Westminster decide that 4 arguments do not a representation make

This might be a bit of a long read as a lot happened but if you want to know more about processing of a parking PCN it will be useful to you.

We start on 6 September 2023 with a PCN being put on the car in Albemarle St. which has, Mr Mustard finds, associations at different times with Lord Byron and Oscar Wilde

The sign, which the driver only spotted afterwards, was missed because it was within a suspended section and turned away.

After the event, on finding the PCN, the driver thought that the sign was the one above the suspended bay sign, the one we can see the back of. Mr Mustard wouldn't find himself in Westminster in a car but if he did he would be more inquisitive before concluding that a spot of free parking was in order. We were where we were. Although Mr Mustard acts regularly for the company which owns the car the driver decided to make their own challenge on the grounds of inadequate signage which they did on 20 September.

 

The City of Westminster rejected the informal challenge on the same day. Unusual and odd as the letter apologised for the delay in responding. Who said it was a cut and paste job? The letter didn't say why the challenge wasn't accepted just that they wouldn't cancel. This is an unhelpful trend which Mr Mustard has noticed creeping in during 2023.

 

All then went quiet, as the driver wasn't sucked into paying at a discount, as she knew that the company would refer to Mr Mustard who usually finds something which which to attack the ticket. On 6 November the Notice to Owner was issued to the company as the registered keeper. On 10 November Mr Mustard was instructed and he rustled up the formal representations on the same day. He found four strands on which to make representations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A council, or the City in this case, are allowed 56 days for an on street parking PCN in which to serve their Notice of Rejection otherwise they are deemed to have accepted and must serve a Notice of Acceptance and cancel the PCN.

 

Service of a Notice of Rejection at this stage opens the door to the independent tribunal which Mr Mustard attends nearly every week and where he was expecting to win on argument #4 as he has done five times already.

 

Mr Mustard keeps an eye on enforcement authority websites so he can glean if an Acceptance or Rejection has likely been issued.

 

Something unusual happened on 20 December which was day 41 of 56, the City of Westminster wrote to Mr Mustard's client:

Mr Mustard looked at the ticking clock and thought there was the possibility that a Notice of Rejection would not be served (sending isn't enough, it has to arrive) by the 56th day being 4 January 2024.

On 4 January Mr Mustard emailed the City of Westminster as follows:

 

Not long after sending that email Mr Mustard's client, who is also very efficient, sent him a copy of the Charge Certificate which had been issued on 2 January 2024 and was a procedural impropriety as a response to representations was outstanding so the file must be placed on hold.

 

Having raised his query at a senior level the job of responding was given to 'Customer relations' (this isn't going to end well). The sort of response which makes Mr Mustard happy is short, simple and apologetic, something like this:

'Dear Mr Mustard. Thank you for your email. You are quite correct. We have cancelled the Charge Certificate and the PCn and apologise for the inconvenience. Yours etc'.

Here is what he got instead, just the 'good' bits:

Oh yes it does. If there is a procedural impropriety an adjudicator is bound to allow an Appeal by a motorist.

The 'correspondence' that the City of Westminster received was all in the one document with an image of the authority letter inserted into the text of the document which was headed 'Formal representations'.

Apparently in the City of Westminster a fundamental challenge to the legal wording and thus the right to issue a PCN isn't a representation. Nor, it seems, is a challenge that the Contravention did not occur despite that being one of the statutory grounds specified in the legislation. What we can gather from this is that the City of Westminster decided to act as if Mr Mustard had not written a word which put his client into a position where having been deemed to not have made a formal representation within 28 days of receiving the Notice to Owner they became liable for the PCN by default and then saw the penalty illegally increased by 50%.

Clearly, the City of Westminster had forgotten the contents of their own Notice to Owner, viz;

 

 

The non apology continued:

The City of Westminster are in for a shock. Mr Mustard doesn't fight many PCNs against this authority but one of his expert friends does. There are already 6 adjudication decisions made by 3 different adjudicators covering 4 enforcement authorities where this wording has been found to be wrong. 

Here is part of a tribunal decision which went against the London Borough of Hounslow and which you can quote to any other enforcement authority issuing parking PCNs on street (not through the post, they have different rules) when you ask them to cancel your PCN.

When an enforcement authority writes to you telling you that they are right and you are wrong, stop and think what is in it for the enforcement authority, £130 possibly. Look at what happened in the Post Office, innocent people were told they were the only one. The difference here is that Mr Mustard and the band of PCN experts to which he belongs know the difference between right and wrong. Success with a particular argument cannot be guaranteed as the decision above isn't a precedent, it is under the law as it stands legally persuasive and likely to be followed because the adjudicator named above has been deciding the fate of PCNs for more than the 13 years Mr Mustard has been appearing in front of him and the second adjudicator likewise. They are highly experienced qualified lawyers and came to their decisions after careful consideration of all the arguments. It matters not a jot to an adjudicator if they Allow or Refuse an Appeal as there is no financial incentive for them to decide either way, they apply the law without fear or favour.

Mr Mustard's final word for the parking department. Mr Mustard isn't a 'customer' so has no need of 'customer relations'. The City of Westminster have zero respect until they learn to say sorry when they have right royally lashed up.

Pity the motorist acting for themselves as knowledge is power and Mr Mustard knows what should be what. The more you all know, the better.

The end.

 

When 'traffic wardens' meet

A funny story from the tribunal in Saturday's decisions. Here it is in full.

What is clear is that the Hounslow Council traffic warden who issued the PCN did so in a great hurry, as per usual, even though the motorist was in the frame from the very beginning.

Mr Mustard's advice is to calmly drive off in such a case as the notes made will often be deficient or the warden will make a false note as in this case. Mr Mustard has known the notes of the traffic warden to be destroyed by dashcam or doorbell footage.

If a traffic warden cheats you, please make a complaint to the council as otherwise they will continue.

The end.

A sunny dis-position

 

So here we have an image of Sunny Gardens Road in Hendon Central. Signs here just can't sit still. The cctv sign has been twisted to the right since 2017 and the upper single yellow sign to the left since 2019. Traffic wardens are meant to report defective signs and have the sign team fix them rather than issue a PCN. No-one has done their job for 4 years.

 

A friend of Mr Mustard's got a PCN to the right of the sign. It wasn't an event day. Mr Mustard made the informal challenge (the one made in response to a PCN placed on the windscreen). Here it is.

 

To his astonishment it turned out, allegedly, that Mr Mustard was wrong, but the PCN was still going to be cancelled.

Readers will note that the alleged mistake made by the Civil Enforcement Officer is not specified. That, Mr Mustard surmises, is because he didn't make two errors, the one which Mr Mustard identified plus another one.

This is the first time in 14 years of fighting PCNs that Mr Mustard has received such an odd letter, so directly telling him how wrong he is when everyone in the world can see he is logically & technically correct.

A council simply should not enforce a PCN when their signs are not up to snuff.

If you walk past the southern end of Sunny Gardens Rd do let Mr Mustard know if the sign has been straightened up, by a note in the comments box. 

If you get a PCN at the same spot, Mr Mustard will challenge it for you. He takes no notice of the bluff about the cancellation not setting a precedent (well it was supposedly for the unknown error so Mr Mustard can't use it as a ground) as PCNs get cancelled by adjudicators for inadequate signage every day of the week (except Sundays when they don't sit).

The end.

Desperate for cash - Barnet Council

The owner of the vehicle (a small amount of which is overhanging the yellow box junction) was somewhat surprised to receive a PCN in the post for the alleged contravention of 'Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited'.

A heinous crime obviously (not).

What could he have done or what should you do if you encounter this situation?

1    Move forward as the gap to the car in front is huge.

2    Go up the inside lane

3    Turn right (as is an exemption).

Mr Mustard has made representations that any contravention is 'de minimis non curat lex' i.e. a Court (or tribunal) does not concern itself with trifles.

Looked at from above this is a box which is far longer than it needs to be and the mouth of the junction does not need to be that wide as there is a weight limit on the side road so does not need to accommodate huge trucks which means that a narrower entry would slow traffic down and make crossing for pedestrians (Sainsburys are on the corner) much safer.

The change of political control on 5 May 2022 has not softened the ruthless, relentless and venal issuing of Penalty Charge Notices.

The end.

Havering - the dangerous council

Mr Mustard was asked to help a motorist who, when driving along perfectly legally was presented with a problem requiring instant action. The problem was three cars heading straight towards them and the only sensible option was to enter the bus lane to avoid a head on smash, probable serious injury and possibly death. Havering Council thought that deserved a PCN.

The only other realistic alternative was to stop within your lane but Mr Mustard would have done the same as the motorist as if in doubt, no matter how much you are in the right, you get out of the way of dangerous drivers.

Why did someone at Havering Council think this merited a PCN?

The process is that for a bus lane PCN you can make an informal challenge (although the right is not enshrined in law it is usually offered by councils in London). If that is rejected an Enforcement Notice is issued against which you make formal representations (they can be the same as the informal challenge).  Then you can go to Appeal in front of an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals if rejected.

Adjudicators are truly independent and do not have a financial interest in the outcome, which helps. Councils on the other hand know that if they reject challenges only 1% of PCNs end up at the tribunal. (Close to 100% of Mr Mustard's rejections end up at the tribunal! and 90% of those end in cancellation).

Outside London it is different, there is only one representation stage to the council.

The motorist had already sent in their own informal challenge and seen it rejected as follows:

Here is the first part of the formal representations which Mr Mustard wrote.

 It did not find favour with Havering.

You will note the complete absence of the full consideration which Havering claim to have made. Havering expect you to play chicken with oncoming traffic as they wrote when rejecting the informal challenge. The Notice of Rejection continued:

The Notice of Rejection was a nonsense. The Enforcement Notice had already been received and responded to. Given that recourse to the tribunal was offered the process as far as the council was concerned was over. Mr Mustard could have pointed out their error but their final line suggested this might well be a waste of time so instead an Appeal was duly started at London Tribunals which meant that Havering had to pay a fee of £25.55

The Appeal was based upon the procedural errors of the council. Three weeks passed and then Havering decided to not contest the Appeal and to cancel the PCN. Not that confident in their case then?

If you think you are correct stand up for your rights or ask Mr Mustard to do so on your behalf.

The end.

PCNs generate a small fortune & clearly don't work

Next Thursday there is a meeting of a select number of local councillors, from every borough, at London Councils, at which the proposal to increase the value of a Penalty Charge Notice was going to be considered. It now appears that the necessary survey analysis has not been completed so we have to wait. it is fortunate as Mr Mustard planned to attend and he had a diary clash with, ironically, a full slate of tribunal PCN Appeals.

Mr Mustard has started to look at how much money councils are raking in from parking and moving traffic PCNs. It is vast and self evidently not the solution, except to budget shortfalls.

The story so far and note that each borough records their income slightly differently:

 

Loadsamoney.

Harrow Council - band of thieves

Harrow Council are hedging their bets. They are going to apply to London Councils to change from band B (outer London rates) to band A (inner London rates) but if London Councils own attempt to increase the value of all PCNs is successful they won't do it (for now anyway). Their website had a explanation from which Mr Mustard has extracted the most relevant parts.

 

Mr Mustard completed the survey. Questions 1 & 2 were about who he was and the postcode of his home.

Question 9 was how Mr Mustard had heard about the survey and Q10 as to whether or not he had completed the London Councils' survey.

Mr Mustard thought that this was the least useful survey he had completed for some time. (Please ignore the spelling errors in his responses, you get the gist).

Mr Mustard was also unimpressed with the FAQs which the public were intended to read and digest before answering the survey itself. Mr Mustard decided to ask some more penetrating questions and today he received the responses which are now followed by his commentary. Feel free to add your own at the end.

 

The only factor considered before bringing forward the survey (it can't count for anything before it has taken place!) is the bare number of PCNs issued. That is unconvincing as a justification.

 

The bare numbers of PCNs issued do not show a direct relationship between value and the number of PCNs issued. If there was such a direct relationship the numbers would surely be more or less constant?

 

There is your proof. If you don't know in advance what a PCN will cost you how can your behaviour be affected by not knowing? (it can be £60 or £80, £110 or £130).

 

Mr Mustard has the data as it is published by London Councils each year. 

In the year ended 31 March 2013, Waltham Forest issued 70,623 PCNs. 

On 1 April 2013 they increased the penalty levels by £20 per PCN. 

In the year to 31 March 2014 WF issued 69,082 PCNs a decrease of just 2.2% which Mr Mustard would suggest is not statistically significant (and isn't 3.3% which wasn't material either).

Oh dear, Harrow failed to notice, or chose not to notice, that in the year ended 31 March 2016, WF issued 88,767 PCNs, an increase on the base year of 2013 of 25.7%. The price increase was a disaster, it didn't work, clearly. Mr Mustard recalls from his secondary school days his maths text book which had a chapter  headed 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'. He didn't understand the heading back then but he sure does now.

 

Harrow were being wilfully blind in not taking a wider view of the PCN statistics of the last 20 years which are freely available to the public. They have cherry picked a small but convenient fall. They know nothing about the true experience in Waltham Forest.

 

No it isn't, it is a question of what you, Harrow Council, know about why the numbers of PCNs issued by WF have gone down slightly in one convenient year and shot up rapidly in four subsequent years.

 

Again Mr Mustard was asking what information Harrow Council held, clearly none at all.

Perhaps the time has come for an undergraduate or a professor of statistics to study this topic.

What is clear to Mr Mustard is that any report presented to councillors, which probably won't contain much more useful information than has already been given to the public, won't really contain a proper basis for an informed decision to proceed with the re-banding.

Mr Mustard doesn't know how Harrow Council works and isn't a resident of Harrow so doubtless has limited hearing rights at any council meeting, but you the reader can play your part.

Please ask the hard questions, complain if you don't like the answers and go to any relevant council meeting and have your say.

This survey is just laying the ground for revenue raising.

The end.