Lack of diplomacy in Westminster

 

One of the benefits of over a decade of PCN fighting experience is that experts get to know arcane information. Mr Mustard knows than an enforcement authority, such as the City of Westminster, has the legal right to suspend parking bays but only for the reasons they write in their traffic orders. Common reasons include people moving home, filming, street events, scaffolding & building works, crane works and the like. Mr Mustard couldn't recall having read an Order which allowed for parking to be suspended so that diplomats could park (presumably somewhere different to usual). It isn't really necessary as they often don't pay their PCNs in any event so they may as well just have been left to park as best they could.

Mr Mustard decided that Miss W wasn't going to be paying the PCN she was given at twenty past midnight, a time when the 9 diplomats were not likely to be in the office in any event. Miss W had been to watch a film, ironically called Predator : Badlands which turned out to be set in Westminster

 

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge on 11 November which was as follows:

The rejection of the informal challenge was issued 8 days later and completely failed to deal with the only argument that had been made:

This is a typical method of trying to fool the public. Write a load of stuff which is true but irrelevant, sophistry in action but not sophisticated and it gets nowhere with Mr Mustard. In fact it helps him as the legal duty on the authority is to consider the representations which were made not ones which were not made.

Mr Mustard asked Miss W to trust him and to send him the Notice to Owner once received. She did so after it was issued on 6 January. On 9 January Mr Mustard made the formal representation.  All Mr Mustard had to do was change the heading from 'Informal challenge' to 'Formal Representations' and change the date at the bottom, the content of the representation was identical.

The rejection was slightly different and went on for longer but it still dodged the only argument that had been raised:

 

Mr Mustard and Miss W swapped some messages:

Mr M:  Had a few minutes gap at work so read the letter. Westminster have not answered the only point I made which is that they have not given themselves the right to suspend a space for diplomats so I would hope to win at the tribunal but can't guarantee it. If I lose the 50% discount goes but I think as a principle we should fight. I do all the tribunal paperwork.

Miss W: Ah okay hmm if you think it’s worth a shot let’s go for it. Have you come across a case like this before do they normally get thrown out?

Mr M:  This is a first but that may be because not many people fight back like I do. I often create new Appeals that are revolutionary and then followed by other experts and vice versa

Miss W: Thanks. I’m open to fighting it, but realistically what do you think the chances are? I just want to weigh that against losing the discount.

Mr M: Chances are 90% win.

So off we went to the tribunal on 12 February 2026. This PCN had moved pretty rapidly through the process.

Grounds of Appeal: The Notice of Rejection contains nothing in response to the argument that the council had no legal right to issue the PCN. That is a procedural impropriety.

There is currently a delay in obtaining a hearing at London Tribunals which is being worked on but Mr Mustard doesn't mind, it gives motorists time to save up in case they might lose. The hearing date set was 10 August 2026.

Miss W had a good attitude: Thanks, I’ve never seen this process before so quite interesting to see it unfold. Appreciate it!

Mr Mustard missed it at the time, as he has 50 tribunal Appeals running concurrently but on 10 June the City of Westminster decided to throw in the towel.

The Council no longer wish to contest this appeal and the PCN has been cancelled.

Mr Mustard surmised that they didn't want a tribunal decision against them on this point as although it isn't a precedent it would make their position precarious for future cases and that they will carry on suspending bays for this reason and issuing PCNs unlawfully.

There was no traffic management purpose to this PCN it was a pure revenue raising tool. Justice has been served. Westminster lost £32 on this (the approximate tribunal fee).

The end.

Barnet Council - your number's up

 

Older readers will get the reference to 'come in number x'

This was an odd case although Mr Mustard has now seen a second instance of it in a different borough.

For starters the PCN was for the wrong contravention, it was for code 01 but should have been for code 02 as loading was also banned.

The motorist, Mr D, sent Mr Mustard a copy of the PCN placed on his car windscreen which ended with the numbers 6618. That could not be found on the council computer and so Mr Mustard just kept an eye out to see what would happen next.

A month later Mr D received a Notice to Owner bearing a number ending 6607 for the same set of facts (date, vehicle, location etc).

What you need to know now is that PCNs are issued in sequential series by individual traffic wardens and that the last digit of a PCN is a check digit so the PCNs in this case were 660-7 and 661-8 and thus they had been consecutively issued at the same time.

What had therefore happened was that the traffic warden had decided something was wrong with 660-7 and issued a fresh PCN 661-8 intended to cancel 660-7 but accidentally cancelled 661-8 (or the computer took over and did it).

It was therefore an easy win as 661-8 was never served and Mr Mustard had proof that 660-7 was served.

Mr Mustard made out three arguments in his formal representations to the council.

1    Finchley Road as a description of the location is too vague (the keeper and driver may be different).

2    Loading is banned so the alleged contravention is incorrect.

3    The PCN was not served.

The Notice of Rejection didn't tackle points 1 and 2 and said that the PCN was either placed on the windscreen or given to the driver. It also waffled on about CPZ entry signage which was irrelevant as there was a local sign.

Thus it was an easy decision to start an Appeal at London Tribunals at which time a fourth Ground of Appeal was added which was the Notice of Rejection dated 14 August offered a 50% discount for 14 days from service and 2 days earlier it had already been removed. A council must be as good as their word.

There was no need for a hearing. Faced with an opponent with 4 straight arrows in his quiver the council cancelled the PCN.

The end. 

Harrow break the 56 day law

 

This blog relates to Harrow Council. They have made the same mistake as Barnet made back in 2016, here.

The above image displays the grounds on which Mr Mustard started an Appeal to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

Councils get given 56 days to consider and respond to formal representations against a parking Notice to Owner whereas motorists only ever get 28 days to make them and a council really ought to be able to cope, if not they should issue less PCNs.

In addition, given the law sets a deadline to which councils must adhere and of which the average motorist will be ignorant all councils should programme their software in order to stay within the law. Sadly, there is no penalty if a council breaks the law.

In this case within a fortnight of hearing of the Appeal being started Harrow Council threw in the towel. 

The end. 

Belief - the supposed foundation for a PCN.

 

The motorist in this case wrote his own representation with help from experts on FTLA 

In order to issue a PCN an enforcement authority, such as Redbridge Council, must have a belief that a contravention has occurred. The way it works these days is that a computer watches the traffic and when it thinks it has spotted a contravention it extracts a short clip and saves it for a human being to check and then authorise a PCN. Much of the time Mr Mustard thinks that either the operative doesn't pay attention or blindly presses yes or assumes the computer is correct (a dangerous assumption as the Post Office Horizon Inquiry has shown us).

Mr Mustard thinks there is an inbuilt belief amongst back office PCN processing staff that because a PCN has been issued it must be correct and defended at all cost.

Here is the position at the moment which the car entered the box:

There is room to exit.

Here is the position on stopping:

Needless to say Redbridge Council rejected a perfectly good representation as 90% of the time, especially when the discount is offered again, the motorist caves in and pays because of a combination of ignorance, worry about having to pay the full penalty and an assumption that councils tell the truth (they are serial liars).

This is the relevant part of the Notice of Rejection.

Mr Mustard's comments. Careful consideration would have led to a cancellation. This is a standard line in the template. Careless consideration would be more accurate.

The exit was clear on entering so this was another standard paragraph.

Mitigation cannot have been considered as none was pleaded. 'Comments' waters down the value of the words of the motorist who made a representation not mere remarks.

The writer may well be satisfied but who knows how easily they are satisfied in their own cause?

They were also confident that the PCN was valid.

Mr Mustard took over at this point and he was confident he could get the PCN cancelled. Who was over-confident? (yes, you know the answer).

This is what he wrote in the Grounds of Appeal (you have the images above).

Grounds of Appeal - no contravention

This is the position as the car enters the box. There is clearly room for the car to exit (as can be judged by the white car in the other lane). Thus the first part of the contravention, on entering, is not made out.

The position on stopping is as follows:

The blue car had moved further away so there was even more room to exit. The driver simply chose not to, it was not due to a stationary vehicle in front.

All of a sudden Redbridge Council were less confident of their case. They left it late but 5 days before the hearing they told the tribunal that they would not contest the Appeal and they had cancelled the PCN. 

Why would they do that if they were correct in issuing the PCN and rejecting the formal representations? It is because it is a big and generally profitable game of Bluff. It is a game which Mr Mustard is happy to play all day long. Mr Mustard decides at the outset if there is a good case or not and 90% of the time he is correct.

Don't be bluffed into paying out. Work out your defence and stand your ground. Don't be diverted by talk of a discount. Why would you want to pay a 50% penalty for being innocent?

Remember you can get a free second opinion about your chances from numerous experts here, which sometimes includes Mr Mustard.

The end.

Let's start the story near the end, with the Grounds of Appeal to the independent tribunal.

The council response to the possibility of an independent qualified and experience lawyer looking at the evidence was to throw in the towel and DNC (Do not Contest) the Appeal.

This was curiously at odds with the reaction of the council when a challenge was made on the same basis, that a bay without a sign = free parking.

Here are some snippets from their rejection notice.

'Comments' were not made, a 'representation' was made. They were considered as carefully as a careless and carefree person would consider them.

No, the argument was that there was no signage although that could hardly be less clear. A common ploy is to reject an argument that wasn't made in order to try and give your rejection some authenticity. How can a sign which is not there be visible is quite the stretch.

The CEO's photographs do not show the car, the bay and the sign all in one photograph, because they can't. There was not a sign in place in the bay in question. The council cannot prove the contravention.

It is unfortunate that the council are terrible liars. There was no restriction in place because one was not communicated by a sign. Ultimately the onus is on the council, as stated in traffic Regulations, to erect and maintain signs. Barnet council often seem to forget any duties on themselves which although not onerous they find to be too much to manage.

Rarely has so much nonsense been fitted into three lines. Who is doing the 'deeming' ? why, it's Barnet Council, who aren't being independent here. There is such thing as a professional witness, but 'traffic wardens' don't come into that definition. Who is doing the 'considering', the council in this case and they aren't independent, they have a financial interest in the outcome. Mr Mustard has seen a tribunal decision in which the adjudicator laid into this point and said it was her job to decide on the weight of the evidence and the truthfulness of the witness.

Not true, the car was seen in a bay with no sign = a free bay. By 'nearby' the council mean in a different bay which is of no relevance to where the car was parked, each and every bay must have a sign of its own as there could be 10 bays in a street all with different rules.

No valid grounds were found because the person writing was blind to reason and fact. There is a huge shove in the final paragraph which tries to make the motorist worry that if they go to Appeal at the tribunal it will cost them more. The thing is though that unless you do risk the full value of the penalty you will never beat one so you need to make your mind up at the start as to how strong you think your case is.

What is wrong in this case is that the council didn't want their work to be the subject of independent scrutiny and if they don't have faith in their case they shouldn't be writing the utter tosh that they did write. The problem is though that the public trusts councils and whilst the rest of the council might well be worthy of that trust, many parking departments aren't and there is also the influence of outside contractors for whom this is just a job, not a vocation, to serve the public.

Mr Mustard's advice is to get your ducks in a row, learn everything you can about parking, and take no nonsense. Budget for the whole PCN value and fight the PCN if you think it is wrong. You have to develop some staying power as you might end up in a fight over three rounds but that is how Mr Mustard wins so often, by battling through every round. Every PCN taken to the tribunal which the council loses is c. £30 down the drain for the council in tribunal fees. If they get stuck with enough of them they might think a bit harder about accepting more representations at the earlier stage.

The end.