Internecine PCN warfare

 

Some motorists have a pessimistic attitude, that councils and TfL have it in for them. They shouldn't feel individually persecuted, councils have it in for everyone, including other local authorities (and possibly their contractors). Every motorist is a possible rich revenue source.

Here is a tribunal case in which Islington Council try to avoid giving Haringey Council £160 and fail.

 

 

An adjudicator decides the case based upon the evidence put in front of them. The argument put forward was 

Had there been an official diversion in place one would expect there to be diversion signs. The cctv at this location is within Frobisher Road so looks at the backs of the signs (they can be proven by library images). If Islington Council had proof of signage diverting them into Frobisher Road that would have been an exemption to the pedestrian and cycle zone. However, Frobisher Road is part of the 'Haringey ladder' and I would therefore expect any diversion to have been through a different 'rung' one without a school within it. it is easy to lose a case by not proving it. If the explanation was true it was not adequately evidenced.

Islington Council lost £160 (unless they make the employee pay) and Haringey Council lost a c.£30 tribunal fee. Both sides lost bundles of time.

The alternative is that councils let each other off but that isn't satisfactory either, as council employees piously tell us we should look out for signs, so what is sauce for the goose....

The end. 

A decade of moving traffic PCNs in London

 

Welcome to the goldmine which is PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. These are all enforced by cctv camera linked most of the time to a computer which identifies alleged contraventions (although council staff or contractors probably assume the selected clips are correct, when that isn't always the case).

The right to issue PCNs for moving traffic contraventions (banned turns, yellow box junctions and the many often part time 'no motor vehicles' streets known also as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and School Streets have proliferated since Covid in 2020) started in 2003.

Back in 2015 many of these cameras would have been watched over by real people sat watching video screens who manually recorded what appeared to be contraventions. TfL still do it that way. However advances in technology now enable locations to be watched 24/7 by cameras linked to computers that look at the movement of vehicles and can tell when they go where they shouldn't, read the numberplate, send to DVLA for details of the registered keeper and then send out a PCN, all with no direct human intervention. They don't miss the slightest error.

That is the second factor which explains the fourfold increase in moving traffic PCNs over the decade. If we assumed a 50% recovery of what were £130 PCNs the income to councils in London would be £254,000,000 (they are now £160). 

The third factor is councils who decided to start using their powers which is definitely Kensington & Chelsea, Greenwich, Sutton, Barnet & Bromley and others like Bexley which had just started.

Only four councils failed to at least double their PCN count in the decade, being Brent, Waltham Forest, Kingston & Harrow. 

You need to chuck your satnav away and look out of the windscreen like a hawk. Join the Institute of Advanced Motoring or ROSPA and improve your observation skills.

The end. 

Helpful Haringey

 

In complete contrast to Redbridge Council about whom Mr Mustard just blogged he brings you helpful Haringey Council.

The Notice of Rejection sent to his client, who had driven through Woodlands Park Road N15 which is now for resident access only, went missing. The Haringey PCN portal is good in showing you the key steps a PCN has gone through so Mr Mustard knew when it was issued.

His client was happy, on Mr Mustard's advice, to pay the PCN but naturally he wanted to limit his losses to £65. Time wasn't pressing so Mr Mustard put a note on the PCN portal:

This was responded to yesterday in a straightforward and helpful manner.

This is a win:win situation.

If Haringey hadn't offered the discount again Haringey Council knew that Mr Mustard would, most probably, proceed to the independent tribunal. He can't beat everything and moving traffic PCNs are hard to beat, but the 6 times that Mr Mustard has started an adjudication this year Haringey Council have thrown in the towel without even stepping into the ring so would probably do it again. (They are probably still a bit sore from the 2023 decision which saw the wording of their moving traffic PCNs put to the sword and a challenge to the legality of the consequent income in their Accounts. The PCN is now compliant).

This way Haringey Council get £65 in for certain and don't have to pay out a £30 tribunal process fee, which they can't recover unless Mr Mustard is frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable, which the tribunal have not in over a decade, ever found him to be. The council also don't have to pay out £10 to register the PCN as a debt with the Traffic & Enforcement Centre (part of the County Court but really just a glorified register) only for that fee to be lost when a statutory declaration is processed. They save the time of dealing with all the paperwork and can mark one more PCN off as complete and paid. They have recovered an ample penalty for the error and now have compliance as to the future at that location from this motorist.

The motorist has lost £65 but saved the same amount, learnt about signs and won't drive that way again (if he forgets he is on his own, Mr Mustard is a bit more stroppy these days with people who don't learn).

Well done Haringey Council.

The end

 

Moving traffic contraventions - invalid PCNs

History has a habit of repeating itself. In 2006 the parking PCN of Barnet Council was found in Court to be invalid as a vital date was missing.

Here we are in 2020 and Mr Mustard keeps winning at the tribunal on the grounds that a time period is wrongly stated on the moving traffic PCN.

Moving traffic PCNs are the ones issued for

- stopping in a box junction 
- turning where you shouldn't (Tilling Road being a favourite error spot)
- stopping on school entrance markings (cctv issued PCN only affected)

On 27 February after a barrage of tribunal Appeals won by Mr Mustard and with two Review requests (like a second opinion) refused without a hearing, the council amended its moving traffic PCN to read like this on the first page. He has however seen a later PCN which still has the old wording, all very odd.

It is the third paragraph which used to be wrong, as it read like this

You can see the difference, 'date of service' = good, 'date of this notice' = bad.

If you have a PCN which contains the 'date of this notice' wording you should win any appeal to the tribunal as Mr Mustard has won 11 times, especially if you ask him to act for you (which only requires that you agree to donate to the North London Hospice as a thank you for his help). Two motorists have lost but the two adjudicators concerned don't handle Mr Mustard's cases (he is reserved to be dealt with by a small coterie of experienced adjudicators) so he isn't likely to lose.

If your PCN has this wrong paragraph on the front it is beatable (no guarantees but very likely). You should write the following to the council, if you haven't yet made your formal representations:

I wish to challenge the PCN on the grounds that the wording is non-compliant as found in tribunal case no. 2190464396 and ten other decisions.

If you have a Notice of Rejection you should select the ground that 'The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case' and then write

The PCN has been found not to be compliant in the following cases:

2190464396, 219046955A, 2190517925, 2190550501, 2190550793, 2190555287, 2200024112, 2200017274, 2190521398, 2200046534 and 2200053766

and compliant in 2200041905 and 2200067454.

One must be even handed at the tribunal and not present one sided evidence.

If you want Mr Mustard to handle this for you then he will happily do so free of any charge save for a donation by you if he wins, directly to the North London Hospice.

This is a once in a lifetime chance (probably) so don't miss out.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Lewisham Council - automated stupidity

The scene is set, above. Note that the no entry signs are set a metre or two back from the give way lines. It was, in the adjudicator's view, when the Traffic Management Order is read, ok to drive up the road towards the camera and then reverse (the van in the picture is a handy illustration of the point near which the motorist in this case changed direction from forwards to reverse) as the prohibition is on driving along Giffin Street, which is to your left and right, and turning away from the camera into Frankham Street.

Here is the decision on the Appeal and on costs.

There is an unhealthy amount of automation in the world of moving traffic PCNs. this is because council's wouldn't make any money if they employed real people instead. This leads to an unhealthy reliance on computerised decision making which Lewisham have been brought to book over.

Additional points on which the adjudicator could have found for the motorist are that the PCN did not accurately describe the alleged contravention. 'Failing to comply with a no entry sign is a contravention but it was there in support of a prohibition on 'causing a vehicle to enter Frankham Street from Giffin Street' so the contravention as alleged had not taken place.

The council said about the PCN that it 'cannot be withdrawn' which is a pack of lies. The council can cancel what they issue, for any reason, even if they accept that there was a contravention.

Councils are always keen to warn motorists that false statements can lead to a Court fine of £5,000. Lewisham have got off lightly in this case.

The adjudicator boots out of the window the idea that costs should not be awarded because the motorist could have had his case heard on the papers. One of the good things about the tribunal (unlike outside London at the TPT nowadays) is that the motorist gets the chance to put their evidence in person and the adjudicator gets the chance to ask all the questions they need to in order to refine the arguments & fact find. Lewisham are lucky that the adjudicator did not order them to turn up to argue their case, a power which he opted not to exercise.

Mr Mustard finds all the time that enforcement authorities bend or misrepresent the evidence to suit their position, they often answer a different point to the one argued in order to try and negate the argument. They will say things like 'the  PCN was properly issued' which it was, when the real argument is about the facts of the parking which led to the issue of the PCN.

Before a PCN is issued a human being is meant to check the cctv to check that a contravention did occur. Mr Mustard is fond of parking up for 10 seconds in the middle of an empty yellow box at midnight to make sure the cctv verifier is awake and doing their job properly and not just ticking yes to a PCN. However, in this case, he thinks that a checker would be so mean that they would issue a PCN to anyone who went a metre past the back of the no entry signs and then reversed, which is not the reason why the signs were installed, taking a purposive approach.

We'll see if Lewisham learn. If they don't things could go badly for them.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

For experts; decision 2180445409

Staff ask councillors to hand over the reins

Here you go, moving traffic contraventions only started recently and are a real money spiiner with 5000 PCN being issued each month. Not enough clearly to satisfy officers (staff) as they want councillors to hand over the power to them to enforce outside every single school and every single junction in the borough. Best pull the duvet over your head and never get into your car again as the least mistake will be punished by a £130 PCN.

Will councillors dare to vote against this on Wednesday?

Have they even read the papers?

Do they care?

 

 

Barnet has gone from being a borough with a benign enforcement regime in which traffic did generally move pretty well to one which will be very near the top of the income charts for moving traffic contraventions and the traffic won't be any better, in fact if they follow Mr Mustard's advice, it will be much worse at yellow box junctions as everyone waits for the junction to be clear before they move.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard