for being the same contravention, as it was not within 24 hours.

Mr Mustard had rather expected NEPP to cancel both the second and third PCNs as each one was issued less than 24 hours before the previous one (although there is no magic about a 24 hour period in this case) but they fooled him by saying that PCNs 1 and 3 were more than 24 hours apart but that is to ignore the fact that only one contravention had occurred.

Later on, Mr Mustard made both a complaint and out of time representations which led to a cancellation, as follows.

It is true that the vehicle was parked in contravention but a penalty charge notice had already been served, and a second one illegally served, so this third PCN was not correctly served.

Discretion isn't in it. They should know at NEPP that they are in the wrong.

The final paragraph is empty puff and weak, 'may' be held liable, no, as only one PCN can be served for one contravention.

Cancelling a PCN makes NEPP want to have the last word but that is churlish behaviour when they are in the wrong.

If a council had to pay a motorist the value of an illegal PCN they might be less trigger happy when issuing.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Edinburgh - two PCNs within 24 hours

It isn't beyond the skill set of the software coder to design a PCN issuing system which doesn't allow a PCN to be issued when it isn't lawful such as when only one contravention has been committed. There isn't, of course, any money for the council in such a move. There is reputational damage but councils seem to be more interested in revenue raising than what people think of them.

Today Mr Mustard goes north of the border to Edinburgh where they don't know parking law. Here is an extract from the Adjudicator's decision in the case of Mr S

The council's submissions were, in Mr Mustard's view, imprecise and confusing (absolute garbage) and didn't, as they often don't, get to the heart of the matter; they are often obfuscatory (Mr Mustard cuts through nonsense like that and a professional lay representative was also instructed in this case).

The adjudicator swiftly reached their conclusion

Point 1 is trite law.

Point 2 is an interesting aside. Mr Mustard once considered a vehicle which managed to commit three simultaneous contraventions which possibly were being partially on the pavement at a dropped kerb with double yellow lines. 

The adjudicator then rubbed the council's nose in their actions

For 18 years The City of Edinburgh Council have accepted that only one PCN can be issued to a vehicle on double yellow lines which does not move and yet they issued two PCNs in this case.

Are they stupid, forgetful or dishonest? Who knows, what they have, in common with Brent, Barnet & Hillindon Councils whose shenigans have recently featured on the blog, is a propensity to make mistakes in their own financial favour. How convenient.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard 

Hostile Hillingdon

 

Having written about Brent Council yesterday on the subject of a continuous contravention it just so happens when Mr Mustard was idling through the daily register of adjudicator decisions at London Tribunals that he alighted on a similar case, six PCNs given to a Mr Anthony Aneke (with whom Mr Mustard has no connection & whom he will refer to as Mr A) the identical number of PCNs given to a vehicle which again didn't move. The register is, by legal regulation, a public document and it can provide a useful source of information.

Here is the substance of the decision:

Each PCN was for £110 and so Hillingdon Council were trying to get a decision that Mr A should fork out £660. Hillingdon increased their council tax by 4.8% this year and so are clearly in great need of extra funds - this may partly explain why they want six penalty charges to be paid for one contravention.

There is no dispute but that Mr A made a mistake, a common one as it happens of trying to be mindful of other road users but overlooking inconvenience to pedestrians and wheelchair uses, prams etc. It isn't therefore unreasonable to extract one penalty from him but trying for six, when they aren't legally due, is hostile behaviour. Add in the facts that the vehicle had a mechanical problem, that he has just lost his job and that he fell ill and Hillingdon Council's behaviour is hostile, horrible, heartless, disproportionate, unreasonable and devoid of any morality and would lead to a debt burden. That isn't why councils exist, to make the lives of citizens more difficult. 'Welcome to Hillingdon' the entry signs should read, 'where we like to kick a man when he is down'.

Councils now tend to take the view that because a contravention has occurred a penalty must be paid, they decline to exercise their wide discretion in obviously deserving cases and throw their weight about like playground bullies. There needs to be objective and independent oversight to rein in their worst excesses. The role of the adjudicator is to apply the law but we need more than this as they only see 1% of all PCNs, someone sensible needs to look at the other 99% and keep local authorities on the straight and narrow.

What is the point of Penalty Charge Notices? The Secretary of State, in his statutory guidance, says, in part, that it is this:

In the case of Mr A the PCNs have been looked at in isolation, his personal financial and health situation having been ignored, and revenue raising is the apparent objective as Mr Mustard doesn't see any other possible explanation (well, not knowing the law at Hillingdon Council is an unattractive alternative).

Taking it as a given that the whole point of parking rules is to regulate parking, is there a better alternative to PCNs as almost 4 million a year being issued in London (for parking alone) suggests to Mr Mustard that they don't work? There is, clearly Mr A hadn't caught on that pavement parking is forbidden throughout Greater London except where the pavements are signed to allow it.

One option is to issue a warning PCN, which has a zero value, and then the message should get through, but councils issue very few such PCNs as they cost them money and they don't like them affecting their profit margins.

An alternative when a challenge is received for this type of PCN is to ask Mr A to sign an undertaking as to his future conduct and then cancelling the PCNs, something like this:

By this method, compliance would slowly improve, and the allegation of revenue raising could not be made.

Until something changes Mr Mustard will continue to bring to your attention the egregious activities of certain councils.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Brent Council - blathering irrelevance

 

The above car was rented out and when the hire was over it was left with one wheel on perfect double yellow lines (perhaps it was dark upon parking?). The owner didn't know how the car had been left until a couple of weeks later it not being hired out in the meantime. The car had accumulated six PCNs, the first one in time was paid and the other five were challenged using the following words:

It would be hard to write a more succinct or clear challenge, wrote Mr Mustard not at all modestly. Back came multiple identical rejections:

Careful consideration? - not apparent.

The paragraph starting 'A PCN was issued' - is irrelevant.

The first six lines of the next paragraph are also irrelevant.

The bold type or emphasis would not be necessary if the irrelevant material wasn't there. This is just lazy cut and paste.

The argument put forward was not 'mitigation' but a head on challenge to the lawfulness of any PCN after the first one.

An 'appropriate response' has not been sent as the question of 'continuous contravention' has not been mentioned or possibly even thought about.

If Brent Council send the same non-reply at the next stage, the Notices to Owner, against which identical challenges will be made, it will be off to the tribunal which has previously considered this argument presented by Mr Mustard and agreed with him and here is one such decision (not a precedent but likely to be persuasive)

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard