The PCN offside rule is a lot easier to explain than in football circles

 

Mr L, the subject of the blog dated 3 July, also received a PCN when his car was parked here. This was from Redbridge Council in Kenneth More Road. It was an allegation of being parked in a suspended bay. The car was parked by Mrs L but as the car is registered to Mr L he is the liable party.

Mrs L made an informal challenge as the driver, which is perfectly normal, and was rejected, also very common.

Mr Mustard studied the layout and was 99% certain he could beat the PCN as the view of the driver was thus:

In front of the driver is a standard sign with absolutely no indication that parking is suspended. A driver does not have to be clairvoyant, they are entitled to 100% clear signage, a suspension sign should have been mounted on that pole. The sign mounted off to the side on a site barrier isn't likely to be seen.

Mr Mustard made the formal representations. He was unhappy with some of the content on the Redbridge Council website.

That statement above is untrue. A council may disregard (ignore) late representations but statutory guidance of the Secretary of State says late representations should be considered when there is a good reason e.g. you were in hospital for a month so missed the deadline. The word 'cannot' fetters the council's discretion. The council don't mention that if you don't see certain documents, perhaps lost in the post, that there is a procedure to get you back into due process. Scummy behaviour.

A council should never tell you 'Do not challenge' especially with such misleading guidance:

Reasons why Redbridge Council are feeding rubbish to the public:

1     Leaving your vehicle to drop your child at nursery or school, to deliver or collect a parcel, or stop to help someone who has fallen over are all exemptions from the traffic order.

2     The law allows a 10 minute leeway after a period of paid for parking before which you can be given a PCN (as arranged by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP).

3     It is not illegal to drop off or pick up your kids, a teacher or a parcel.

4     Perhaps they were unclear or wrong.

It is clear that Redbridge Council cannot be trusted.

Mr Mustard PCN wrote the formal representations, the acknowledgment of them contained more innacurate nonsense:

The PCN was already 70 or so days old.

The representation was short and simple:

As your own photos show there was no suspension sign adjacent to the sign saying the bay is for blue badge holders and therefore no reason not to park. Communication of the suspension was inadequate.

Unlike the informal challenge the formal representations were accepted. The council know that if they reject the formal representation they may be met with a tribunal Appeal which will cost them c. £32 and which they are highly likely to lose. That is why you can be rejected at the informal stage and accepted at the formal one with the identical argument.

Nothing had changed. There were always sufficient grounds to cancel. 

Councils, don't trust them. Fight to the end.

Redridge Council - not as smart as they think they are

 

Mr Mustard has met Redridge Council a few times. They are not the smartest operators in PCN enforcement. They lose to the public 63% of the time at the tribunal and 86% of the time to Mr Mustard.

Mr M knows Mr X. He is the smartest and hardest working of PCN fighters. Redbridge must have heard of him. They should have seen the writing on he wall earlier.

The problem is this case is one of assumption, that a PCN will arrive in the post in two days. It is a rebuttable presumptuion, it might take a week and only the recipient can say the date on which it was served thus rebutting the assumed date of service. Smart councils build in a few days of leeway into their software before going to the next stage. Redbridge are not such a council.

The LGO don't know the law. A PCN is not a fine, they are only issued by Courts.

The LGO was also overly generous in allowing the council to let My Y make out of time representations he having previously been prevented from doing so and a year having passed which causes prejudice and the council having been out of order in the first place. They should have invited Redbridge Council to close the PCN.

Mr M knows that representations were made and the one sensible thing Redbridge did was to accept them. They would have a faced a tribunal hearing otherwise, wasted £32 in fees and been put to the sword by Mr X.

In the last 7 years Mr Mustard has won 19 of his 22 tribunal cases against Redbridge. Here is one which is germane.

That is the same problem as with Mr Y but 2 years earlier.

Clearly Redridge Council are a bit slow to learn................................ 

It can't be the money can it?

The end, until next time. 

Redbridge Council try it on

 

The above still image from the council cctv is where the vehicle stopped, the car with the brake lights on. That was enough to get Redbridge Council excited, £160 more in the pot they thought, Mr Mustard didn't think so as there was pots of space to move forward. The PCN may have been issued by computer without a person watching the cctv or giving it much thought if they did.

Rolling back a few seconds, this was the situation on entry.

Mr Mustard made the representations against the PCN, a PCN that should not have existed.

oops, chopped the word 'spent' off the end whilst removing the client's name.

Redbridge Council put the system into reverse pretty quickly and cancelled. They could have written a more gracious and explanatory acceptance and naturally they ignored the hard part, about discipline and retraining.

Problems with some of these cases are that cars are leased and the lease company pays up and recharges the client together with an administration fee without considering if the alleged contravention is made out.

Don't stand for nonsense, give councils both (written) barrels.

The end.

Redbridge Council - not so fast

On 4 June Mr Mustard lost a tribunal appeal which related to Redbridge Council. He advised his client to pay the £110 within the 28 days allowed, which was done. The motorist also very generously made a donation to the North London Hospice.

On 9 June Mr Mustard filed a Review request at the tribunal. The Chief Adjudicator considered it and listed it for a Review hearing on 2 July. At the Review hearing the original decision was over-turned and Redbridge Council were ordered to make a refund of the £110 'without delay'.

Mr Mustard thinks that allowing 28 days is reasonable for any refund, that being the same timetable as the public gets to pay up in.

On 30 July the motorist chased Redbridge for his refund. Silence ensued, a refund didn't arrive.

He kept on chasing to no avail and then asked Mr Mustard for his advice.

Mr Mustard gave him the direct email of a manager who he had previously dealt with. That was on 17 September. A reply wasn't received but a refund was.

Perhaps the apology is 'in the post'.

Councils should put as much effort into a refund as motorists have to do into paying them promptly. If the boot had been on the other foot the council could have increased the penalty to £165. There will be no compensation for the delay by the council.

Councils should also have good manners. They would be better regarded if they did. 

Redbridge - from atrocious to merely awful

 

Many councils have padded out their challenge pages with extra advice or information. If it is going to be there at all it should be procedurally fair. The problem is that councils are not independent when giving advice which brings to mind the wise words of Warren Buffett:

'Don’t ask the barber whether you need a haircut'

The barber has an interest in the answer and the council have an interest in getting you to pay a PCN. I don't think they should give advice in any way, shape or form.

The council should only use the legal term of 'Penalty Charge Notice' = PCN for short. They should not use the phrase 'parking ticket' which is much less used these days and only refers to the PCN placed on your vehicle.

You can challenge a PCN even if you think it is correct, it does not have to be wrong. The PCN contains a promise to consider any representation before the Notice to Owner is issued.

You don't have 28 days from the issue date. For a PCN placed on your car you have 28 days from the date on which a contravention is alleged (usually the date of issue, except at midnight which might be different by a day) starting with that day as day 1 so really only 27 days and for a Notice to Owner you get 28 days from the date of service of the Notice with the date of service being day 1.

The deadlines to pay will only stand still if your challenge is within time.

You can challenge a PCN even if you have missed the statutory deadline. The council has the legal right to 'disregard' (ignore) your challenge but should not have a policy of automatic refusal. The Secretary of State's statutory guidance, to which the council must have due regard, states:

Clearly, Redbridge are not following statutory guidance.

The final line is particularly unhelpful. Sometimes, of course, important letters get lost in the post. There is the opportunity later on to file a Witness Statement (for parking PCNs) or Statutory Declaration (for moving traffic PCNs) which will lead to service on the motorist of a fresh document to replace the one which went missing. By not telling you that Redbridge are making you think there is no hope and that you must therefore pay the PCN. That is unfair.

 

You do not need to have a 'good reason' as what is a good reason in your mind may not be a good one in the council's view. It is a meaningless phrase which does not appear anywhere in statute.

The council mean your challenge could be accepted, not your parking ticket could be accepted.

The 'Do not challenge' section is fettering your right to challenge. A council should not close its mind to future challenge because, for example, the reason you stopped for a few seconds was to unload or let a passenger alight, both of which are exemptions. Redbridge don't mention, for example, that you can be up to 10 minutes late after being legally parked in, say, a pay bay without them being able to issue a PCN. I have had a case whereby a parent couldn't leave the school because tarmac was being laid in the car park and she was unable to leave on foot for a few minutes to reach her car on the public highway, reasons beyond your control are a good reason for a PCN to be cancelled. 'Illegal' parking isn't defined, setting down passengers is allowed other than on school keep clear markings. If you did not see the road signs or markings they may not be adequate.

There should not be a link to pay a parking ticket within the advice about challenging.

I agree with this section which is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

The council are thinking only of themselves. Making it on line is the fastest way for the council to process it as they don't need to do any data entry as you do it for them. They can then also reply by email which is far cheaper for them than a letter. Mr Mustard is going to send more letters in future, he wants the Royal Mail to stay in business.

Those are the longest 48 hours in history, the website said this last week, 96 hours ago or more. Some people are going to miss a deadline because of this (best write in rather than do that).

'Informal' and 'formal' challenges aren't really any different, it is only a matter of timing. You don't need to use any language other than plain English. An informal challenge is also a representation, it is the wording used on the PCN.

The council have carefully not told you that in response to a formal representation for an alleged parking contravention they must serve on you their Notice of Rejection within 56 days of receiving it otherwise they are deemed, by law, to have accepted it. The more people challenge their Notices to Owner the more likely will be that event.

It is best to screenshot your actual challenge, or put it in a pdf which you upload, as the acknowledgment doesn't include the gist of the challenge, only the fact that you have made one. If you challenge by post you wouldn't expect an email but if you use the 'Signed for' service you will have proof it was delivered.

The only time when a council must by law reoffer the discount is when it says it will. That is, for most councils, only on a PCN placed on your car or put in your hand. There is a move away from offering the discount again at a later stage thus forcing you to the tribunal. As you pay the same whether you go there or not and starting an Appeal to London Tribunals is free for the motorist and 99.9% of the time there are no costs there is no point in paying once the discount has gone. (Mr Mustard has just been threatened with a costs application by a different useless council but it is doomed to failure).

The link to an independent tribunal is to a government page containing more than one rather than the specific tribunal which applies so Redbridge could have been much more helpful there.

Redbridge mentioned statutory grounds right at the start. They don't apply until the Notice to Owner stage, before then you can make any challenge that you like. They haven't listed them for you but they are these according to a Redbridge Notice to Owner:

 

Redbridge could further improve their website by removing 99% of this useless page.

The end.

Redbridge Council chance their arm

 

Khartoum Road

Another random decision which Mr Mustard came across.

 

One cannot look in two directions at once and there isn't much time whilst moving to look for other signs and given that the right hand one was, in effect, covered why would you expect the left hand one to be any different? The left hand sign is much harder to make out when turning right. The full sign is as follows and you need a few seconds to take it all in.

What councils often fail to mention is that there is a duty imposed on them by legislation which is to erect and maintain adequate signage.

This PCN should never have been issued never mind defended at the tribunal.

As it hppens Mr Mustard has just started an Appeal to the tribunal for a parking PCN in Khartoum Rd in which the sole sign was defaced. There is clearly a problem in this corner of Ilford; the solution is not to penalise the innocent but to catch the guilty.

The end.

Belief - the supposed foundation for a PCN.

 

The motorist in this case wrote his own representation with help from experts on FTLA 

In order to issue a PCN an enforcement authority, such as Redbridge Council, must have a belief that a contravention has occurred. The way it works these days is that a computer watches the traffic and when it thinks it has spotted a contravention it extracts a short clip and saves it for a human being to check and then authorise a PCN. Much of the time Mr Mustard thinks that either the operative doesn't pay attention or blindly presses yes or assumes the computer is correct (a dangerous assumption as the Post Office Horizon Inquiry has shown us).

Mr Mustard thinks there is an inbuilt belief amongst back office PCN processing staff that because a PCN has been issued it must be correct and defended at all cost.

Here is the position at the moment which the car entered the box:

There is room to exit.

Here is the position on stopping:

Needless to say Redbridge Council rejected a perfectly good representation as 90% of the time, especially when the discount is offered again, the motorist caves in and pays because of a combination of ignorance, worry about having to pay the full penalty and an assumption that councils tell the truth (they are serial liars).

This is the relevant part of the Notice of Rejection.

Mr Mustard's comments. Careful consideration would have led to a cancellation. This is a standard line in the template. Careless consideration would be more accurate.

The exit was clear on entering so this was another standard paragraph.

Mitigation cannot have been considered as none was pleaded. 'Comments' waters down the value of the words of the motorist who made a representation not mere remarks.

The writer may well be satisfied but who knows how easily they are satisfied in their own cause?

They were also confident that the PCN was valid.

Mr Mustard took over at this point and he was confident he could get the PCN cancelled. Who was over-confident? (yes, you know the answer).

This is what he wrote in the Grounds of Appeal (you have the images above).

Grounds of Appeal - no contravention

This is the position as the car enters the box. There is clearly room for the car to exit (as can be judged by the white car in the other lane). Thus the first part of the contravention, on entering, is not made out.

The position on stopping is as follows:

The blue car had moved further away so there was even more room to exit. The driver simply chose not to, it was not due to a stationary vehicle in front.

All of a sudden Redbridge Council were less confident of their case. They left it late but 5 days before the hearing they told the tribunal that they would not contest the Appeal and they had cancelled the PCN. 

Why would they do that if they were correct in issuing the PCN and rejecting the formal representations? It is because it is a big and generally profitable game of Bluff. It is a game which Mr Mustard is happy to play all day long. Mr Mustard decides at the outset if there is a good case or not and 90% of the time he is correct.

Don't be bluffed into paying out. Work out your defence and stand your ground. Don't be diverted by talk of a discount. Why would you want to pay a 50% penalty for being innocent?

Remember you can get a free second opinion about your chances from numerous experts here, which sometimes includes Mr Mustard.

The end.

Redbridge Council - they care more about a PCN than a pedestrian

 

Another tribunal decision which Mr Mustard happened upon by chance.

 

What the adjudicator didn't point out was that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 include an exemption for stopping on a bus stop, as follows:

That is because the Adjudicator was applying obvious logic as otherwise a motorist at risk of getting a PCN might simply keep going and charge down or run over a pedestrian which is clearly stupid and dangerous. The person who refused the representation and the one who contested the Appeal (which may be one and the same person) need to take a long hard look at themselves and at the rules which are available free on line.

The trouble is that there is no real mechanism for dealing with councils who reject perfect representations. Most motorists when faced with a council rejection will pay up. Only 1% of motorists take their PCN as far as the tribunal. Thus an incentive is built into the systems for councils to lie, cheat and scheme.

Change is necessary.

The end.

Redbridge Council - Bullies and cowards

 

A legally parked Oakmont minibus

The sign in the bay: blue badge holders are exempt.

Mr Mustard wrote previously about miserable Redbridge Council and Oakmont Social Education which is providing valuable opportunities. What he didn't know when writing it was that there were a monumental 97 other PCNs in the wings (and this may not be the end).

Here is the first page of the list of cases decided this week, PCNs which had the council prevailed on all of them, have cost Oakmont £7760, money which would be better spent on education.

Now, the adjudicator's decision, which was probably the same for all of the PCNs which Redbridge hadn't conceded before the hearing. If Redbridge had thrown in the towel no location will show in that column.

 Mr Mustard has the following brief comments to add.

Failing to show at a tribunal when your attendance has been requested is dumb behaviour. Mr Mustard suspects that there will be some comment by the adjudicator on some future date when Redbridge do choose to appear.

 

The question of costs has not been mentioned here but they can come into play if a council has been frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable. Mr Mustard thinks the behaviour of Redbridge Council fits squarely within the last two categories.

It is completely unacceptable that the CEO (= traffic warden) recorded a blue badge as not being on display. The image Mr Mustard looked at shows the badge in a security wallet secured by a substantial chain.

 

In order to issue a PCN in the belief that the blue badge did not apply the minibus would have had to be seen arriving at the school premises, which are in The Shrubberies, without a disabled person on board and leaving similarly. That, of course, didn't happen.

 

It is an utter disgrace that these minibuses were targeted. If there had been a scintilla of truth in the thought of fraud the perpetrators would have changed their modus operandi and the senior management of Oakmont would have been too afraid to go to the tribunal, as senior management of Redbridge Council were, as it appears.

 

It is clear that Oakmont know the rules and respect them or, if they err, they pay the penalty.

 

Each Appeal incurs a fee of c. £30 which is not recoverable by a council even if they win. On this bonfire of nasty PCNs the council have burnt almost £3,000

Now follows the other cases.

 

Will Redbridge Council learn something from this and be less vicious in future. Mr Mustard hopes so.

The end.