Power mad councils

 

It really doesn't need saying that St. John Ambulance is a charity and performs a most useful service at charity and other mass market events. They are a common and comforting sight.

So if they have strayed into a bus lane in an ambulance (and the camera at this location is cynically & deliberately set to only capture the final 10m but craftily not show the end of the lane) just don't send them a PCN and if the computer does so just cancel it when challenged.

Luckily Waltham Forest Council lashed up their evidence which didn't surprise Mr Mustard who has beaten them at the tribunal 21 times out of 24.

They aren't the only miserable council in London. The following tribunal decision was about a Barnet Council PCN.

When an adjudicator says a council should not have fought an Appeal that is strong criticism.

The end.

Waltham Forest 56 day error #2

 

The above is the grounds of Appeal to the tribunal. The act of parking is irrelevant given the council's own unlawful behaviour.

 

Although written after the earlier post and labelled as error no. 2 this 56 day error occurred before the other one. It does show a pattern of not being legally compliant.

 

Needless to say Waltham Forest didn't want to argue about their dirty linen at the tribunal.

 

 

 

Note the complete lack of any sort of apology for trying to get a motorist to pay a PCN at a time when it was legally no longer due.

 

The 56 day rule only applies to responding to representations made in response to a Notice to Owner for a parking contravention (or a postal PCN for a parking contravention). It does not apply to moving traffic or bus lane PCNs.

The end.

Waltham Forest make the same error as Westminster

Readers with better memories than Mr Mustard will recall he recently wrote about a timing error made by the City of Westminster in their own favour, here.

It is a common error, Mr Mustard expects to write about it at least once again in the future, and today it is Waltham Forest Council in his sights. Let's go back to early May when Bobby (not his real name) received his Notice to Owner which was dated 1 May. Always prompt Bobby sent a copy to Mr Mustard who at that time was up to date so he made the formal representations on 4 May. Representations made by Mr Mustard follow a common layout with the signed authority to act embedded as an image, so it doesn't get forgotten.

Time passed, as it does, and Mr Mustard kept an eye on the balance on line and it was £80 on 10, 17, 23 and 31 May.

An email landed in Mr Mustard's inbox on 31 May with an attached letter. Here is the relevant part.

Mr Mustard decided to play for time, predicting a cock-up. He sent a whatsapp message to Bobby.

Not long later, another emailed letter landed in his inbox.

 Mr Mustard again updated his client.

Following that letter Mr Mustard expected that the Notice of Rejection would shortly arrive. It didn't. The balance did change to £40 on 11 June rather suggesting that the representations had been rejected and the 50% discount offered again, even though it doesn't need to be and many authorities are now playing hardball and not offering it, and it stayed at £40 on 16, 20 and 29 June and on 9 July. 

On 11 July Bobby sent a copy of the Notice of Rejection dated 8 July. Mr Mustard smiled, he knew the Notice was a procedural impropriety as it was unlawful. He started an Appeal to the independent tribunal on 19 July.

The Notice to Owner is defined as the Enforcement Notice. Strictly the PCN was still alive but there were no legal steps which could be taken to enforce it as it was over 6 months old.

Mr Mustard waited for the expected 'DNC' document (Do Not Contest) and on 5 August it reached the tribunal. The council sensibly threw in the towel rather than fight on and risk an application for costs for unreasonable behaviour. It was unreasonable but Mr Mustard had hardly incurred any costs in starting the Appeal and only qualifies as a lay person for £19 per hour when his time is far more valuable.

So this is the second enforcement authority in a month to have broken the law. Many processes within parking are automated with PCNs moving relentlessly forward through a series of steps. The one which should be automated to stop a council from breaking the law isn't automated. This is because most motorists wouldn't know, wouldn't dream even, that a council would break the law. The second is that it is assumed councils will be honest and follow the law, maybe that was the case decades ago when PCNs were decriminalised, not now they are a £multi million enterprise. The third is that there is no sanction from an outside supervisory body for the simple reason that there isn't an all powerful overseer.

Mr Mustard will have to fulfil part of that role.

The end, for now.

At cross purposes

Mr Mustard thinks the East of England Ambulance Service had good cause to be cross. Luckily for them the Adjudicator cut through the nonsense that had been written to them. This bus lane rakes in £1,000,000 a year as what the cctv doesn't show is that the bus lane ends about a centimetre after what the camera shows and it doesn't show the upcoming roundabout where lots of people want to turn left and slightly cut the corner of the bus lane, an entirely innocent and safe action without gaining an advantage in so doing.

Lovely to see a representative who has read bus lane law especially as it is different in London than in the east of England.

Bus Lane Act means the Act mentioned in the line above.

Waltham Forest Council were simply telling porkie pies when they said the vehicle must be attending an emergency and Mr Mustard has never heard of form 4728 because its existence is not within the legislation. The Act is clear, it says this:

So why do Waltham Forest council claim otherwise, many ambulance services would give up and pay if the council says no as they are rushed off their feet and have better things to spend their time on.

It couldn't be the desperation for revenue could it?

If you have a PCN in this bus lane, or any other in London, do email mrmustard@zoho.com as another expert has found a (so far) killer argument.

End.

PCNs - exercise of discretion - #31 Waltham Forest

 

London Borough of Waltham Forest PCN Cancellation Procedure by MisterMustard on Scribd

Whilst there are 56 pages of blurb the vast majority are stating when there wasn't a contravention. There are some nuggets though.

Page 8 sets out some common sense consideration which should be applied. Grace periods are quoted but Mr Mustard doesn't know if they are adhered to or not.

The mitigation policy is mostly set out on page 11.

Page 12 tells us that you can load or unload from the pavement. Mr Mustard doesn't recommend that except when there is absolutely no alternative. Someone must stay with the vehicle to explain about loading to any passing traffic warden.

Page 19 tells us that you can park for free for 15 minutes in pay bays all over the borough. He checked a sample location and yes, the sign does tell you this.

This lets you drop off your dry cleaning or pick up a parcel etc. Very decent of the council. Still better for you to walk though if you live within a mile of your local shops.

Interestingly, Waltham Forest don't enforce parking across private driveways, see page 26.

The notes about multiple PCNs on page 35 have forgotten to say that if a restriction is in force 24 hours a day that there is only one continuous contravention and so only one PCN is legally valid.

If you contact the council when you are at the charge certificate stage (page 41) when 150% of PCN value is payable, they will accept 50% if you ask. Who said it isn't all about the money? Will they also consider out of time representations?

On the same page it is pleasing to see the council is open to complaints about process, other councils try to deny that this should be allowed, when of course it should as the role of the tribunal is limited by legislation and does not include complaints.

On the next page the paragraph about addresses looks wrong. You can ask the council to write to you at any other address for your convenience.

The note at 15 on page 42 tells us that the council themselves did not write this policy, which leads to the assumption that NSL wrote it. It also makes Mr Mustard wonder what else NSL do that the council really should do, such as the consideration of formal representations.

The end.

Waltham Forest - where they make up contraventions

Please watch this cctv clip and the car that turns left.

Could you see a contravention taking place? The motorist, Mr Y, didn't think so and was somewhat surprised to receive a PCN. One has to wonder if a person actually looked at the footage or if they simply clicked yes to every possible contravention clip that the computer selected.

Mr Y sent in very measured representations:

Dear Council,

I am challenging the PCN as there was no contravention of the regulations governing box junctions.

As I turned left onto Queens Rd (from Markhouse Road), my back wheels got stuck in the YBJ for a few seconds due to me giving way to initially pedestrians crossing the road that (I could not see before I took the left around the corner) and then an oncoming car that had slightly veered into my side of the road.

So I had to wait and then move.

Please kindly cancel the PCN.

Shockingly, or not depending on how many terrible rejections you have read, the council rejected the representations. They went on for three pages much of which was irrelevant boilerplate to cover all eventualities. At this point Mr Mustard took over and wrote the Grounds of Appeal to the tribunal, the place where a legally qualified and independent lawyer properly applies the law without fear or favour or any financial interest in the outcome.

Mr Mustard expects you have guessed what happened next. Waltham Forest Council decided (wisely) not to contest the Appeal at the independent tribunal but to cancel the PCN instead.

The worrying aspects of this case are:

1 - the fact that a PCN got issued in the first place.

2 - the fact that perfect representations were rejected

3 - the fact that 90% of the public would have paid up in ignorance of their rights and assumed the council must know what they are on about (they may do but choose instead to try to baffle you with bull$hit) or they may employ people who don't know what they are doing as there isn't any remedy against any council getting things totally wrong.

4 - It appears that Waltham Forest Council expect you to mow down pedestrians rather than stop safely (as advised in the Highway Code at a junction).

If in doubt, get expert help, for free. Mr Y found his on PePiPoo. Odd name but a great site for good free help.

The end.

The London Borough of Wallet Foragers

 

Mr Mustard's wandering eye sometimes leaves Barnet when he is reading the register of the independent adjudicators who consider PCNs about parking, bus lanes etc. If he sees multiple cancelled PCNs for one person, he will take a quick look at the decision. The case of Kayley Clarke was one such case. Here is the reasoning for three cancelled PCNs.

Mr Mustard noticed the remark about the sign so he went to google street view to see if, by chance, the camera car had been down there recently, the PCNs having been issued on 16, 17 & 18 March 21. Mr Mustard was in luck, the google image was from December 2020 and the single sign for the 4 car length bay was like this:

Now you are completely gob-smacked. A PCN has to contain the following 

'the grounds on which a civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable' 

(emphasis added by Mr Mustard)

There is absolutely no basis for such a belief when there is only one sign from which absolutely nothing can be gleaned.

That was objectionable, unreasonable, predatory behaviour by the traffic warden who probably also ticketed three other cars if the bay was full, as it usually is looking back in time on google. 

Worse still, given the location in question, Snowberry Close E15 is a cul de sac not on the way to anywhere, the CEO may have deliberately come back to target this bay and issued all three PCNs when the car probably hadn't moved and that would only have given rise to one contravention.

The back office must have received at least one representation (possibly two, informal and formal) the one against the Notice to Owner and someone, who must have x-ray vision, rejected the representation and Mr Mustard would love to read whatever cooked up excuse they dribbled out to refuse a cancellation. They doubtless offered the discount again so the innocent Kayley could pay a mere £195 for doing nothing wrong. Instead they had to risk £390 at the tribunal. Mr Mustard hopes they think to ask for costs for wholly unreasonable, if not vexatious, behaviour on the part of Waltham Forest council.

If you know Kayley Clarke do please ask her to email mrmustard@zoho.com as Mr Mustard would love to see the correspondence.

The council seem to have forgotten their duty, so they are even further in the wrong, hard though that is in this case.

Given that the sign was defaced for at least three months the council are failing motorists.

Many people think that traffic wardens have targets (which they don't but don't go back to the depot after an 8 hour shift not having issued a single PCN if you want to keep your job) but you do have to wonder what the imperative is to issue needless wrongful PCNs. There can only be one answer.

It's all about the money.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

A $chunting we will go

Yesterday, Mr  Mustard went $chunting and thought he should write about the experience. This children's rhyme came to mind.

A hunting we will go, a hunting we will go
Heigh ho, the dairy-o, a hunting we will go
A hunting we will go, a hunting we will go
We'll catch a fox and put him in a box
And then we'll let him go

$chunting, for those who don't know, is a contraction of $camera car hunting. It is very civilised and does not end up with the CEO driving the car being ripped to pieces by anyone although Mr Mustard was a little surprised by the number of passing motorists who aimed invective at the CEO who was quietly sat in his car.

The day dawned and Mr Mustard opened the curtains. Drat, he thought, it is wet and the new rear tyre on the yellow Aprilia will call for some cautious riding (motorcycle tyres are slippery when new and need 100 miles of scrubbing, preferably on a dry road). Mr Mustard was due at the secret rendez-vous at 9.30 but there aren't many yellow Aprilias about and even less pairs of white boots so he does stand out. Bald Eagle was the main man and although Mr Mustard was characteristically early Bald Eagle was late. Oh well, at least Bethnal Green Dude (should be Bloke but there was a misprint on his NoToMob jacket and BGB became BGD so he has been re-christened) was there early and bought the teas (thanks BGD). Bald Eagle turned up late (not unusual apparently, but he is allowed one bite so Mr Mustard isn't complaining) and so more tea was required. This $chunting lark looked easy so far. Bald Eagle's early morning had gone all wrong, he made the mistake of looking at his computer and they suck time out of you like a dementer out of Harry Potter and then his Cargo Net broke (not his hair net, the clue is in his name) and he had to turf everything out of the shed to find the spare.

So all tea'd up the 3 of us set off to the $camera car pen, in reality a deadly dull industrial estate. We sat around and waited for a $camera car to move which it did after a few false starts. We followed the car at a safe distance to its first honeypot which was the no left turn at Tufton Rd which probably exists to stop people cutting out the traffic lights. To monitor this no left turn the camera car made to stop on the right and realised he would have to park on a single yellow line and thought better of it with 3 motorcycles in high-viz jackets behind him as a photo of his bad parking would have appeared in a public place. So he moved off, went right and then did a u-turn on the front of a multi-storey car park which is probably what everybody does thus making the no-left turn a waste of time. We followed.

This is where we ended up. Waverley Avenue, E4.

Note the bad angle of the right hand no entry sign which is illuminated but the left hand one isn't. If you were coming from the right as you look at the road you could easily miss the first sign. Nor are there warning signs showing no left turn / no right turn as you approach from the left or right. Apparently this no entry sign is often ignored in the rush hour but it was Saturday morning so very calm at times although heavily backed up at others. The $camera car parked bang opposite the junction (there are no parking restrictions there) and the driver settled back in his seat with nothing to do except wait for lunch. 

We NoToMobbers (Mr Mustard has always been a supporter but is now a member) then held up signs warning people of the $camera car. Many motorists thought we were highlighting a speed trap (that would be illegal and we don't do it) and crawled past and others wound down their windows to ask for more information which was given and many toots of the horn, thumbs ups and smiles came our way. Some drivers hurled abuse at the driver, sat in this parked car, which is not deserved and NoToMobbers do not do that either, they talk politely to traffic wardens when the opportunity arises and if allowed. On this occasion the driver didn't even glance at us.

So we spent about 3 hours there and not a single car did so much as put an indicator on to suggest that they would commit a moving traffic offence. The sun came out and all was right with the world. The $camera car didn't make a bean. Local residents who stopped to chat said that the car is often at the no left turn we had come by earlier and that it was a waste of time to monitor this no-entry junction at this time.

It got to about 1.30 and we thought it must be time for the traffic warden to go back to the pen for his lunch so we make sure we all had our gloves and helmets on. Sure enough the Toyota IQ, for that is the nice little car that has the camera on a stalk through the roof, suddenly departed.

Now here is the part that shocked Mr Mustard about the $camera car. It was parked for the entire time with its engine running. Now it is only a small engine, 1000c.c., but even so, it apparently has to sit there with its engine running to power the camera and recording equipment. This is an ecological scandal and the council, are responsible for air quality. Here is their web page on the council website. Scroll down to the suggestions and what does it say

Don’t leave your engine running when you are parked.

except that Waltham Forest Council forget to add, except we will in order to make money out of motorists, and

We prefer pounds over pollution.

Waltham Forest Council, you are diabolical hypocrites and need to take all of your $camera cars off the road until you can use them without the engine running 24/7.

By this time CoCo had joined us (no he isn't a clown as if he was the wheels would probably fall off his motorcycle and that wouldn't do) and so the four of us followed the $camera car expecting it to go back to the depot. Instead he suddenly pulled up on a single yellow line (Mon - Sat 8am - 6.30pm) opposite the exit to no left turn hoping to bag at least one victim for his work. He thought we wouldn't be able to stop and observe except that we used the front of the multi-storey car park to stop on and one of us went round the block to the exit of the road the $camera car was monitoring. Mr Mustard took a photograph.

Hall Lane E4

So having parked on an in-force single yellow line and forced all of the traffic out to the middle of the road the traffic warden thought better of it after a couple of minutes, did a u-turn (very good turning circle on the IQ) and ambled back to base with us following.

It was time for tea again and a toasted cheese sandwich after a hard morning's work doing what it is that many local authorities profess to want which is 100% compliance with all parking restrictions and rules of the road. 

NoToMob people help maintain the law and slow down councils insatiable appetite for cash from parking. You can join them. You don't have to have a motorcycle although it helps. You can do this on foot or on a bicycle in the West End as you can't get a PCN and you could operate solely at the spots which are local to you. Find out all about it on the NoToMob website.

Mr Mustard, proud to be a NotToMobber.

Nearly forgot, here is one of this council's $camera cars showing us all how not to do it. Whoops.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard