Parked by the garage

 

Well done that mechanic, parking your client's car half on the pavement and half off and next to double yellow lines which apply up to the building line thus giving the traffic warden the choice of two easy tickets both of which would be hard to beat.

Of course the garage didn't tell their customer, Mr L, about the PCN, he found out when the Notice to Owner arrived three months later. Luckily the traffic warden chose a third contravention entirely:

For that contravention to take place all of the car needs to be a long way from the kerb, often known as double parked, and on the carriageway. That wasn't the case here. Mr L had been unlucky and lucky all at once.

Mr Mustard wrote the formal representation:

Tower Hamlets didn't dally, they cancelled the PCN fairly quickly. They probably noticed the veiled threat by the use of the words 'wholly unreasonable' and 'vexatious' that the writer was thinking ahead to the tribunal and the costs rules (rarely awarded but this would have been a deserving case.)

After a blog last week about council error, Mr Mustard wrote that councils go wrong 0.1% of the time. A different expert suggested that the real rate is more like 3 - 4% and he may well be correct, Mr Mustard feasts on errors more often than he first thought and he won a tribunal case on the day this blog was advance written as the wrong traffic order was in evidence and as the adjudicator pointed out the traffic warden didn't take a photo of the sign (an error which Mr Mustard had missed but he still had three good arguments and won on the first one).

The end. 

A little parking knowledge is a dangerous thing

 

This is the road in question Argyle Road. It is a road in which any encroachment at all onto the pavement is going to cause a problem for prams and pushchairs, wheelchair users, powered or pushed, the blind, parents with children in hand etc

 

The council have solved the perceived problem of a lack of space by letting motorists take up some of the space which the council has clearly decided, when the road was created, to be the province of pedestrians, the pavement. Perhaps the solution is to be brave and maintain that distinction, it isn't as if the pavement is excessively wide. If there were no parked cars there would be adequate room for pedestrians etc. The council could offer free dropped kerbs if the frontages were paved in line with sustainable drainage systems so flooding problems aren't created by lots of concrete. There are other solutions of course, like car clubs and bicycles. It is only 200m to Hounslow railway station, does everyone actually need their car? Since this road was constructed cars have got way bigger and become larger than the infrastructure can support.

 

All that apart, the general rule in Greater London is that you should stay off the pavement unless there are marked bays. This shouldn't be a surprise to a driver as it is in the Highway code, you know, that guide you haven't read since you passed your driving test.

 

You would think that a company which makes its money from penalising people for going wrong in car parks (allegedly) might know a little about the law when it comes to the public highway but apparently not. Mr Mustard reads all the tribunal decisions each morning and odd cases catch his eye, like this one:

Once Mr Mustard had stopped laughing at this company being on the receiving end (if you can't take it don't dish it out) he checked back and found two other cases for them, which went back a few years.

An example of arrogant entitlement. Not driving a bus, stay off the bus stop, simples.

 

The idea in life is to learn from your errors. Clearly a bit slow at PPS.

End.

Barnet Council don't care about people, PCN revenue first

 

Clearly if an adjudicator (whose hands are legally tied, he cannot allow on the grounds of mitigation or it just being the decent thing to do) makes a recommendation to cancel, which is what the legislation carefully allows for, the assumption in the legislation (wrongly) being that a council will use its powers sensibly, it must be the case that if the adjudicator was instead a council employee deciding on challenges to PCNs he would have cancelled. Why don't the council cancel? because they want the money.

Before making the decision the council should be made to sit in front of the motorist and his wife and explain why they will refuse the challenge.

Remember: In London you can't park on the pavement except where it is marked out to allow it.

Outside London (in England) you can park on the pavement except where it is banned by signage.

Easy to understand how this motorist, who has enough on his plate at this time, went wrong.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update: 27 December 2021

One of Mr Mustard's assiduous readers followed up for the outcome of the adjudicator's recommendation. The answer was that the council refused to follow the clear steer of an adjudicator, who only rarely use their legal right to make a compelling reasons recommendation. Here is the council's flawed reasoning.

The adjudicator has already decided that the PCN is legally valid so what the council are being asked to do is to exercise their discretion to cancel as a goodwill gesture and as the adjudicator has no power to consider mitigation.

Therefore the reasoning to justify not cancelling as a goodwill gesture should have been why being kind isn't reasonable in all the circumstances. The justification the council have used is that the contravention had occurred which was an agreed fact and they haven't in fact done what they were asked to do.

Never ever make the mistake that the council will put the public first, they put the money first.

The end.

Redbridge - not clear, intra vires and communicated.

The three pavement parking PCNs which were given out one after the other to three cars parked like the above one, in a road which had these signs everywhere:

have now been cancelled after the formal representations were made, the almost identical informal challenges having all been rejected based upon a misreading of the law by Redbridge Council (see previous blog). Redbridge probably finally worked out, thanks to other emails by Mr Mustard which contained complaints and his explanation of the law on signs, that if they rejected him again they would be facing him at the tribunal and as well as not being paid for the PCNs, if and when they lost, they would be out of pocket for three tribunal fees of £30 each.

Mr Mustard has been in front of a particular adjudicator who sometimes sums up the situation about PCNs as being that the contravention must be 'clear, intra vires and communicated' (intra vires = lawful by dint of having the legal power to issue the PCN). Mr Mustard tries to learn from what adjudicators have to say.

Here is what Redbridge had to say after having right royally messed up.

The first sentence should read 'that was affixed'.

No information as to when the consultation was carried out, how and when the residents of this particular road were consulted, if and when they were notified of the outcome, whether cyclists were consulted as cars are allowed to park in the cycle lane, and how drivers were told that the tarmac area was the extent of the section to park (in). An entire paragraph saying nothing of real use or relevance. What Redbridge haven't explained is how a driver knew, by signs, that he/she had to confine their wheels to the tarmac. Drivers from other boroughs would have no idea this was the council policy and only the most observant residents of Redbridge might work it out.

Mr Mustard had already explained to Redbridge Council that the sign means that all of a vehicle except for two wheels are allowed to be over the pavement. If a pavement is too narrow to allow for most of a car to be parked on the pavement then, following the council's own policy about free space for pedestrians, they shouldn't have allowed pavement parking at that location. Not everyone will know that RTA stands for Road Traffic Accident. Mr Mustard feels sure the council would disclaim liability for any accident regardless of how far a car was on the pavement.

The decision to cancel was really forced upon Redbridge as they were wrong. Note the complete lack of contrition or apology for having wrongly trained their traffic wardens and for wrongly having rejected perfectly valid informal challenges and for having put three law abiding residents through three months of worry.

Note also the defiance and the pre-judging of future PCNs 'which will not be cancelled' - that all depends upon Redbridge painting legally valid lines and erecting matching signs (don't hold your breath). In addition, enforcement authorities such as Redbridge aren't meant to pre-judge the outcome of a representation against a PCN, they are meant to judge it on its merits and without any thought to the income which derives from it. Redbridge Council don't appear to hold the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State in high regard in this respect.

Drivers everywhere, the ones who have to visit Redbridge, Mr Mustard should have made your life simpler as Redbridge will now make it crystal clear where pavement parking is to be allowed.

Mr Mustard thinks Redbridge Council may well feature in the blog again in the future if pavement parking is a measure of their (in)competence.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Public private boundary problems

Opposite Propeller Way in Aerodrome Road

Mr Mustard has seen two letters sent about PCN for parking on the grass where the silver car is on the right. The first one says that it is private land and that the two PCN will be cancelled then the second letter says that it is public land after all but the cancellations will stand (one of the council's duties is to be procedurally fair so to resile from their cancellations would not be possible).

Before he had read the second letter about the land being public, (and he needs to see what the sign on the wall says as this might be railway land? this being the bridge with the notorious overspend from before his time, he thinks), Mr Mustard had looked up pavement parking PCN in this road (some of which may have been elsewhere than this very spot) and so you may as well see the haphazard nature of enforcement at this location. W stands for Warning, PCN being issued for £0.00 to suggest not parking here again.

Parking in Aerodrome Way is at a premium but Mr Mustard suggests this is not a good place to park, on the grass rarely is.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Triple (no) chance

There are 3 reasons why you shouldn't park like the red car in the picture above, anywhere in Greater London:

1   Outside the bay markings is a contravention

2   The rear passenger side wheel is on the pavement in contravention

3   The car is partially across a dropped kerb in contravention

You'll make the traffic warden dizzy deciding which contravention to issue a PCN for. The traffic warden didn't choose contravention #1 as that is a lower rate £60 contravention. He/she chose one of the others which is £110.

It rained later and the PCN was slipped under the wiper on the pavement side so the driver never got it. Parking management agreed with Mr Mustard to accept the discounted sum of £55 on this occasion (they won't every time) and are investigating whether they can buy plastic PCN wallets which make a tube around the wiper arm so that far fewer PCN go missing and as that way the driver will not be deprived of the opportunity to pay at 50%. The parking manager does want to be fair and often is (not every time but then Mr Mustard may occasionally ask for too much).

Drivers - be sensible and avoid predatory traffic wardens by not committing stupid offences.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Treble chance

Faced with this car what would you think? a bit of opportunistic if somewhat adventurous parking, or a car that has broken down? This is at the junction of the 6 lane A1 and Hendon Lane.

It immediately struck Mr Mustard that the car had broken down and been pushed into a place out of the way. It is possible to park 50 yards away with no restriction, as he did, so it makes no logical sense for this car to be here in contravention. 

Naturally, traffic wardens have seen this as a feeding frenzy and given out 3 PCN for parking adjacent to a dropped foot way (normally only used for cars in the carriageway not those on the pavement for which a code 62 PCN would be more accurate, although both are higher level contraventions) on 9, 10 and 11 June 14 (there may be others which are not on the windscreen). Two of those PCN are by the same traffic warden.

What would have been better? A search of the DVLA database and a letter to the registered keeper.

Ticket targets in Barnet? No, of course not.

Common sense? no, none of that either.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard