Havering - the dangerous council

Mr Mustard was asked to help a motorist who, when driving along perfectly legally was presented with a problem requiring instant action. The problem was three cars heading straight towards them and the only sensible option was to enter the bus lane to avoid a head on smash, probable serious injury and possibly death. Havering Council thought that deserved a PCN.

The only other realistic alternative was to stop within your lane but Mr Mustard would have done the same as the motorist as if in doubt, no matter how much you are in the right, you get out of the way of dangerous drivers.

Why did someone at Havering Council think this merited a PCN?

The process is that for a bus lane PCN you can make an informal challenge (although the right is not enshrined in law it is usually offered by councils in London). If that is rejected an Enforcement Notice is issued against which you make formal representations (they can be the same as the informal challenge).  Then you can go to Appeal in front of an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals if rejected.

Adjudicators are truly independent and do not have a financial interest in the outcome, which helps. Councils on the other hand know that if they reject challenges only 1% of PCNs end up at the tribunal. (Close to 100% of Mr Mustard's rejections end up at the tribunal! and 90% of those end in cancellation).

Outside London it is different, there is only one representation stage to the council.

The motorist had already sent in their own informal challenge and seen it rejected as follows:

Here is the first part of the formal representations which Mr Mustard wrote.

 It did not find favour with Havering.

You will note the complete absence of the full consideration which Havering claim to have made. Havering expect you to play chicken with oncoming traffic as they wrote when rejecting the informal challenge. The Notice of Rejection continued:

The Notice of Rejection was a nonsense. The Enforcement Notice had already been received and responded to. Given that recourse to the tribunal was offered the process as far as the council was concerned was over. Mr Mustard could have pointed out their error but their final line suggested this might well be a waste of time so instead an Appeal was duly started at London Tribunals which meant that Havering had to pay a fee of £25.55

The Appeal was based upon the procedural errors of the council. Three weeks passed and then Havering decided to not contest the Appeal and to cancel the PCN. Not that confident in their case then?

If you think you are correct stand up for your rights or ask Mr Mustard to do so on your behalf.

The end.

Traffic wardens not trained in blue badge abuse / fraud

Mr Mustard is fighting a PCN, and he has just started a case at the tribunal, where, the driver says, the traffic warden confiscated the blue badge because the holder, a juvenile, was not in the car. The motorist, his mum, says she was collecting him. Whilst Mr Mustard believes the motorist, he thought he would check the knowledge of the traffic warden and the training which enabled him to do his job properly. Thus, he asked Havering Council about the training of traffic wardens and was worried to receive this response:

Misuse of a blue badge is a fraud. Typical council semantics.

The removal of the badge caused extra difficulties for the young boy whose badge it was. Mr Mustard did get it returned pretty quickly by complaining to the Chief Executive of Havering who quickly delegated the task to a senior manager who arranged a same day interview of the driver, who was the holder's mother, and then gave the blue badge back to her, the driver on the day in question.

You can't blame the traffic warden for getting it wrong, as he hasn't been trained (although motorists are expected to digest without any error the Rights and Responsibilities guidance which runs to 34 pages) but he shouldn't be asked to exercise the powers of a blue badge fraud investigator (and make no mistake as soon as a badge is seized it is assumed that you are guilty) nor should he confiscate a badge, without being fully trained. It would be better if a traffic warden merely reported the suspicion of fraud to the blue badge investigation team.

Mr Mustard has further concerns about the traffic warden. This is part of his written report.

If it wasn't such a serious situation Mr Mustard would be smiling as he thinks of Allo Allo:
for "I was pissing by the door, and I thought I would drip in"

we have 'I was petroling on St Nicholas Avenue'

but this is no time for humour.

The other point Mr Mustard notes is that the traffic warden, who pulled up alongside the parked car which was on double yellows, asked the driver to move on before looking in the windscreen, where the blue badge was to be found. That speaks volumes about the attitude of traffic wardens. Anybody on a double yellow must be wrongly parked and yet tens of thousands of motorists in greater London have blue badges and the right to park for 3 hours on a double yellow (except where loading is banned, identified by yellow marks across the kerb).

The blue badge has been returned, then renewed just a month after the incident without any hesitation, no proceedings have been commenced or even threatened, but yet Havering Council want to force the motorist to the tribunal. The motorist won't have to attend, Mr Mustard will handle it. Will the council fight the tribunal Appeal or will they wisely throw in the towel and file a 'do not contest' form. Time will tell and Mr Mustard will let you know.

Mr Mustard is of course wondering which other London local authorities have untrained traffic wardens going about confiscating badges in an ignorant fashion. Best smarten your act up parking managers before Mr Mustard starts asking questions.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard