A cautious hurrah for Hammersmith & Fulham

Mr Mustard has a tribunal case relating to Imperial Road in Fulham. It is an easy restriction to miss as it just doesn't look like a road you shouldn't drive down.

Researching his case he looked at recent winning cases at the tribunal. One supported his over-signing argument and another a delay in responding to representations argument. Wednesday will tell us if either argument worked.

As a complete aside he found this in decision 2250382511:

The traffic order contains the following exemption so the Bolt / Uber deal is entirely sensible. Mr Mustard made an error, the traffic order exemption does not apply to Imperial Road but to the following streets in Schedule 2

Mr Mustard has just realised that gives him another ground of Appeal at the tribunal as the signs, below, don't tell you that you can enter for Boarding &/or Alighting or for Loading/Unloading.

The reason why the council have made the arrangement with Bolt & Uber must be because they were issuing, say, 100 PCNs a day and they were all being challenged and had to be cancelled which wasted a fee for each PCN paid to London Councils (about 50p a time) and whatever they had to pay the contractor for issuing each PCN and then cancelling it. A simple matter of administrative convenience and finance.

Mr Mustard is now wondering how far the council have made this administrative arrangement know to mini-cab companies within Hammersmith & Fulham and further afield in London generally. Mr Mustard will ask the question of the council.

In the meantime, if you have a mini-cab company in London or have to deliver within the borough (John Lewis must be there quite often and Harrods and other major department stores) you could start emailing your vehicle movements to the council using the email address of enquiries@lbhfparking.com thus destroying the belief in the mind of the council, necessary for the issuance of a PCN, that you have committed a contravention.

The end, for now. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #20

 

In this case Newham Council made up a rule about the time it takes a lady to load not one but two 20kg bags of rice plus other purchases, for which she needed the assistance of the shopkeeper. Whilst the council might claim there was continuous observation, and that isn't clear from the available information, their photos are always devoid of dates and times so whether or not the CEO wandered round the corner to deal with other cars at the same time is unknown.

Making up rules is cheating.

Newham Council clearly (& wrongly) made a point that paying isn't loading but they need to read the key cases on loading on the tribunal website, coincidentally by this very adjudicator, of Jane Packer Flowers and Bosworth & Others (sitting in that case with a second adjudicator) which set out very useful guidance for motorists and councils alike. 

These are the relevant words about pre-ordering a chair but not having paid for it until collection:

'The fact that he had not pre-paid for it would not, in our view, be fatal to a correct use of the loading bay.'

Never mind a bag of rice, you need a sack of salt when reading rejection letters from Newham Council.

Islington Council - how much to tell a lie? - £80 - £160

 

A motorist who had been helped previously by Mr Mustard decided his case was so obviously acceptable that he sent in his own proof of delivery glass panels worth £450. To his probable surprise Islington Council said no. At that point he consulted Mr Mustard.

Mr Mustard dug out the relevant traffic order (there are only two sets of wording to cover the whole borough although several hundred pages of maps to go with the refreshingly short wording).

Mr Mustard read through the order (and also searched for the word 'private' which did not find anything relevant) and found this exemption which applies in pay bays:

Nowhere in the traffic order does it draw a distinction about the type of vehicle you are loading/unloading from (it would be different if a private car was parked in a goods vehicles only loading bay but that is not the case here).

Now, if the motorist didn't know Mr Mustard he would probably pay the penalty which is currently £80 but would rise to £160 after 14 days (and not everyone has £80 spare before pay day) but he certainly isn't going to be paying this time.

The council are writing untruths and the PCN will wend its way slowly towards the independent tribunal if Islington Council don't cancel it when Mr Mustard's complaint arrives.

The end (for now).

 

You can look at the wording of the traffic order here 

Click on 'View our 2023....'

Update 11 August 25.

Mr Mustard has been helped by Islington's parking manager before. They are always helpful.

They responded to his complaint over the weekend, which was a bonus and not expected, and the PCN is no more.

Here is some of what one of their team said:

I can confirm that the PCN should have been cancelled and that a mistake has been made by the staff member who dealt with the appeal. Just to reassure you, the officer responding to the case has not intentionally lied. They are relatively new (started around 1 month ago) and they have mistakenly rejected the appeal. I have asked for more training to be provided to this officer as it should be clear that loading/unloading exemptions do not only apply to commercial vehicles or when loading is taking place for business use. 

Regarding the other questions, I can confirm that the email has been logged with our FOI team, but I am able to provide answers with this response. 

There is no section of the traffic order which draws a distinction as to the type of vehicle which can unload in a pay by phone bay. 

The paragraph used is not a standard paragraph and the paragraph will not have been used in other letters. I must caveat that though as it is possible the officer may have made the same decision in another case and therefore used the same or similar wording. I am going to ask that the officer’s correspondence is reviewed to ensure that similar decisions have not been made.

Mr Mustard was concerned that this was a standard response and is pleased that it wasn't. Unfortunate for the enw employee to meet Mr Mustard so soon !

 

Loading - the 'peculiar proposition' of Barnet Council

 

Delivery riders, in the gig economy, don't make massive sums of money and a £130 PCN might wipe them out for the day.

It would have been better if the rider had parked on the adjacent single yellow but he didn't (he will in future) and as it happens he didn't, in law, do anything wrong.

The scooter of the traffic warden, as it happens, was parked much more badly as it completely stopped access to the disabled bay and it was parked more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway, a contravention from which it is not exempt. It also acts as a bad example to the public.

Mr Mustard started the fight of three rounds. First, the informal challenge as soon as the PCN had been issued.

Mr Mustard knew the PCN could be beaten but has to overcome the belief in the mind of the rider, and the worry about the 50% discount, that a council must be telling the truth and believe that he will win in the end. This rider knew Mr Mustard of old so went with the advice received.

 

Mr Mustard knew that the council stance was weak. What is unloading if not the delivery of food from a restaurant to a home for money? The fact that the traffic warden ('CEO') didn't see unloading doesn't mean it didn't happen and besides, he only observed from 1:38 p.m. to 1:38 p.m. so 'not at all'; the CEO arrived on his scooter, issued a PCN in 40 seconds or so and left. At that time the rider was inside the adjoining flats effecting the delivery.

 

The Notice to Owner arrived and the second challenge was made. Councils often rely to these saying they have already considered it which is true but you are legally obliged to make the second challenge (if you don't want to pay up) and the facts are still the same so don't think you need something new for the council to consider, they have to reconsider the same arguments.

As predictable as the sun rising in the morning Barnet Council rejected the argument for a second time (Given the regular drubbing which councils get at the hands of Mr Mustard at London Tribunals he wonders why they bother to fight him? as the tribunal fee is £30 or so which is a dead loss to the council as he wins 4 out of 5 cases so the maximum council income is £130 and the outgoings are £150)

So kind, you did nothing wrong but you can give the council £65 if you are a mug.

Mr Mustard duly started the appeal to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. For the third time the same argument was advanced.

Barnet Council decided to produce the evidence pack of 100+ pages. When he went through it Mr Mustard found that the Notice to owner was dated 9 December but not posted until 10 December. That is a breach of law and so he added that as a preliminary point to the tribunal file. Thus he had two strong arguments.

The hearing day arrived and it was quick conference call and the adjudicator cancelled the PCN. 

The adjudicator was critical of the council and in saying they had advanced a 'peculiar proposition' was was giving the council a legally phrased slap in the face. Mr Mustard has read the Jane Packer case, and the previous masterclass on loading from 1999 (Norell v City of Westminster). Both are to be found on the key cases section of the tribunal and the council should keep themselves up to date on key decisions and follow them and not try to collect money under false pretences.

Please forward this blog to any food delivery riders (or drivers) that you know but also suggest they stay out of disabled bays, bus stops, goods vehicle only loading bays etc.

 

The end.

Barnet Council play with loaded dice

Another random tribunal decision which Mr Mustard fell over:

It seems that the council are assuming that all drivers are built like tanks and can easily lift and carry 20kg. Mr Mustard couldn't do that easily, he would have done two trips. What does 10kg look like?

24 cans of a soft drink

A car tyre

This could more easily be carried as it has an easy to grip rim and can be carried just off the ground.

8 bottles of wine (750ml)

The adjudicator would have had in mind two key cases on the tribunal website regarding loading. The older one is Jane Packer Flowers and a more recent one is Bosworth & Other v LB Tower Hamlets. These are publicly available and councils can therefore read them as easily as the public can. Here are some of the useful principles that the adjudicators provided to help everyone know how they think:

Given the size of the load in this case and that it was an evidenced commercial delivery the motorist should not have been forced to the tribunal in this case. The message for other readers is to never be put off by a council's response if you think it was wrong. This decision is a subjective one, Mr Mustard thinks Barnet Council were massively offside but others may adjudge otherwise.

The council should also have had regard to its own traffic order, which contains the following exemption:

 and 'goods' are widely described as follows:

although adjudicators will probably use the less wide principles they have decided upon and require one off deliveries to be bulky or heavy.

Mr Mustard hopes this will help his readers to know when they might fall within the definition of loading (or if it might be better to pay to park for 5 minutes which is effectively 15 as you get 10 extra minutes during which you should not be given a PCN) or whether they should deliver by some other method (bus, cycle, walk with a trolley etc). Mr Mustard's neighbour is a delivery driver and he bumped into him on the tube last week. Rather than take his huge van to Tottenham Court Road to deliver a 4 foot long roll of material about 6 inches think and an item which was in a carrier bag for another customer (overall weight less than 10kg) he picked up his freedom pass and had a more relaxing tube journey and did his job less time than had he driven. Food for thought.

The end.