Nothing to see at Redbridge Council

 

The role of an adjudicator is to apply the law and if therefore, as in this case, the permit is not adequately displayed. In this case the resident was issued with three PCNs in quick succession because his permit was slightly hidden by the black dots around the edge of the windscreen.

The evidence to the tribunal from Redbridge Council included this:

The same car had been parked in the same road for a year and the traffic warden often chatted to the resident and was well aware which car was his and should therefore have exercised discretion and not issued a PCN or three. In the alternative, why doesn't the traffic warden ('CEO') use his radio to contact the office and ask which vehicle the permit is for. That would be equitable given that permit zones are there to protect the residents, not to punish them. 

Mr Mustard isn't entirely convinced that traffic wardens are kept in the dark. If you live there do ask a warden to look up your car and see what they say.

If there hadn't been other grounds except for being a permit holder the adjudicator might have made a recommendation to cancel as he was clearly unimpressed with Redbridge Council wanting (initially) three PCNs to be paid for as they rejected both the informal challenges and the formal representations. The evidence pack arrived at the last minute and the cheapskate council by using second class post rather than first class opened the door to what was, in the end, an easy win. They also didn't prove the past this point zone entry signs so Mr Mustard was too observant for them. Councils win so many Appeals against unrepresented motorists because the public doesn't have a history of fighting back and know what is likely to work. Mr Mustard hopes to write some guides this year to particular aspects of parking law and practice.

The end.

Barnet Council are unfair

 

This is a decision which Mr Mustard found on the register.

 

Whilst Mr Mustard understands the benefits of school streets the over-riding consideration, based on what rejection letters say, seems to be the penalty charge revenue. You can't easily contact the council to obtain an exemption and given that only permanent employees of schools are eligible for a permit according to council policy it wouldn't help in any event.

I contrast this approach with that overseas, such as in Bordeaux which Mr Mustard recently visited. Restricted roads there are impossible to drive into as they have rising bollards and adjacent to that is an intercom on which you can explain your need for access and, if accepted, the bollard is lowered for you.

Could it be that because such arrangements cost money instead of raising it, British style, councils don't use rising bollards? Surely not.

The end.

The Fairway - again

Sometimes when Mr Mustard looks on the internet for information he finds he has himself put something relevant into the public domain. That was how it turned out when it comes to the keep clear yellow zig zag markings in The Fairway, the previous post being here.

This latest tribunal decision is equally devoid of any real world view by some faceless council bureaucrat:

 

A learner driver will make errors (although they didn't on this occasion) because they are a learner and at the start of their first lesson they will know nothing. Some leeway should logically and fairly be given to driving school cars.

The end.

Barnet Council : double not quits

 

Always something new for Mr Mustard to deal with. These from a motorist who luckily sent him both Notices.

 

Mr Mustard asked a few question of the council on Sunday 8 September, as follows, and the council answers are there, a reasonably swift response.

Someone beat Mr Mustard to the draw on the Friday 6 September.

This isn't the first local authority to double print a batch of documents. On would hope they tell each other, at least within London, of problems and more importantly, solutions, but Mr Mustard thinks this can't be happening, or if it is, it doesn't work well enough.

It is no surprise that the council didn't want to cancel all 690 PCNs as they would not then rake in tens of thousands of revenue. 690 PCNs at £130 would be £89,700 (but budget for say a 50% recovery).

Another PCN expert gave Mr Mustard his opinion, which which Mr Mustard concurs:

There is no statutory power to serve the second NTO, a second NTO can only be served on another person and only in limited circumstances (such as where a previous NTO is cancelled by the county court, the tribunal or the authority itself). There are no circumstances where the council can randomly issue a second NTO on the same person while a previous NTO issued to that person is still outstanding.

Unfortunately there is no body, apart from the council itself, that a member of the public can go to to suggest a different outcome. It is a failing in the system that councils are trusted to self police. The only outcomes they appear to be interested in are positive cash flow ones.

The end.

Councils can't afford to be kind

When he gets a fresh PCN Mr Mustard often has to warn people that, more likely than not, the council will not look kindly on the reason why they received the PCN. The council want your money, most of the time, and whilst they have a wide discretion, councils can cancel any PCN for any reason, the adjudicator cannot & must strictly apply the law. Adjudicators can only recommend that a council think again although Mr Mustard has seen them bend the law in order to excuse an error.

Here is a classic example of a situation in which Mr Mustard thinks the public would expect leniency to come into play but he wasn't at all surprised when it didn't. This is a situation which, other things being equal, will only happen the once.

The informal challenge submitted to Lewisham Council:

and the relevant part of their response:

This is a Catch 22 response. There is no evidence that the writer thought about exercising their discretion. Their explanation is that because the contravention happened, which was already conceded by the motorist, the council won't cancel because the contravention happened.

What should happen is that Lewisham Council should consider the mitigation put forward, decide if it has the ring of truth (why would you stay in a hotel in SE13 when you live in SE6?) which it does and then consider whether or not to cancel the PCN. There is no revenue loss to the council which didn't instigate an automatic refund of a payment for which no value was given (once you have a PCN you cannot get another the same day, unless the rules of the bay change, if you don't move).

The rejection letter should explain why discretion is not being exercised, like one of these responses:

a    your proof is not credible

b    we don't think the mitigation is sufficient as you could have paid the night before (if you can, although the driver might have been intending to get up early, buy flowers and attempt a reconciliation)

c    we want your money so won't cancel

d    we are venal and rapacious. (* copyright another PCN expert, Incandescent).

The law assumes that a public body endowed with absolute power will exercise that power in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. Although this appeal for clemency can be argued both for and against what is apparent from hundreds of PCNs that Mr Mustard has seen is that in many councils heartlessness and ruthlessness are the order of the day (He does have good experiences, he recounted one with Islington Council on twitter last week but he sees far more bad than good).

The problem is that councils are not routinely monitored or inspected for the way they go about the issue and enforcement of PCNs. We need an outside body which referees the whole system and can visit councils and encourage best practice and fairness. There are 7 million PCNs issued in London every year. Councils are out of control in their quest for revenue.

Time to create OffPen.

The end.

Brent Council - a deliberate lie?

If you look at Mr Mustard's immediately prior post about battery failure you will be up with the story.

Mr Mustard wanted to establish the factual basis on which an indivdual made the decision to accuse the motorist of failing to maintain their maintenance free battery. The obvious way to do that was to make a Subject Access Request for the motorist's data, on which the letter of rejection was founded (relevant extract below).

Here is the request:

and here is the response:

Now you might yhink that the response was a standard one and that the writer simply picked the wrong paragraph to insert into the letter but that doesn't excuse the writer as they should carefully check any letter with financial implications.

Look, bold and CAPITALS, thus the most important part of the letter as far as Brent Council are concerned; show us the money!

Mr Mustard has suggested to the motorist that a complaint is lodged, there has been a failure to adhere to the Nolan principles, in particular 'honesty'.

Have you had a similar letter from Brent Council about your battery? don't pay up, make them prove their case.

The 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.

Enfield Council - child safety first or revenue first?

Much political capital is made out of the reasons for 'school streets' a feelgood phrase for various restrictions on driving at certain times in certain places near schools. When Enfield Council started down this route they used physical barriers at many locations and then Mr Mustard noticed a change, which he tweeted about, viz (click on the image to enlarge):

One of his followers wasn't happy about the change and so emailed a councillor.

A reply followed, but Mr Mustard can't see any safety concern expressed despite his responsibility for Road safety and it isn't what you would call a full answer and it was sent a mere 9 minutes after the enquiry so a bit of a kneejerk response.

The concerned Enfield Resident then sat and thought for a week, not 9 minutes, and came up with a brilliant solution, which any council that was truly concerned about the safety of schoolchildren would respond to instantly saying that they were seriously considering how to implement the proposed solution and that the resident would be made a freeman of the borough.

 

Very oddly and Mr Mustard can't understand why, silence is reigning supreme.

If you too are unhappy and want to support his genius idea, Councillor Barnes can be contacted by email - cllr.ian.barnes@enfield.gov.uk

The end.

A late Christmas present from Barnet Council - a penalty for £130

Just look at the date of this contravention, 27th December. What is the traffic management purpose of this? The only purpose is to raise revenue.

All this achieves is that it sets another resident against the council and makes it harder for the BPA to promote their 'positive parking agenda', which is hogwash anyway.

It would be a simple matter for Barnet Council to not issue PCNs by cctv when schools are closed, just amend the Traffic Management Order to only apply during term time and set dates when the camera does not record contraventions.

Don't blame the adjudicator, however illogical it is he has to apply the law as it was written by Barnet Council, he is not allowed to use his discretion. In a parking case he could make a recommendation to cancel but not for moving traffic.

What you can learn from this is that even during a pandemic the council will still cheerfully send you a penalty by post for doing no harm and stopping (parking) on the yellow zig zag markings outside a school. So, just don't do it, not even for a second, do not stop.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The Wrong Approach - now righted

A resident emailed Mr Mustard with the above PCN and told him that he wasn't in Approach Road when he parked but in The Approach. A feature of the latest PCN software that Barnet Council use is that they put a pin on a map to show roughly where the PCN was issued, like this:

Clearly the PCN is a nullity for want of an accurate statement of the contravention, the locus being a vital fact. A challenge was sent in saying that the vehicle was not parked (= not waiting) in Approach Road, New Barnet. Here is the relevant part of the response, a rejection of the challenge:

The response is wrong, not just a little wrong, but 100% wrong.

How can a council, or their contractors, NSL, get something so basic as the location so wrong. Approach Road is adjacent to New Barnet railway station.

The two roads are 6 miles apart. It is very hard to muddle them up if the slightest attention is paid.

Now the motorist is asking Mr Mustard if he should pay. Definitely not is the answer as the council have accused him of something which is simply not true. The motorist will now have to wait for the Notice to Owner, and has all of the worry of a PCN hanging over him for all that time, & if the car is leased that will mean an administration fee has to be paid, one that should not be necessary if the council and/or NSL did their job properly. There is no guarantee that the formal representations in response to the Notice to Owner will be considered any more carefully than the informal challenge was, or wasn't, and then an Appeal will be made to the tribunal. It is only at that point that an impartial view will be taken of the facts by a body that doesn't have a financial interest in rejecting perfectly good representations.

Mr Mustard thinks it is time for a change when it comes to how the surplus from road traffic related PCNs should be spent. Let councils cover their costs and all of the surplus after that should go to a central body to spend on something charitable. Councils would rapidly cut their activities back to the minimum and focus solely on the traffic management purposes which should be their primary goal, rather then generating surpluses to reduce their wider budgetary pressures.

We also need an independent oversight body who can investigate why some councils keep making errors in their own favour.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 3 December 2019

The Notice to Owner was issued on 30 October to the garage whose car it was.

Mr Mustard challenged it on 12 November pointing out the road error, providing maps.

Barnet Council refused for a second time to cancel on 26 November.

On 28 November Mr Mustard started an Appeal to the tribunal.
On 3 December he checked the PCN balance and the PCN has, at long last, been cancelled.

What a waste of time and money.

Barnet Council have had to pay a c.£30 case fee to the tribunal. They were always going to lose the case. Why didn't they cancel earlier? Because many people give up even when they are in the right.

Mr Mustard never gives up.

PCN cost increase - tell Barnet Council 'no thanks'

There is a consultation here on changing the values of PCNs for parking contraventions in Barnet from £60/£110 up to £80/£130. The council say that is because they want fewer people to contravene but Mr Mustard thinks it is a simple question of revenue raising.

Sorry there isn't much time but Mr Mustard has been working flat out on his day job for 6 months and this is the first day back in his Barnet office.

Mr Mustard obtained a paper copy of the questions as he likes to see them all before he starts to answer.

By train and in a wheelchair are omitted options. Mr Mustard's suggested answer to this is to tick all that apply, in his case all of them and write 'Train' in the other box.

A dangerous question. If you tick 'a lot' it might be assumed you get lots of PCNs so your response is discounted or if you tick 'rarely' your view is unimportant as you won't get many PCNs? Who can say. Mr Mustard decided to go for 'Often' although that seems rather like 'a lot of the time' to him. Rather vague measures. The number of journeys per week would have been a better idea. 

An easy one this. Just tell the truth. A comparison will be made between those who will be affected and those who won't.

 Mr Mustard would tick all that apply, he doesn't commute or do a school run.

Easy, you 'strongly disagree'. Who in their right mind would vote to be penalised more severely?

You disagree because £110 already takes someone on the minimum wage £8.21 an hour, more than a day to earn. Even the £60 PCN is most of a day's pay (7.3 hours). You disagree because PCNs don't work, Camden have always been at the higher Band A rate and they issue 50,000 more PCNs each year than in Barnet. You also disagree because the vast majority of people aren't trying to get a PCN, they have usually made an innocent error, misunderstood a sign or found themselves having paid to park the wrong car etc. 

You also disagree because Barnet Council don't do anything to help you understand the complex parking system and as you suspect they are just trying to raise more revenue which takes the pressure off the general fund.

Yes. Sign every single yellow line inside a CPZ so that motorists are told on the spot of the times as to when they can park rather than having to spot zone entry signs as they drive along. Make all signs simpler, get rid of complex multi-use bays if possible. Have traffic wardens observe on single and double yellows and in bays for 5 minutes before issuing a PCN rather than instantly issuing as is mostly the case now.

Give talks to drivers about lines and signs to help them avoid falling into error.

Conduct research as to why PCNs are issued. Did the driver 'take a chance' or make an innocent or unknowing error. Conduct research into the most frequently committed contraventions and devise ways of making them less likely to happen and inform the public of them.

Mr Mustard doesn't think this optional question #8 needs to be answered.

Your opinion carries more weight if you are answering on behalf of a group.

Mr Mustard skipped all questions after this one, about his personal characteristics.

Mr Mustard looked at the statistics for Barnet.  It is simplistic to consider that the level of the penalty and the number of PCNs being issued bear much relation to each other. The main factor is the number of traffic wardens on duty and the number of school keep clear sites under cctv. Barnet introduced cctv in May 16 and this caused a huge surge in the number of PCNs issued for stopping on the markings. Population growth in Barnet has been constant these last few years and that means more vehicles on the roads and thus more competition for parking spaces and more PCNs. The increasing use of external contractors for enforcement will be a factor in the number of PCNs issued. Budget pressures, not that any council will admit this, are a pressure on the parking department to keep ticket issuing high.

Let us look at other boroughs which are mentioned, as having success in reducing PCN numbers by increasing the cost of a PCN. There may be a short term effect but it won't last and besides, visitors to a borough don't choose it because it has Band B PCNs rather than Band A.

So here is Waltham Forest which has been all band A since April 13. 

We can see that numbers did drop but we are now nearly back where we started. The main result is that the council will be raking in loads more money, say 86,000 PCNs at an extra £10 each = £860,000

Next is Haringey.

This is really interesting. The PCN value increase was in October 13. The numbers of PCNs in 2013/14 was down on the previous year but then in 2014/15 it went up before falling markedly in 2015/16 since which it has risen in the following two years (2018/19 figures are not yet published by London Councils) and we will soon be back where we started. Haringey are probably gathering in another £1,400,000 each year.

Let's look at Camden which has always been Band A as they are a central London borough.

 

Despite being at the higher rate all along the number of PCNs has not dropped but remained more or less the same for the last 6 years. What this tells us is that higher level penalties don't stop contraventions from occurring. PCNs are a blunt instrument which do not work except in their unofficial guise of revenue raising. Camden take in c. £2,000,000 more each year because of the PCNs each being £20 higher than for band B (the majority will be paid at the 50% rate but also some at 150% so that's an extra £30, kerching).

Finally, Islington another central London borough who have always charged the higher band figures.

That is some rollercoaster ride in Islington. Mr Mustard doesn't know what the data proves, he does know it doesn't prove that higher PCN values = lower numbers of PCNs. There are other factors at play in Islington.

Please have your say and ask barnet not to put up PCN values but to become a pioneering borough that tries to genuinely reduce the numbers. Less of the stick, more education is needed. save the stick for those who don't want or refuse to learn.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Weasel words in private parking - UK CPM

Mr Mustard doesn't generally touch private parking charge notices but when the motorist concerned is a blue badge holder and beleaguered by other health problems he does what he can to help, in this case by writing the challenge and then the Appeal to the IAS who will reject it as a matter of routine.

The driver in question accidentally strayed off the public highway onto a property frontage. The parking attendant was there, on site. Permission was asked of the attendant to park, he granted it. The driver then left and the devious attendant noted down the necessary details and took photographs in order to send a Notice to Keeper. What a snake.

The words above are from the (scant) evidence sent by CPM to the IAS. Never has the use of the word 'unfortunately' been imbued with so little of its real meaning.

The next paragraph of the evidence discloses the raison d'etre behind private parking 'management'. there is no management at all. The only reason the parking attendant is there is to collect the evidence in order to issue parking charge notices. Only one snag, the sign on site:

The motorist was unsure so did seek further advice from CPM's representative and then parked with permission. Whilst the IAS will brush such an inconvenient fact aside, a district judge won't, they will weigh up the evidence and decide if they prefer that of the motorist or of the parking attendant. The sign will speak for itself.

Probably best to never trust a private parking attendant.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Harrow Council - also suffer from 'no but yes' syndrome

Station Parade, Canons Park

In the road in front of the shops which has a name, Station Parade, the two sides have different purposes for parking. The shop side is for people who pay to park. The opposite side is for residents with permits. Needless to say quite often people pay to park and are actually parked on the wrong side. Such was the fate of Ms J. She contacted Mr Mustard. He looked at the PCN and here is the relevant part.

Mr Mustard having worked out that the description of the PCN is wrong it is invalid for want of stating the contravention accurately. The car was not in Whitchurch Lane, that being the main road that the red car was on.

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge (the one in response to the PCN) on line in the name of Ms J. It was short & simple.

A copy of the payment receipt was also sent in, to show that it wasn't a question of a motorist seeking to avoid payment. Despite being factually true the challenge was rejected.

Note that Harrow Council dance round the actual challenge, that the road name is wrong. They decide it is actually the Whitchurch Lane service road. Paf. Harrow Council decided that the PCN had been correctly issued, but they were marking their own homework incorrectly. Note the implied threat that this is going to cost you if you fight on which puts the willies up many folk.

Mr Mustard advised Ms J to sit tight and await the Notice to Owner. It arrived and the identical challenge was made, again in the name of Ms J

All of a sudden the wind had shifted.

The PCN was not correctly given as if it had been it would have said the car was in Station Parade. Councils just have to try and save face but look even more idiotic in doing so. Accepting honest errors stands you in better stead.

So here we are again, the same as the blog post of yesterday, whereby a council, Harrow this time, have rejected a perfectly good challenge and then accepted the identical one made at the next stage of the process.

The first rejection thus looks like a cynical ploy to obtain payment which is not due. They know that most people either:

- can't face the 3 rounds of the fight (the tribunal would have followed in this case if a second rejection had arrived), or 

- are afraid of losing the discount, or 

- just want a quiet life, or

- don't really understand the system, or

- assume the council tell the truth,

and so pay up. Mr Mustard isn't most people.

The same advice is offered as in the last blog. If you are fairly sure of your position, stand your ground and fight to the end.

There should be some redress available, a financial penalty worth 50% of the PCN say, if councils reject challenges made in response to an on street PCN and then accept the same challenge in response to the Notice to Owner.

Anyone would think councils were strapped for cash and were trying to revenue raise from PCNs. Perish the thought.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard