Mind the gap

 

Residents get very precious about 'their' dropped kerb even if they don't have a car, aren't expecting any visitors or planning to go out. They call the council, Barnet in this case, and say they want enforcement and a Civil Enforcement Officer ('traffic warden') duly trots, cycles or scoots round. Inevitably they issue a PCN to appease the resident even if no contravention has occurred.

So it was on 31 March 2026 in Kingsmead, a location Mr Mustard had never heard of even though it is near High Barnet tube and Mr Mustard has lived in New or High Barnet since 1993.

This is what the traffic warden found:

That looks bad but there should always be a photo taken at 90 degrees to the drop so we can be sure as to the position.

The car must be clear of a line drawn across the road from the weed you can see, that is where the taper kerb, which slopes down to meet the carriageway, ends and only if you pass that point are you in contravention.

It would be courteous to leave a larger gap but that isn't a contravention plus the road is wide and quiet, being a cul-de-sac so not dangerous to join. The CEO should not have issued a PCN to this car. If they didn't meekly issue PCNs every time, residents might phone less often.

Miss T made her own informal challenge. It was rejected. She had read Mr Mustard's earlier blog on the subject. Mr Mustard reviewed the rejection, which included this:

Mr Mustard didn't like it. It isn't any (as in all) footway that can be enforced, only in 3 circumstances: vehicle access, for pedestrians to cross the road or access to a cycle lane.

The writer was hallucinating, there is no tactile paving (aka dimpled paving) in the council's photos nor would there be as this is access to a private drive not a place where the blind are advised to cross the carriageway.

Sympathy, my foot.

Mr Mustard occasionally bothers a parking manager with his viewpoint on low standards of work and this was one such case. He pointed out the lack of a contravention and that the back office were just churning out made up rejections.  Three days later Miss T received another letter:

Amazing how, with a dollop of added mustard, the situation can change so quickly.

If you are being badly treated, in addition to following the process and challenging everything at the correct time, start making complaints.

The end. 

 

 

 

Blind to the facts

It is usually a good idea to stay off the pavement, especially a nice newly laid one, even if you know the council don't enforce at this location. The PCN in this case, was for partially dropping the driveway entrance, being 'adjacent to a footway lowered to meet the level of the carriageway' in parking legal speak. The thing is, the driver had permission to be there so should not have been given a PCN.

This is the informal challenge (the first challenge of a possible three, the one made in response to a PCN placed on the car) which was sent in to Barnet Council.

Amazing how the council, via their agents NSL, can send back a response which deals with points not made and omits the ones which were made.

What does Mr Mustard have to say about this response?

• They haven't carefully considered anything.
• Here is the relevant part of the 2003 Act which the council rely on:

• The council have ignored the request for proof that enforcement was requested by the householder - as they don't have it?
• The Act does not include any (as in all) dropped footways, only certain ones.
• Rule 243 does not say what the council says it does, it is specific to wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Rule 243 is also only guidance not the law.
• The motorist did not say they 'were unaware parking in this manner was not permitted' - someone is too fond of cut-and-paste.
• There is no tactile paving at the location - an error of fact renders unsafe the decision to reject the informal challenge.
• The dropped kerb is for vehicular access, not a safe crossing point, as this is what is opposite the driveway

It is the council (NSL?) who are blind to logic, reason and the facts. Anyone would think they rejected informal challenges in the hope that the innocent motorist will give in and pay up as many do but not if Mr Mustard is fighting your corner you won't.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

In their first contact with Mr Mustard the motorist said they were going to pay the PCN, they had a conspiracy theory that the council was after them, not so, they are after everyone equally as their budget hole is enormous.

Having done one of his periodical PCN checks Mr Mustard has found that this one has now been cancelled. A wise move Barnet Council.