Barnet Council - churlish

 

It was good that the council didn't, as often happens, claim that something that wasn't clear, was clear. It wasn't argued by Mr Mustard that the double yellow lines were not clear, only that the kerb markings, which signify a loading ban, were not clear.

The final line is the churlish one, do it again with the same facts and the council will not cancel. They usually write 'may' not cancel which would be more accurate as they should not fetter their future judgment. They just can't resist thumbing the public in the eye when the failing is not by the motorist but by the council in not repainting the kerb marks at the same time as the double yellows.

The goodwill wasn't evident at the informal challenge stage when the same imperfect kerb marks were found to be enforceable.

The traffic warden (civil enforcement officer) should never have issued the PCN because of the state of the kerb marks which they are meant to check before they decide if a contravention has, in their opinion, occurred or not.

What this sequence of events tells you is don't let the council rejecting your first challenge put you off from advancing the same argument for a second time and then for a third time at the tribunal. If you think you are in the right just persist, as Calvin Coolidge had it:

The end.

Barnet busted in a bus lane

 

Looking at the above image and deciding whether or not to issue a PCN for a bus lane contravention (always assuming a person actually looked at the footage rather than letting the computer automate the whole process) you would, as would any reasonable person, assume the car was in contravention (assuming the cctv was taken during the operative times of the lane). The person making the decision is probably in Dingwall (or another office of NSL) so will have no idea is behind the car as they would even have to look on a map to find the area and they know nothing about local traffic.

 

However, this was the view behind the car (cctv is sneakily set up to only cover the last section of a lane, the part most likely to be contravened).

Now you have a completely different view of the PCN question. The above photos have been borrowed from a PePiPoo post. The reason is to illustrate the next decision which is in a different part of the A5 and 3 months later. Clearly Highways should be telling the PCN issuing department (often simply referred to as the 'Parking service' although service is a misnomer) when a bus lane is partly closed (or the signs are obscured by building works, as below) and PCNs should not be issued. Mr Mustard will refer this topic to the relevant councillor.

Not a good day for Barnet Council burning £114 of our money and they gave Mr Chawla and Mr Wachal an unreasonably terrible time. It is an easy matter to check if a bus lane has roadworks going on alongside it.

Local authorities are required, at law, to be procedurally fair. To want to use the motorist's own photographs against them and to buttress the council's own case was to place them in an 'impossible position'. Had the council provided contemporaneous evidence of the bus lane signs, at the start of the lane, they would indubitably have disclosed the roadworks.

Here is the adjudication decision itself:

Costs awards are very rare but thoroughly deserved in this case.

Sadly, many motorists will have paid up in this situation, especially those with leased cars as bus lane PCNs in London cannot be transferred so the lease or hire company will probably just pay them.

End.