Parked by the garage

 

Well done that mechanic, parking your client's car half on the pavement and half off and next to double yellow lines which apply up to the building line thus giving the traffic warden the choice of two easy tickets both of which would be hard to beat.

Of course the garage didn't tell their customer, Mr L, about the PCN, he found out when the Notice to Owner arrived three months later. Luckily the traffic warden chose a third contravention entirely:

For that contravention to take place all of the car needs to be a long way from the kerb, often known as double parked, and on the carriageway. That wasn't the case here. Mr L had been unlucky and lucky all at once.

Mr Mustard wrote the formal representation:

Tower Hamlets didn't dally, they cancelled the PCN fairly quickly. They probably noticed the veiled threat by the use of the words 'wholly unreasonable' and 'vexatious' that the writer was thinking ahead to the tribunal and the costs rules (rarely awarded but this would have been a deserving case.)

After a blog last week about council error, Mr Mustard wrote that councils go wrong 0.1% of the time. A different expert suggested that the real rate is more like 3 - 4% and he may well be correct, Mr Mustard feasts on errors more often than he first thought and he won a tribunal case on the day this blog was advance written as the wrong traffic order was in evidence and as the adjudicator pointed out the traffic warden didn't take a photo of the sign (an error which Mr Mustard had missed but he still had three good arguments and won on the first one).

The end. 

Load(ing) of baloney from Barnet Council

If loading on single or double yellow lines is prohibited then that will be indicated by single or double kerb stripes across the kerb and for part time single mark restrictions by a sign on a pole, viz:

Mr Mustard came across a tribunal decision concerning loading when he was idly looking through the public register the other day. It was for loading in Beverley Gardens on 29 February 2024. Probably here, or on the opposite side:

It is slightly surprising that loading isn't banned at a junction but is isn't so you can park your vehicle there and get on with unloading without, in theory being bothered by a 'traffic warden'. Theory and practice can be different. Here is the gist of the written decision 2240238199:

Barnet Council have twisted themselves in knots to refuse the representations. They have not banned loading and they don't appear to have disputed that loading was taking place but say you can't park on yellow lines to load or unload. Poppycock.

The council's traffic order says this:

and further on in the Order the time is limited to 40 minutes.

The Highway Code is a document the council love to quote from (although it is a mix of guidance and repitition of the law) and they should have taken heed of rule 247

but it was inconvenient so omitted?

There weren't any yellow markings on the kerb or upright signs so the motorist did nothing wrong and had evidence of his delivery by way of an invoice. Councils should not abuse their power by rejecting perfectly valid representations. If this happens to you, trust in the adjudication process and go to Appeal, adjudicators make impartial decisions.

It wouldn't be the money would it that causes councils to depart from the law & get things wrong in their own favour?

The end.

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

A Luton lay-by lash up

Luton Borough Council are inept. Mr Mustard knows that they are short of money as Luton Airport income subsidises council tax but that is no reason to go around giving out nonsense PCNs at ambiguously signed locations, such as in Old Bedford Road to his friend Mr B.

On 13 June they gave a PCN to Mr B who said, 'I was only there one hour and the sign is good for 4 hours'. Quite correct.

Unfortunately, and as Luton Borough Council have failed to realise, the double yellow lines apply up to the building line and so also apply to the lay-by.

A duplicitous collection of lines and signs such as this one create an ambiguity which will be construed against the council.

The solution is to remove the double yellow adjacent to the lay-by. No-one would park in that traffic lane given the existence of the lay-by.

How do councils keep on getting it so wrong?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard