Try hard not to laugh

Another random tribunal decision about a PCN that Mr Mustard decided to read

Clear signs

 

The outcome, fancy thinking you were exempt when you didn't have a permit. 

 The end

Due adjustment: #8 Croydon Council

A single point out of 10 for Croydon Council because they used to offer assistance but currently don't. You can't catch covid over the telephone so why the policy changed Mr Mustard cannot say.

Croydon Council can't abdicate their legal responsibilities although they have. So much for public service. If they are continuing to issue PCNs by the shedload, as they doubtless are, they have to have all legal mechanisms in place to deal with them, including offering due adjustment to the disabled who cannot write.

Mr Mustard beat a Croydon PCN the other day so knew there was nothing on the PCN to help the disabled. He looked at the website for completeness.

The law is not what Croydon Council say it is. That may be the quickest way for the council but use the method which is quickest or most convenient for you; Mr Mustard prefers email over an online web form.

Croydon also force you through their options, these are the ones for pavement parking, code 62.

Some of these possible reasons are traps for the unwary. To avoid obstructing the road will most likely see your challenge rejected as it isn't an exemption. I was loading is a possibility if you couldn't park anywhere else in order to load/unload and the vehicle was not left unattended. Breaking down or having nowhere to park aren't valid exemptions either, unless a traffic warden or policeman instructed you to park like that. As for the signs, the ban on pavement parking doesn't need to be signed!

Mr Mustard's advice is to ignore all of the reasons, click continue and then you get the real challenge system.

You can get straight to that page using this link

Croydon are sloppy with the word 'appeal' which has a special meaning, an Appeal is to the independent adjudicator after the council has turned down your informal challenge and formal representations (which can be the same or sometimes there is only the latter, for postal PCNs).

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.

Croydon Council Covid cash-in

Mr Mustard is indebted to a friend for bringing this tribunal decision to his attention. Clearly he sits and reads the register even more than Mr Mustard does!

It seems that Croydon Council are more concerned with balancing the books and keeping that lovely PCN cash flowing than in beating the pandemic. The world is unbalanced, and not a better or healthier place, by the voracious appetite of councils everywhere for PCN income.

Mr Mustard hopes that Croydon Council come to their senses and cancel.

End.