Havering - a mitigation free zone

 

Blue signs mean 'only' so in this case only buses and cycles may pass the sign. The words 'bus gate' on the road should help motorists to turn around and find another way to the hospital which you can see in the background.

Mr Mustard fell over the tribunal decision at random as he idles through the tribunal decisions most days.

 

Mr Mustard often struggles to convince the public that a council will, when faced with an obviously meritorious claim for kindness (use of discretion) reject it because the overwhelming need is to raise revenue. This is illegal but hard to prove.

Let us look at the decision above.

Firstly note the correct statement that if you fight a moving traffic PCN the discount does not have to be offered again if your challenge is rejected. The discount legally terminates at the end of day 14. There is a trend to not offer it again which is the opposite of what it has been for years. If you are in that situation the tribunal is a free throw of the dice.

Then note that contrary to what the PCN states there are no mitigating circumstances which Havering Council will cancel for. Thus, although you don't know it, every challenge is futile.

Ironically the only grounds they will accept were ones which only came out during the hearing, the driver was following an ambulance, one which contained her father in an emergency situation. If he ambulance driver tells you to follow them you don't choose the route the ambulance will take.

Adjudicators are human beings, unlike the heartless automatons who reject PCN challenges (not all of them but there are plenty as they aren't held to account) and find a way for justice to be dispensed. No need to bend the law to fit in this case Lord Bridge of Harwich had set the scene in the House of Lords decision quoted.

Councils are obliged to have 'due regard' to the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State, the relevant part of which follows:

That was another basis on which the Appeal could have been allowed albeit less authoritatively.

In summary, Havering Council are not acting fairly, not proportionate, not sensible nor reasonable and only become so once put on the spot which is at most 1% of the time for challenged PCNs = hardly ever.

Havering Council probably aren't the biggest fans of Mr Mustard given his record against them at the tribunal.

The score is 17-0 to Mr Mustard! (+ 5 other cases where they threw in the towel). Why don't you take your PCN fight to the tribunal against this Council?

The end.

Newham Council - in another world - one you don't want to be in.

 

Mr Goodson (not his real name) received a PCN and thought that it would be quickly cancelled so he made his own representations. He was wrong and so Mr Mustard took over at the Notice to Owner stage. Mr Mustard re-used his grounds as well as adding his own.

1    The PCN was for the wrong contravention. Newham Council did not create a restricted street, they suspended the use of a bay. Councils often get this wrong.

2    The Notice to Owner did not contain a postal address to which to write so was non-complaint 

3    The informal challenge made by Mr Goodson was as follows:

On Sunday 13 April 2025, at 3.25 pm, I had to urgently take my 77-year-old father to the hospital following a sudden episode of rectal bleeding. He suffers from a neurological condition resembling dementia, making it impossible for him to manage hospital interactions independently. I am his primary carer and was the only person available to accompany and remain with him.

Due to this emergency, I was not able to return home before the bay suspension came into effect. At the time of leaving, there was no plan to stay overnight and the decision to stay overnight was only taken due to medical necessity and hospital advice.

The car was parked lawfully in a permit holder space on 13 April. The suspension began on 14 April. When the emergency occurred, I had no reasonable opportunity to relocate the vehicle, and no one else was available at the household to move it.

Please exercise your discretion. A hospital document is attached.

Please cancel the PCN for any of the three reasons advanced above.

Now Mr Mustard rather thought that any reasonable human being would cancel the PCN due to the medical reason being an unavoidable emergency but he was wrong. 

The Notice of Rejection contained the following:

Mr Mustard was outraged by the response but getting mad doesn't help. He had already lined up his arguments to pick apart the obvious flaws in the council's logic (or failure to understand reality) but decided to keep his powder dry and obliterate Newham Council once they had produced the evidence pack and the full glory of their unreasonable position was there to shoot at, so the Grounds of Appeal were short, but carefully targeted:

The tribunal appeal had been made on 1 August 2025 and because of a temporary adjudicator shortage was listed for hearing on 12 November. On 7 November Newham Council suddenly decided they didn't want to fight Mr Mustard at the tribunal and filed a 'Do Not Contest' form and cancelled the PCN because:

Therefore there was no traffic management order when Newham Council rejected the informal challenge. 

There was also no traffic management order when they rejected the formal representations made by Mr Mustard. 

This probably does count as a PCN which Mr Mustard could have written up in the Newham Council are Cheats series but it is in a special category all of its own.

Councils don't think of PCNs as having been issued to a human being, they are just a number PN12345678 etc, just a job to be done and when this one is finished there will be another, another and another.

Mr Mustard has to spend some of his time dealing with the physchological fallout reassuring a motorist that everything will turn out all right (and Mr Mustard is fortunately right 85% of the time).

Mr Mustard was confident, provided he didn't get a green adjudicator who might not yet fully grasp the law, that he would win the day on his wrong contravention argument alone. However, Mr Mustard is the veteran of 2,000 PCN fight in the last 7 years so has all his ducks in a row but the motorist may only have had one or two in that time so doesn't know how strong his case is and motorists are inclined to think that councils must be honest, they may be in other areas but often not in PCNs.

Here is a short exchange of emails:

Motorists should not be put under this much strain by councils who reject what turn out to be perfect challenges. The trouble is there isn't a body charged with oversight of their day to day actions. It is assumed that a council will act fairly as Lord Mustill stated in a House of Lords decision:

Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.

It is high time a supervisory body was formed to make sure this is the case.

The end. 

Cheshire West & Chester Council are a $hit council

Mr Mustard isn't all that prone to using bad language and hence he has resorted to the use of the $ symbol in the blog title.

Words do pretty much fail him though that a local authority could take a PCN all the way to adjudication (note the time and cost of sending a council representative to a personal hearing) when the motorist has suffered a personal catastrophe arising out of his medical state. Councils think that parking is more important than life and death; they are wrong. We really do need a body which supervises their day to day decisions and makes them behave more reasonably.

Full marks to the adjudicator, Mr Martin Hoare, who is obliged to apply the law, and found a way to do so to the benefit of the motorist.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Not a laughing matter

Here is a shocking report from the independent adjudicator.

The Appellant attended before me today to explain her contention personally.

There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of the vehicle at the time, on the material date; the Enforcement Authority assert the said vehicle to have been parked otherwise than within 50cms of the edge of the carriageway.

The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as fully stated in her written representations (and submitted supportive documentation), which she reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.

The contravention to which this matter relates is regulated by Statute rather than subordinate legislation; that is to say The Traffic Management Act 2004 prescribes that such manner of 'double parking', as it is colloquially known, is prohibited throughout Greater London. The prohibition applies twenty-four hours, daily, and there is no necessity for signage since it is stated in The Highway Code.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, and computer-generated notes made by the Civil Enforcement Officer together with photographic evidence: still frames revealing the said vehicle in situ.

It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such restrictions.

The Appellant described fully the sequence of events, as she had documented from the outset.

The Appellant indicated there to have been an inordinate delay in obtaining responses to her submissions from the Enforcement Authority whom she contacted via a variety of means (email/telephonic) and suggestions of letters dispatched which were never received.

Despite the statements made by the Enforcement Authority in both the case summary and Notice of Rejection that the Appellant's contentions had been considered 'very carefully,' the fact that the enforcement authority query the date on the hospital report indicates the contrary.

There is clear reason for the date differential; the Appellant submits the documentation by way of background to set the scene as to the choking episode. Had the Enforcement Authority considered 'very carefully' the representation, that fact would have been apparent.

The Appellant advances the choking episode as compelling reason for abandoning the said vehicle in search of water to save her life, yet the Enforcement Authority state in the Case Summary that cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices is effected 'in serious emergency situations.'

This contradiction suggests to me that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 [the points raised by the Appellant in her Formal Representation deserved proper consideration] which I find to be a 'procedural impropriety' on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

In this context, 'procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management act 2004 or Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if I conclude that a Ground specified in Regulation 4(4) applies I shall Allow the Appeal.

Accordingly I find in favour of the Appellant's ground of Appeal and I Allow this Appeal.

 

The question that must be asked is how serious an emergency has to be before Barnet Council / NSL will decide, and presumably they don't have a medical doctor in the appeals team, to exercise its discretion and cancel the PCN. Prior to NSL the council used the cancellation code MIT if documentary evidence was provided by a GP or a Hospital. There is, apparently, now no cancellation procedure which can be requested under FOI (Freedom of Information) from the council as it is NSL's. Someone, other than Mr Mustard, tried using the whatdotheyknow website.

Perhaps it is time there was a policy imposed on NSL by the council and published for the residents to know. It would save time as residents would submit the necessary proof with their appeal.

Paragraph 25 of The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions says:

"Once authorities have finalised their parking enforcement policies, they should publish and promote them openly". The council don't seem to have due regard for Codes of conduct and Guidance etc. A pity.

Whilst on the subject of double parking, as this is why the 50cm rule exists, traffic wardens often dish out parking tickets when the car is parked at an angle and the rear might be a metre away but the front is less than 50cm away. That is not an offence (untidy though) and those tickets should be appealed. If you don't know how, download my quick guide from the left of the blog.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard