Spaced out at Dart Charge

 

Mr Mustard's friend Bella has a personal numberplate, which she inherited and decided to keep and use.

A couple of years ago she received a PCN from Dart Charge for not paying to cross. As she has had an auto pay account for years that was a bit miffing. She phoned Dart Charge at the time, they were polite and helpful, which to be fair they usually are, and they squashed the wrong charge and put her registration on a (long) list of vehicles which have to be personally checked.

Oh dear, it went wrong again last week. Bella duly phoned up Dart Charge, keeping Mr Mustard in reserve in case the big guns were needed, and the unhelpful man at Dart Charge tried to blame her for having a space in the numberplate as that caused problems for their cameras. Everyone knows that ANPR cameras have their faults but with the supposed personal check as well the PCN should not have been generated.

The plate was properly spaced, it was fitted by the garage, a main dealer, to her new car when she purchased it and much like 110 TON above, an image taken from a police advert about how the spacing should look (it is defined to the millimetre in BS AU145e) Bella's two numeric three alpha plate has the correct spacing between the two sets of data and that is how the plate will remain. Let's see how long it is before the next blunder, hopefully never.

Even though you know the PCN is wrong you must deal with it or legally you become guilty by default. A terrible system.

If you do receive a Dart Charge PCN because you had never heard of the Dartford Crossing you will often find that if you phone them up (0300 300 0120) the helpful people there (as long as you don't get Mr Spaced Out) will let you pay the £2.50 (or whatever) crossing fee and cancel the first PCN. That is decent of Dart Charge as the aim is improved compliance not revenue rising after all.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Pedestrian and cycle zone in Cannon Road N14

 

Mr Mustard may owe you an apology. He has been thinking of the 'flying motorbike' sign as a past this point sign as that is how it has been used by some local authorities in order to create a part time no entry sign as the well known red sign cannot have a time plate. It is definitely used to create a zone though when paired with the heading 'Pedestrian and cycle zone'.

The recommended sign (which became sign number 619) back in 1963 was like this:

The no entry sign was in red, it has been scanned in monochrome.

The idea to use a bar across the sign did not survive further consideration.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions were first published in 1964 and then updated in 1975, 1981 & 1994. One would think that every driver should know the 'flying motorbike' sign by now but the simple fact is that they don't.

In the 1994 version there is a sign for the end of a pedestrian zone

which is a greyed out version of the sign (and you thought a computer company came up with that idea?).

Here is a clearer view of the sign at the entrance to Cannon Road and of the exit, it being a cul-de-sac.

Now, here is a question. Clearly you can't enter the road at, say, 9am in the week (except when the signs are closed outside term times) but can you enter at midnight and then exit at 9am without incurring a penalty. The answer is that you will receive a penalty charge notice in the post (Mr Mustard is aware of one being issued) as you shouldn't be driving within a pedestrian and cycle zone during the operational hours (this makes sense if you think instead of a shopping street) and you get caught by the camera which is trained only on the entrance/exit and no-one would be driving up and down a road that is only a 100m long so no point in monitoring that.

Mr Mustard has sent for a copy of the traffic management order to see exactly what it says but as there are a number of these in Enfield in particular and as Mr Mustard's first thought was that you could go in outside the restricted hours and leave within them without penalty based upon the use of the flying motorbike sign alone to create a past this point restriction. As that thought was wrong and as Mr Mustard doesn't want you to get a PCN, he decided to share his thoughts with you.

It was the greyed out sign which made Mr Mustard think a bit harder.

Using your car on the road is just getting too complicated.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Charging ahead

 

Mr Mustard sees quite a few Charge Certificates but not normally if over two years ago Barnet Council wrote to him to cancel the PCN. That is a bit odd and very worring for the recipient.

Mr Mustard tried a PCN enquiry to check the status which returned this answer which means either a typing error was made (Mr Mustard didn't) or the PCN is over.

Finally he tried to pay the PCN as if the PCN was cancelled you do get told in that screen. Mr Mustard thinks you should be given that information if you do an enquiry in order to avoid uncertainty and as the council keep the data on file for years, they just hide if from you, the person who the data is about.

So what has happened? A gargantuan cockup that's for sure although what and how Mr Mustard can't work out as this PCN shouldn't be able to have a Charge Certificate printed when we know the balance is zero. The balance within the PCN software though is probably calculated by taking the full PCN balance and subtracting any discount that is due and any payments made and then adding any charge certificate uplift or court registration fees. There should be a flag that says if the PCN is completed or not and somehow somewhere it has gone wrong.

It can't be the case that only one PCN has gone wrong which happens to be for a person represented by Mr Mustard as he only touches about 0.01% of the PCNs issued in a year.

Mr Mustard will find out.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Here is the council's explanation. Management are to be commended to almost always responding to Mr Mustard's enquiries within 24 hours.

I have looked into this PCN and can advise that it is closed and no enforcement action had been taken on these cases since 20/12/2018, when a Notice of Acceptance had been issued . It was noted that an action was undertaken on the 06/07/2021 to clear up our case records, which inadvertently re opened the case and issued a Charge Certificate and would like to apologise for this. I can confirm that this notice was immediately cancelled and should not have been posted. This has been raised with the relevant supervisor to look into as a matter of priority.

I noted that you had asked how many incorrect documents have been issued and what has been done about them in the way of sending follow up letters telling the recipients that the erroneous document should be ignored as it has been reversed. This matter is currently being looked into and a letter should be sent to any identified customers that had been affected by this matter, to advise that no action should be taken and that their penalty is closed.

I hope that this information has been of help to you and would like to reassure you that no further action is being taken regarding this penalty.

Ingrate!

 

Lots of people arrive out of the blue and ask for Mr Mustard's help which he usually gives (although when he is busy with proper paid work he limits his help to the mentally & physically ill, the poverty stricken and when the council has blundered). It is his own fault for spouting off all over the internet that he receives c.200 requests a year. It is always nice though for Mr Mustard to know where his new requests originated and be told that the person met Jane at a dinner party and she said that Mr Mustard might be able to help. Sometimes it isn't like that.

Wednesday 16 June 17:32, a Direct message on twitter

Mr Mustard responded pretty quickly as even though it was the end of his working day he had just received a same day deadline and time is critical in the world of PCNs although not, as it happens, in this case, as you can safely ignore a charge certificate if you plan to, and have grounds to, file a Statutory Declaration (or witness statement for a parking case) when the Order for Recovery arrives.

What was useful was that all the council documents were supplied so Mr Mustard had most of the picture. This was at 7.20pm and Mr Mustard had got up off the sofa where he was reading a good book to make sure the matter was clear in the mind of the requestor, let's call them Mr I, by midnight.

So you ask an expert and then ask him if he knows what he is doing? You can feel the panic. Partly that was brought about by Havering sending an extra document designed to induce panic which isn't part of the statutory process and only gives you bad news, no explanation of what actions are possible, this is procedurally unfair and not becoming of a public body. Mr Mustard would have lodged a complaint but the matter got taken out his his hands before he could.

Five minutes later Mr Mustard asked for a little extra information

I fight 200 PCNs a year so just trust me. Can I see your representations please.

Then he sent his advice at 19:47 as seeing the challenge wasn't vital as Mr Mustard could see, as you can from the photo above, that there really isn't any excuse for failing to turn left.

A prompt rely about the challenge which was made was received, at 19:51, although it wasn't much use. Please always write out what you are going to write on the online system and save it in a word document or photograph the screen as you go along.

Then at 19:54 Mr I, who is in a corner, wants to turn back the clock to a time when he could have paid 50% before we are anywhere near through the set procedure that a motorist must follow. Mr Mustard replied at 20:00

At 20:05 Mr Mustard decided to ask for the missing page of the PCN, in case it contained an error, he was looking ahead to later, once the opportunity to make an Appeal arose.

All went quiet. Two days later, on 18 June, Mr Mustard decided to check the balance on line on the council computer as it is a good way of knowing from the balance if the next statutory document has been issued.

Finding the balance was zero Mr Mustard asked Mr I what had happened just in case the PCN has been resolved by other means, such as asking a local councillor for help, which information isn't always volunteered.

Mr Mustard also has a personal life and from 21 to 25 June he was on a bicycle headed to Broadstairs and back. All his paperwork is in the cloud and he takes a small laptop with him wherever he goes so that he can finish what he started. Nothing in the way of a reply came during that period. Mr Mustard also keeps a paper file on each PCN and doesn't usually scan and shred them until the PCN is finished which includes knowing the outcome as he keeps a spreadsheet of his results and Mr Mustard records the failures as well as the successes.

On 30 June Mr Mustard sent another email to find out what the outcome had been.

A reply was received a mere 13 minutes later and here it is

So it looks like Mr I paid up when Mr Mustard could have got the PCN back to £130 and possibly zero. Although the driving was poor the non-standard bullying letter which Havering Council sent needs to be stopped and a complaint from Mr Mustard might have made the council moderate their behaviour and decide to not pursue the PCN in all the circumstances. Whatever you think of the driving every motorist has the right (if in time) to take a PCN to Appeal and if it does contain a fatal procedural wording, have it cancelled. The Appeal would have included that Havering Council are not following the statutory procedure and are also overstating their powers. We'll never know how that Appeal would have turned out.

Having got this case off his chest, Mr Mustard feels a lot better.

Please only ask for Mr Mustard's help if you are going to listen to his advice or tell him why he is legally wrong and not going to take 2 hours of his life before capitulating.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Enfield Council - perplexing the postman (or postlady).

 

The unfortunate resident of Mayfield Avenue, who will will call Mr R, who came to Mr Mustard for help, had unfortunately driven past a 'flying motorbike' sign three times in late 2020, and back again, so clocked up six PCNs on his leased vehicle. He had received six administration charges from the vehicle supplier and knew to expect six PCNs from the council. He received only five which Mr Mustard challenged at the tribunal. Two were cancelled and three were upheld so they were paid. Mr Mustard knew that sometimes a PCN gets cancelled rather than passed on to the vehicle user and so he didn't worry about the one missing PCN, Mr Mustard doesn't rock the boat in case he falls into the water.

The reason why the sixth PCN didn't reach Mr R, became apparent when he received the Charge Certificate, sent because he hadn't responded to the PCN that he hadn't received. Here, minus the name, is the document in question.

Mr Mustard spotted the omission of a street number. Perhaps the regular postman was on duty that day and knew which number, out of the 33 choices, Mr R lived at but on the delivery day for the PCN it got sent off to Belfast where poorly addressed mail gets dealt with by the Royal Mail. Whatever the reason Mr R is indebted to his postman for the dedication to delivery.

Mr Mustard went online to send Enfield Council a message as you can't phone them which would be much quicker in this sort of situation.

A possible third reason to cancel was that half the signs had been defaced.

Mr Mustard rather thought that having been told of their lack of street number error Enfield Council would cancel the PCN (they were too late to issue a new correct one). He was wrong.

A number of points arose. An enforcement authority has a wide discretion to consider representations (they don't mean 'Appeal' that is the tribunal stage) made out of time (although given the lack of service no right to make representations had actually arisen).

The issue of a charge certificate doesn't, in and of itself, stop the council from exercising their discretion to cancel a PCN which they issued and hold the fate of in their hands. It isn't the issue of a charge certificate which counts but the service of one. We were lucky this one was served as otherwise it would probably have been the bailiff that Mr R first heard from.

The right to serve a charge certificate only arises if and when a PCN has been served, in this case Mr R said he did not receive it and if he had he would have fought it at the tribunal is the logical thought.

Mr R was incensed that the council wrote 'apparently' not received. His word rebutted the presumption of service unless the council could prove he was lying. In addition, the balance of probabilities is that a piece of mail sent without an address may well not get properly delivered. Furthermore a PCN which is not properly addressed is not a valid PCN.

The council's power to register the PCN as a debt at the County Court (Traffic Enforcement Centre) is a discretionary one and subject to the approval of the Court which should not be assumed as being granted without demur and charge certificates shouldn't be issued automatically but when the council thinks one is appropriate (they are of course issued automatically, as night follows day). When registering debts an officer of the council has to certify that they have served a Charge Certificate. Given that the PCN was not served they cannot properly certify that they have served a (valid) charge certificate and so should not have threatened this step.

The council know that steps 2. and 3. are not applicable so why confuse the motorist by suggesting them? Mr R can't be expected to know PCN procedure as well as Mr Mustard does and is entitled to be treated fairly by Enfield Council, he wasn't being.

Before Mr R had received the above letter Mr Mustard saw on line that the balance had reverted to £65 so emailed the parking manager as this was an unusual case.

In a separate email Mr Mustard asked for a copy of the complete case report in case it noted down the return of the undelivered PCN. Instead he got sent copies only of the statutory documents. He then emailed the manager again saying he hadn't got what he asked for and could it be sent. Today he checked the balance on line again and saw it was now £0.00 and then this letter came in the post.

Finally a sensible decision had been taken. The moment the council became aware, as Mr Mustard told them, that the PCN was inadequately addressed they should have cancelled it. 

They seem to regard PCNs as sacrosanct once issued and this is a defective way of thinking which needs to be eliminated. You do wrong and get a penalty for £130, the council get it wrong and they want a penalty from you of £65 or £195 if you don't agree.

Mr Mustard thinks that 99% of motorists would have paid up when Enfield Council wrongly threatened them with the County Court. Sadly their illegal bullying doesn't have any costs consequences, it should.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council - simply getting the law wrong

 

A car was parked here, outside the section of dropped kerb which serves the front door and bins, carefully leaving clear the right hand section which could be used to park a small vehicle. A PCN was issued by a Barnet Council traffic warden. The motorist challenged it as he knew he wasn't blocking a private drive, a cycle lane or a place where pedestrians cross the road. The absence of a cycle lane or parking place is patently obvious. Mr Mustard will leave the question of pedestrians crossing the carrigeway for the moment.

The response to the challenge is below:

The legislation does not cover 'any' dropped footway, only those for one of three statutory purposes, viz:

So, would a pedestrian cross at this locale? The norm is that one would expect to see a similar dropped kerb in the footway on the other side of the road, often with tactile paving. Here is the view from further away from the property in question:

Who would be crossing the road here? The traffic warden got it wrong and this has been compounded by the back office getting it wrong.

This should not be happening.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Hostile Hillingdon

 

Having written about Brent Council yesterday on the subject of a continuous contravention it just so happens when Mr Mustard was idling through the daily register of adjudicator decisions at London Tribunals that he alighted on a similar case, six PCNs given to a Mr Anthony Aneke (with whom Mr Mustard has no connection & whom he will refer to as Mr A) the identical number of PCNs given to a vehicle which again didn't move. The register is, by legal regulation, a public document and it can provide a useful source of information.

Here is the substance of the decision:

Each PCN was for £110 and so Hillingdon Council were trying to get a decision that Mr A should fork out £660. Hillingdon increased their council tax by 4.8% this year and so are clearly in great need of extra funds - this may partly explain why they want six penalty charges to be paid for one contravention.

There is no dispute but that Mr A made a mistake, a common one as it happens of trying to be mindful of other road users but overlooking inconvenience to pedestrians and wheelchair uses, prams etc. It isn't therefore unreasonable to extract one penalty from him but trying for six, when they aren't legally due, is hostile behaviour. Add in the facts that the vehicle had a mechanical problem, that he has just lost his job and that he fell ill and Hillingdon Council's behaviour is hostile, horrible, heartless, disproportionate, unreasonable and devoid of any morality and would lead to a debt burden. That isn't why councils exist, to make the lives of citizens more difficult. 'Welcome to Hillingdon' the entry signs should read, 'where we like to kick a man when he is down'.

Councils now tend to take the view that because a contravention has occurred a penalty must be paid, they decline to exercise their wide discretion in obviously deserving cases and throw their weight about like playground bullies. There needs to be objective and independent oversight to rein in their worst excesses. The role of the adjudicator is to apply the law but we need more than this as they only see 1% of all PCNs, someone sensible needs to look at the other 99% and keep local authorities on the straight and narrow.

What is the point of Penalty Charge Notices? The Secretary of State, in his statutory guidance, says, in part, that it is this:

In the case of Mr A the PCNs have been looked at in isolation, his personal financial and health situation having been ignored, and revenue raising is the apparent objective as Mr Mustard doesn't see any other possible explanation (well, not knowing the law at Hillingdon Council is an unattractive alternative).

Taking it as a given that the whole point of parking rules is to regulate parking, is there a better alternative to PCNs as almost 4 million a year being issued in London (for parking alone) suggests to Mr Mustard that they don't work? There is, clearly Mr A hadn't caught on that pavement parking is forbidden throughout Greater London except where the pavements are signed to allow it.

One option is to issue a warning PCN, which has a zero value, and then the message should get through, but councils issue very few such PCNs as they cost them money and they don't like them affecting their profit margins.

An alternative when a challenge is received for this type of PCN is to ask Mr A to sign an undertaking as to his future conduct and then cancelling the PCNs, something like this:

By this method, compliance would slowly improve, and the allegation of revenue raising could not be made.

Until something changes Mr Mustard will continue to bring to your attention the egregious activities of certain councils.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard