Newham Council are Cheats - #43

 

The above tribunal decision is one of the most coruscating criticisms that Mr Mustard has ever seen. Mr Mustard doesn't comment much on adjudicators but Mr Walsh was premier league (Mr Mustard won 2 cases and lost 1 before him and wishes he was still there) and has deservedly been elevated to the position of District Judge in Willesden Magistrates Court.

What this case amply demonstrates is the wilful blindness which Mr Mustard has long suspected exists PCN enforcement offices (council and contractors) and the reject everything philosophy which he thinks exists.

Many of the public still naively believe that a council will be fair but it isn't necessarily so, the urgent need to revenue raise has elbowed public service and fairness out of the way in many councils.

It was no surprise that an order for costs was sought and granted even though they rarely are.

Just before that long read here is the sign that was there and the sign the council blindly assumed was there:

 

Make yourself a cup of tea and settle into a comfy chair.

 

Newham Council tried to get out cheap at £50 which considering they tried to extract an unlawful £130 was pretty mean of them. 

The council are described in this decision as dishonest & deceptive a characterisation which Mr Mustard agrees with and which is often the case.

Now a general warning for all taxi drivers, black can and private hire alike, this rather odd restriction applies overnight from 10pm to 3am so after collecting someone from the City Airport the driver needs to choose a route which avoids this particular dual carriageway.

 

and this is how it looks on the ground, being unable to exit a roundabout is unusual, a red no entry sign would be clearer

Remember: not all councils can be trusted to be unbiased in their consideration of your arguments. Adjudicators can be trusted as they don't receive the penalty if they do find against you.

The end, thank you for your patience. 

Spot the car - easier than Spot the ball, except in Barnet

Here is a parked car (the driver was enagaged in assisted alighting i.e. helping someone to the car who can't walk alone but the reason for parking is irrelevant if the PCN is factually wrong).

Here is the sign you can see in the background

Now part of the allegation shown on the PCN

The challenge made by Mr Mustard to the PCN (there are two more chances later in which the same argument will be advanced)

Simple and obviously correct.

Barnet Council say not.
 

The council also had their own photograph taken from behind the car at which the line between Sheridan Walk and Temple Fortune Lane is clearly shown.

Wilful blindness shouldn't be council policy but the desperate urge to collect a Penalty Charge at any cost leads to dishonest and dishonourable behaviour.

Many motorists would believe a council and pay up but Mr Mustard knows they lie their socks off for money and isn't easily put off. See you at the tribunal Barnet Council if you are dishonest enough to reject again at the next stage.

The end.

The chronicles of Westminster

Sometimes PCN just take a long time to sort out, especially when faced with intransigence from an enforcement authority, combined with a refusal on their part to accept they have done anything wrong. In this case they had omitted the house name for a rural location out of the address, and there weren't street numbers, and as the client lives on the edge of a wood and the Royal Mail often delivered his mail next door and they don't 'get on', mail often doesn't reach its destination.

What was especially naughty was when the client paid £120 in error, at a time that only £80 was due, was that Worstminster decided they would stop the process at that point. Dishonest is not too strong a word.

Equally naughty was to send a fresh Notice to Owner before the refund had been processed. The Notice demanded £80 at a time when the client was £120 in credit.

Had it not been for Mr Mustard the motorist would never have sorted this one out on his own.

Finally, it was cynical to reject Representations and then decline to attend an Appeal. Worstminster wasted a £30 tribunal fee for that little piece of bluffery (Mr Mustard makes a tribunal Appeal in 99% percent of cases for which he has the opportunity).

Mr Mustard does not give up once he gets his teeth into something. Enforcement authorities take note.

Don't think either City of Westminster that Mr Mustard didn't notice that you let NSL reply to complaints. When they are about what they are doing, you should be looking at them in house.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet's Boxing Day bonus

Confusion abounds as to when Boxing Day falls especially when it comes to parking. Legally it was 28th December 2015 which left 26 December as a normal Saturday although many motorists thought that it was already Boxing Day (the Boxing Day sales having started) and got caught out.

Mr Mustard thinks that someone at NSL, who manage the parking enforcement operation for Barnet Council, may have over-indulged on mince pies and festive spirit as they clearly didn't know what day it was because the PayByPhone system refused payments on 26 December. NSL then sent traffic wardens out to carry out their dastardly duties and they duly ticketed the cars of people who had tried to pay and been unable to. Mr Mustard knows of a challenge which has been made on the basis that it was impossible to make payment and the challenge has been rejected. Mr Mustard thinks if that lands on an adjudicator's desk they will not be amused.

The numbers are not huge. Mr Mustard found them in the response to a Freedom of Information request on the whatdotheyknow website.

It is not relevant what it says on the council's website. A motorist has the right to be informed by signs near to where he/she has parked.

The sum at stake isn't huge but it is clearly wrong of the council to profit from its own error (or that of its contractor). Mr Mustard was told that the council did stop ticketing that day as they, quite rightly, received howls of protest by telephone; one thing the British public will not stand for is unfairness.

Codes 11 and 73 are for being parked without payment, #11 on the road and #73 in a car park. Any PCN issued in a shared use bay is also suspect.

It is disappointing that the council are not honest enough to correct their error and automatically cancel these PCN and refund any that have been paid without awaiting a challenge which may never arrive.

Mr Mustard will give council parking management an opportunity to do the decent thing and if they fail he will make a formal challenge to the statutory Accounts of the council after the year end. That will cost anything up to £10,000 in extra audit fees and so as only £2,160 (36 PCN at £60) is at stake the council may find it pragmatic, whether they agree or not that they should be honest (they have a general duty at law to be fair), to issue refunds as they will oitherwise find that dishonesty does not pay.

If you have one of these PCN or any other PCN issued on 26 December 2015 you can enlist Mr Mustard's help by emailing a copy of your PCN to mrmustard@zoho.com

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard