Throwing a brick through your own window

Mr Mustard always looks closely at council v council PCN tribunal cases and doubly so if it is the same council taking itself to adjudication. One adjudicator takes the view that a council can't penalise itself and refuses to hear an Appeal.

In this case the council took itself to adjudication and then declined to continue.

Mr Mustard did a little digging and found this to be the location. A clear sign but which is little known, it means 'no vehicles' (as it helpfully says) so no cycles as well as no motor vehicles.

Brick Lane

Mr Mustard then took a cheeky look to see if there were any other live PCNs and found five for this vehicle which are all now settled.

The most shocking PCN is the first one, Tower Hamlets Council sent the debt for a Tower Hamlets Council PCN to a bailiff instructed by Tower Hamlets Council and then, given that the balance shows as negative £130 (it was probably £zero) the PCN was paid. Whether they paid the extra £75 for the first bailiff letter as well as £235 for a bailiff visit and whether or not a council vehicle was clamped isn't clear.

What a weird world we live in. Common sense is clearly out of stock in Tower Hamlets. 

The end.

Six of the best for a teacher

 

Another random tribunal decision which Mr Mustard came across.

 

The whole point of 'school streets' is to prevent through traffic not to penalise people with good cause to visit the location. There was no traffic management purpose to these PCNs, they are just revenue raisers.

Mr Mustard doesn't think that a council treating its employees in this way is the best way to retain existing talent or to attract other teachers to Tower Hamlets to fill its vacancies.

Trying to cane a teacher for £960 was clearly unreasonable. (There is no guarantee that another adjudicator would take the same decision, tribunal decisions are not precedents but may be legally persuasive although the facts each time may well differ. You can ask another adjudicator to follow this decision).

The end.

Tower Hamlets Council act with whopping unreasonableness

Mr Mustard peruses the list of traffic adjudicator decisions most days. He mainly reads Barnet cases but sometimes there is something elsewhere which is worthy of a read. This list of cases for one company was such a thing.

Here we have 12 PCNs with a total payable of £1,560 should Fox finish up with 12 refusals.

The PCNs were all for driving where you shouldn't, through a newish bus gate in Wapping High St.

 

  

Mr Mustard's eyes were popping once he read the decision. Here it is, absolutely shocking.

The local authority placed marshalls at the site, waved the bus through and then sent a dozen PCNs by post, for contraventions in which they were complicit.

It is hard to adequately express the monstrous duplicity of Tower Hamlets in this situation, trying to extract £1,560 from a company whose driver did exactly as he was told.

Where is the common sense, this bus was actually acting for the council and why haven't they exempted such transport from the prohibition, as they will have done for their refuse lorries?

Costs are rarely awarded and only for wholly unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous behaviour. Tower Hamlets haven't been frivolous but they ought to be paying costs for the time and trouble to which Fox Transport have been put.

Feel free to add your own comments in the box below.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Southwark Council accuse Tower Hamlets of moneymaking

Moneymaking, perish the thought.

Mr Mustard is not absolutely sure where the alleged contravention took place but think it is here. The photos are from September 17 when the supposed contravention occurred.

Sign well before the junction but not one at the junction which would be more useful.

The sign on the next pole, why is the approaching motorist being told about humps if he can't turn down there?

Finally the junction itself.

A right mess. Road closed signs but also a single dotted line which you are therefore invited to cross, 20 painted on the left hand carriageway as you enter, a single no entry sign you can barely see & barriers which don't close off the carriageway.

This is the decision of the adjudicator (spelling errors included)

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle performed a prohibited turn in when it worth street on 27 September 2017. A penalty charge notice was issued 1403.　

The Appellant states that there were a lot of roadworks in the area and the temporary sign had been erected which was "not visible due to the blindspot in my car, obscuring the sign". He states that the road markings has not been changed; that the signage was confusing and that the CCTV was "not unauthorised device" and that it was simply a "moneymaking exercise."
　
The Council rely upon their CCTV footage. This shows the Appellant's vehicle turning left at the junction immediately adjacent to a no left turn sign, beneath which is a camera enforcement sign. The Council has also submitted a location image of the sign.
　
I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the signage was adequate to convey the restriction. I am not persuaded that any of the Appellant's arguments amount to a successful defence to the contravention. Certification of the camera device is not required for this contravention.

While the Appellant may have made a genuine error, this is mitigation only and I am unable, as the Adjudicator, to cancel penalties on the basis mitigation. As I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and the penalty charge notice was lawfully issued, I must refuse the appeal.

There aren't, of course, any moneymaking cctv traffic cameras in Southwark, oh no, all installed for good traffic management reasons, the £millions earnt from them just being an unhappy side effect that the council wring their hands with dismay about.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard