Looks like the traffic warden was a bit too crafty

Mr Mustard has tweeted about PCNs going missing. he has suggested to the council that they log places and traffic warden numbers of instances in which the PCN goes missing to see if there any patterns. Either there are phantom ticket nickers about in certain streets or it's always, mysteriously, the same traffic warden's tickets that go astray. Their pockets should be checked when they gets back to base?

This PCN doesn't look very well attached

but it should still have hung on unless a hurricane passed through Barnet.

The unfortunate thing for this traffic warden is that he/she issued 2 PCN within 3 minutes of one away to vehicles parked next to each other and neither driver got their PCN. Mr Mustard has worked in High Barnet for 27 years so is well known and he knew both drivers, honest people, who passed on their Notices to Owner to him. Mr Mustard doubts that anyone would steal a PCN from a vehicle parked outside a shop. He strongly suspects that both PCN were removed afterwards by the traffic warden who clearly doesn't know what he/she is doing, or maybe they do?

So that is the front vehicle of the two that Mr Mustard is dealing with. You can see two signs, one of which is angled away and not visible from the driver's seat. The driver can see the right hand sign which is a dual resident and business bay for which the vehicle had a valid permit. The left hand sign is PayByPhone. Can you see the join between the two bays? (nice fresh lines - pretty but wrongly painted) no you can't and that is because it wasn't visible before they were repainted as the 2 payment bays were only introduced about a year ago. So the driver could see a sign and walked off as he was correctly parked, or so he thought. Which sign did the traffic warden photograph, the incorrectly aligned left one (which would enable the issue of a PCN as no payment had been made) or the right one which the van was entitled to be parked against. Yes, you guessed correctly

This action by the traffic warden is at the sly end of the scale if not downright cheating.

He took his final photograph at 9:26 and then proceeded to ticket the other van at 9:27 for code 11 which in Barnet contractually requires a 3 minute observation period; was it given? Mr Mustard doesn't know as the PCN went missing. It is possible that both vehicles were observed at the same time and Mr mustard will ask the parking manager as he is just about to email him.

If you have had a PCN recently in Union St, High Barnet thanks to this confusion Mr Mustard will help you to sort it out. Email him at mrmustard@zoho.com.

This sort of behaviour is unacceptable from a contractor to a council. At the very least their contract should not be extended or renewed. We should look to bring the task back in house asap and only employ traffic wardens who sign a declaration that they will only issue a PCN when there is no doubt about their right to do so. 

It says in the current contract that signs and lines should be checked before the issue of a PCN. Clearly, that isn't happening.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Now you see it, now you don't

On one previous occasion a traffic warden has been seen removing a PCN from a car in Finchley but whether that was nefarious behaviour or not was not proven as the car owner was unknown to those observing. Given that so many cases end up at PATAS where the motorist complains that the PCN was not on the windscreen Mr Mustard has long held the view that some traffic wardens are probably behaving wrongly. By such behaviour the opportunity to pay at 50% is lost. Any motorist who comes to Mr Mustard in such circumstances always appeals to PATAS as that costs the council £40 in PATAS fees and might eventually teach them to behave. Here is a recent adjudication which proves the point as no naughty schoolboy or other prankster could remove the PCN whilst the traffic warden is still there. The possibility occurs to Mr Mustard that in the below case the traffic warden photographed an empty yellow plastic wallet and then removed it.

The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not attend and it was not represented.

The Appellant said that he saw the enforcement officer as he was returning to his vehicle. The officer was taking photographs of the vehicle at that time. The Appellant activated his central locking system so that his lights came on, to alert the CEO that he was returning. They walked past each other and the CEO told the Appellant that it was alright.

The Appellant said that he did not see a PCN on the vehicle. He checked the sign and realised that he had made a mistake. When he went home, he announced to his wife that he had been fortunate not to have received a PCN. Mrs M. who attended the hearing confirmed this part of the Appellant's evidence.

The CEO's photographs showed that the PCN had in deed been placed on the vehicle. A PCN is enforceable and the full amount is payable once it is served, even if it is removed by a third party before the driver returns. In this case, the likelihood of third party intervention is remote. The inference is that the CEO had removed it for one reason or another.

This is not something that is likely but having heard from the Appellant and his wife, I have concluded that it was the case. If a CEO removes a ticket after it has been placed on the vehicle, it has not been served. I do not accept that the PCN had been served on this occasion and I am allowing the appeal.

Mr Mustard notes the use of careful language by the adjudicator, a solicitor or barrister, & who is always mindful of an appeal, is speaking volumes with his choices of words, "remote" means about a zero chance and "for one reason or another" is left for the world to interpret as without the traffic warden there to cross-examine, we will never know. Mr Mustard might think this traffic warden is deliberately making life difficult for motorists but he can't prove it (yet, watch this space).

So remember, if you are scammed by the local authority in this way you can put in your representations to Barnet Council (by email to barnet@nslservices.co.uk ) and if they are rejected you will be sent the PATAS form. Fill out a few simple details (consult mrmustard@zoho.com for guidance if you so desire) and if you lose you still pay the full PCN price (£110 or £60 as the case may be, the chance to pay £55 or £30 having been denied to you) and if you win you pay £nil. Either way the council have to pay a £40 fee to PATAS.

Hit the council where it hurts them, in the pocket.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard