Lack of diplomacy in Westminster

 

One of the benefits of over a decade of PCN fighting experience is that experts get to know arcane information. Mr Mustard knows than an enforcement authority, such as the City of Westminster, has the legal right to suspend parking bays but only for the reasons they write in their traffic orders. Common reasons include people moving home, filming, street events, scaffolding & building works, crane works and the like. Mr Mustard couldn't recall having read an Order which allowed for parking to be suspended so that diplomats could park (presumably somewhere different to usual). It isn't really necessary as they often don't pay their PCNs in any event so they may as well just have been left to park as best they could.

Mr Mustard decided that Miss W wasn't going to be paying the PCN she was given at twenty past midnight, a time when the 9 diplomats were not likely to be in the office in any event. Miss W had been to watch a film, ironically called Predator : Badlands which turned out to be set in Westminster

 

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge on 11 November which was as follows:

The rejection of the informal challenge was issued 8 days later and completely failed to deal with the only argument that had been made:

This is a typical method of trying to fool the public. Write a load of stuff which is true but irrelevant, sophistry in action but not sophisticated and it gets nowhere with Mr Mustard. In fact it helps him as the legal duty on the authority is to consider the representations which were made not ones which were not made.

Mr Mustard asked Miss W to trust him and to send him the Notice to Owner once received. She did so after it was issued on 6 January. On 9 January Mr Mustard made the formal representation.  All Mr Mustard had to do was change the heading from 'Informal challenge' to 'Formal Representations' and change the date at the bottom, the content of the representation was identical.

The rejection was slightly different and went on for longer but it still dodged the only argument that had been raised:

 

Mr Mustard and Miss W swapped some messages:

Mr M:  Had a few minutes gap at work so read the letter. Westminster have not answered the only point I made which is that they have not given themselves the right to suspend a space for diplomats so I would hope to win at the tribunal but can't guarantee it. If I lose the 50% discount goes but I think as a principle we should fight. I do all the tribunal paperwork.

Miss W: Ah okay hmm if you think it’s worth a shot let’s go for it. Have you come across a case like this before do they normally get thrown out?

Mr M:  This is a first but that may be because not many people fight back like I do. I often create new Appeals that are revolutionary and then followed by other experts and vice versa

Miss W: Thanks. I’m open to fighting it, but realistically what do you think the chances are? I just want to weigh that against losing the discount.

Mr M: Chances are 90% win.

So off we went to the tribunal on 12 February 2026. This PCN had moved pretty rapidly through the process.

Grounds of Appeal: The Notice of Rejection contains nothing in response to the argument that the council had no legal right to issue the PCN. That is a procedural impropriety.

There is currently a delay in obtaining a hearing at London Tribunals which is being worked on but Mr Mustard doesn't mind, it gives motorists time to save up in case they might lose. The hearing date set was 10 August 2026.

Miss W had a good attitude: Thanks, I’ve never seen this process before so quite interesting to see it unfold. Appreciate it!

Mr Mustard missed it at the time, as he has 50 tribunal Appeals running concurrently but on 10 June the City of Westminster decided to throw in the towel.

The Council no longer wish to contest this appeal and the PCN has been cancelled.

Mr Mustard surmised that they didn't want a tribunal decision against them on this point as although it isn't a precedent it would make their position precarious for future cases and that they will carry on suspending bays for this reason and issuing PCNs unlawfully.

There was no traffic management purpose to this PCN it was a pure revenue raising tool. Justice has been served. Westminster lost £32 on this (the approximate tribunal fee).

The end.

Not a sign of the times

It was only in August that the Secretary of State for Transport approved a suspnded bay sign for Barnet Council. Before that they didn't have one and so every parking ticket for a suspended bay or space could be contested. Now they do have one but it doesn't look like the one above which was erected on Saturday.

Firstly that is insufficient notice. If you had gone away for a long weekend you could have been ticketed before you got back. 5 days is seen as the bare minimum for suspension except in an emergency.

This is what the sign should look like.

There is no mention in the authorisation that gaffer tape is an acceptable material.

The sign should be in 3 parts so that once folded and mounted it can be seen from both sides of the suspended section. It should really contain details of exactly what section of road is suspended (this cannot be done by the use of cones as in this instance as they tend to "walk" along the road) and there shouldn't be an advert for the surfacing contractor on the sign although there should be a telephone number to call in case of query. The sign in this case is within a residents' bay that holds a dozen cars. How much is suspended? probably only about a 5m section but you could argue it is the whole bay. We'll see what traffic wardens make of it and then NSL will get yet more representations to deal with from Mr Mustard which they will doubtless reject. No wonder Appeals to PATAS have risen so much.

The parking contractor should not be left to erect their own signs as appears to be the case here as the result of any slackness on their part is a PCN for an unsuspecting motorist.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Suspended bays - suspend your payment

courtesy of Nutsville - motorcyclists who are not at all nutty

Mr Mustard expects you remember the article in the Evening Standard about councils in London using signs with which to indicate bay suspensions that were not of an approved design. Barnet Council were one of the culprits. Has that stopped them from issuing parking tickets and raking in the lolly? you bet it hasn't.

People who challenge their tickets find that they get a fairer hearing in front of the independent adjudicators at PATAS. Here is what the adjudicator had to say in a case from last month:

The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not attend nor was it represented.

The bay was suspended outside 75 to 79 Cxxxxxxx Road. The Appellant said that the vehicle was outside no. 81. The Authority's evidence did not rebut this assertion. There was really no excuse as to why a photograph cold not have been taken of the profile of the whole of the vehicle against the frontages of the properties.

The Appellant had also made a challenge to the adequacy of the signage in terms of when it went up. The Authority's assertion that motorists must check every day. Not only is this a little harsh, the PCN was issued at 7:30. If the sign went up the night before after the vehicle was parked, the PCN is unlikely to be upheld.

I am allowing the appeal.

Here is another case from yesterday which led to that parking ticket also being cancelled:

The Appellant argues that the suspension sign is non compliant as it is not a traffic sign as defined in the relevant legislation. This point was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Campbell v Camden case no. 2090523567. The Traffic Management Order in that case is with respect to the power to suspend is in similar terms, in particular with the requirement for there to be a traffic sign. The Enforcement Authority have not said that their suspension sign has special authorisation from the DoT and they do not address the argument as to whether it complies with any of the signs in the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 ( see e.g. fig.s 636 or 640). Having considered the Campbell case and in the absence of any contrary arguments from the Enforcement Authority, I will follow that case.....

In following the Campbell case, I rule that the signage was non compliant as the suspension sign used is not prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002 and no special authorisation has been obtained. Accordingly, the suspension cannot be enforced.

Given that Barnet Council & NSL should both know the law on traffic signs one wonders why they have been refusing challenges based upon inadequate signage. It can't be that they simply want money from you, could it? Presumably they have now somewhat belatedly applied for a newly designed sign to be approved but if you have a parking ticket that pre-dates mid February you can get it cancelled. Quote the Campbell case above. If you have paid for such a parking ticket since the Campbell case in January 2010 why not write in to Barnet Council, not NSL, and ask for your money back or email here.

When Barnet Council reject any appeal that you have made don't just take their word for it. Barnet Council have a vested interest in rejecting your appeal. Go away and research your circumstances on the internet and send in an informal appeal after you first get the parking ticket, again once you receive the Notice to owner and finally after a Notice of Rejection you can appeal to PATAS where you get an independent consideration of your case.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard