Barnet Council - your number's up

 

Older readers will get the reference to 'come in number x'

This was an odd case although Mr Mustard has now seen a second instance of it in a different borough.

For starters the PCN was for the wrong contravention, it was for code 01 but should have been for code 02 as loading was also banned.

The motorist, Mr D, sent Mr Mustard a copy of the PCN placed on his car windscreen which ended with the numbers 6618. That could not be found on the council computer and so Mr Mustard just kept an eye out to see what would happen next.

A month later Mr D received a Notice to Owner bearing a number ending 6607 for the same set of facts (date, vehicle, location etc).

What you need to know now is that PCNs are issued in sequential series by individual traffic wardens and that the last digit of a PCN is a check digit so the PCNs in this case were 660-7 and 661-8 and thus they had been consecutively issued at the same time.

What had therefore happened was that the traffic warden had decided something was wrong with 660-7 and issued a fresh PCN 661-8 intended to cancel 660-7 but accidentally cancelled 661-8 (or the computer took over and did it).

It was therefore an easy win as 661-8 was never served and Mr Mustard had proof that 660-7 was served.

Mr Mustard made out three arguments in his formal representations to the council.

1    Finchley Road as a description of the location is too vague (the keeper and driver may be different).

2    Loading is banned so the alleged contravention is incorrect.

3    The PCN was not served.

The Notice of Rejection didn't tackle points 1 and 2 and said that the PCN was either placed on the windscreen or given to the driver. It also waffled on about CPZ entry signage which was irrelevant as there was a local sign.

Thus it was an easy decision to start an Appeal at London Tribunals at which time a fourth Ground of Appeal was added which was the Notice of Rejection dated 14 August offered a 50% discount for 14 days from service and 2 days earlier it had already been removed. A council must be as good as their word.

There was no need for a hearing. Faced with an opponent with 4 straight arrows in his quiver the council cancelled the PCN.

The end. 

Permit me to explain - not broken / broken

 

This is a story about a PCN and demonstrates the power of persistence.

The motorist made an informal challenge, a perfectly reasonable one. People who are regular users of visitor vouchers should be given the benefit of the doubt when things go wrong, not hammered for a penalty.

Here follows the informal rejection

The response ignores the fact that if the problem is with the council's system the payment system might also not be functioning correctly. Councils also take no responsibility if the system they force you to use, no matter how cumbersome or ineffective, is faulty it is you who has to do something to get around the problem.

The Notice to Owner duly arrived and this time Mr Mustard made the representations. They were short and to the point and completely different.

This time, the PCN was cancelled but not for the reason Mr Mustard put forward, even though he had hit the bullseye, but because the previous challenge had been revisited and Hackney Council did a reverse ferret.

Suddenly a permit system outage, on 17 July 24, had been found. Now why wasn't that noticed when the first challenge was made. Was it because apathy rules and most people don't stick at the fight and give up after one rebuff, Mr Mustard has to be knocked back twice and then he goes off to the tribunal for an independent decision.

Hackney Council probably didn't want to admit that all the code 12 PCNs they give out, when signs are like this one and don't say 'residents' are liable to be beaten.

Off you go then and fight yours.

Don't give up, you have to persist to win.

The end.