Newham Council - white paint shortage & other problems

A friend of Mr Mustard's, let us call him Mr L, received a PCN for being in a disabled bay, he isn't that sort of chap and was the victim of innocent error thanks to the paucity of the white lines.

He was parked at the zig zag end of the bay, the bay you can barely see:

This sign was alongside to the left but why would you look for it when you know you are within the PN zone as you live nearby (Portway E15)

Looking back on google street view we have these lovely pictures from 2015, the bay is pristine and was before the residents bays were introduced

Then by 2018, the lines had become worn away and pristine residents bays are in evidence (lazy and unhelpful not to repaint the other bay at the same time)
 

and here is the latest satellite view

which makes clear how unclear the separate bays are.

It is precisely this sort of unreasonable and predatory PCN which gives traffic wardens and councils a deservedly bad reputation. It is no consolation that there is a system of challenge, the PCN should not have been issued in the first place or a warning PCN for zero (you rarely see those) would have done the job of bringing the bay to Mr L's attention, the way the missing lines should have done. Mr L has had to waste an hour of his life getting photographs and emailing Mr Mustard who in his turn has spent an hour in research and making the informal challenge.

Until this sort of malicious nonsense PCN issuing stops the councils won't stop damaging their own reputations.

They won't stop, they need the money.

PCNs in 2020 - PCNs cancelled once a tribunal Appeal was started

Mr Mustard calls this the towel throwing stage. You won't find that in the PCN Regulations.

What happens is that the enforcement authority, like say Barnet Council, have rejected the formal representations and served a Notice of Rejection. That opens the tribunal door to start an Appeal within 28 days. Mr Mustard starts most of his on line but for TfL they have to be sent by post which is a slight pain.

It seems to Mr Mustard that we are engaged on a game of bluff as having rejected the formal representations and without Mr Mustard adding any new arguments he suddenly finds an enforcement authority throwing in the towel, or getting cold feet, and filing a DNC form which is a notification to the tribunal that they 'Do not Contest' the Appeal and so it will be allowed automatically and the PCN will be cancelled. It does look cynical though for an enforcement authority to reject formal representations and then throw in the towel at the tribunal with the same argument being advanced. A game of bluff perhaps? but Mr Mustard doesn't bluff.

The fee for a tribunal case is about £30 and has to be paid by the enforcement authority even if they throw the towel in on day one. That is £900 burnt in fees instead of accepting Mr Mustard's representations at the formal stage.

Here is a list of the the grounds advanced by Mr Mustard in tribunal cases on which the towel was thrown in during 2020.

19 of these cases were for Barnet, 4 in Harrow, 2 for TfL and one each for Brent, Enfield, Haringey, Newham and Hackney.

It is nearly always the case that Mr Mustard will fight a PCN to the very end as he usually has something solid in the way of an argument. He could still have lost some of the cases if the enforcement authority had created an evidence pack, anything from 30 to 100 pages each time which must take between an hour and 3 hours to prepare.

Why enforcement authorities throw in the towel is a mystery to Mr Mustard but given that the Barnet contract is a fixed price if the contractor NSL doesn't produce the evidence pack they save time and thus money as they can employ fewer staff. Some of the time the case is abandoned because the enforcement authority know they are going to lose, other times because they are too busy in the back office and some are probably abandoned because the enforcement authority knows they are in for some robust argument at the hearing and/or they may not want a weakness in their paperwork to be set in stone by an adverse tribunal decision.

Today the towel was thrown in on a case just 90 minutes before the hearing after Mr Mustard had objected to an adjournment being granted. That will be a blog post quite soon.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PCNs in 2020 - challenges accepted at the formal representations stage

 

Formal representations, which can be scribbled on the back of an envelope as long as they contain the PCN number and the name and address of the person to whom the Notice to Owner or postal Penalty Charge Notice was sent, are those which are made in accordance with the stipulations of the relevant Regulations (the law).

Most councils like you to use their on line form, if they have one, or to email them but you should always be given an address to send an old fashioned letter to and in order to comply with the Equality Act a telephone number on which to make verbal representations (councils are very bad at fully embracing, or even at all, the needs of those who cannot, for whatever reason, write or use a computer.

Here are the arguments which Mr Mustard advanced and which were accepted, often with the council saying they didn't agree with him but had used their discretion and cancelled (as if to agree with Mr Mustard would cause them to turn to stone):

Barnet

- Notice to Owner sent to the old address after the council had been notified of a new one.

- Wording error in the moving traffic PCN (now corrected) * 2

- Car not within the suspended area in Mr Mustard's own road and this after an identically worded informal challenge had already, therefore, been wrongly refused.

- Notice to Owner sent a day early.

- Wording error in the Traffic Management Order when it comes to the definition of a loading bay.

- Blue badge was missed.

- Representations not proeprly considered at the informal stage.

- Could have exited the yellow box junction so did not stop due to a stationary vehicle.

- The contravention did not occur as on the opposite side of the road to the school keep clear zig zags (they can count in narrow roads as applying to both sides).

- School zig zags not at an entrance to the school, but at the entrance to a private road which laads to the back entrance.

City of London

- Signs at bank junction not compliant.

Camden

- Notice to Owner sent to the old address after the council had been notified of a new one.

Hackney

- The parking place was carriageway as opposed to footway.

TfL

- Unloading where allowed on a red route, proof supplied.

Haringey

- Formal rejection sent instead of an informal one so offered wrong choices.

- Traffic warden error.

- Had a visitor permit (it was badly scratched)

- Suspension for Covid was excessively long (maximum is 6 months).

Harrow

- The parking place was carriageway as opposed to footway.

- Delay in renewing the blue badge caused by the council itself. * 2

Lambeth

- Forced into the bus lane by oncoming traffic. One questions if the cctv footage was looked at before the PCN was issued.

Wandsworth

- Council cancelled of their own volition on different grounds to those advanced as they took over the legal limit of 56 days to respond, except there wasn't a limit and adjudicators would have allowed up to 90 days for moving traffic PCNs.

- No meter to pay at.

- Signage inadequate, as to where to find the meter.

So there we have it, just 26 cases, the majority of them being decided at the tribunal which you will hear about next.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

 

 

Looking back at PCNs in 2020 - challenges accepted at the informal stage

The PCN issued in error (the bay wasn't a disabled bay at the weekend but, in effect, a free bay) which brought Mr Mustard into being.

Due to the pandemic Mr Mustard had a quiet year in 2020, with only 130 PCNs being fought by him, far fewer than the 349 he fought at his peak, whilst also working full time and travelling a lot.

Here are the challenges which were made in response to PCNs placed on vehicles, known as 'informal challenges', and which led to cancellations. As you can see, there are only 13 of them and yet the same challenge is usually made at the next stage, formal representations, and accepted. The moral of that story is to plough on if you think you are correct.

Barnet

- The road markings do not mirror the traffic management order.

- The voucher slipped down the windscreen.

- Was not parked within the area which was suspended (the council didn't know their left from their right when describing what was suspended)

- Permit system error

- Loading bay incorrectly defined in the Traffic Management Order

- Unloading

- Asked for kindness for a motorist with cancer.

- Boarding passengers

City of London

- Asked for kindness for blue badge holder who parked in the wrong place (even though blue badges don't apply in the City)

Camden

- First blue badge dispensation error near the hospital (blue badges don't apply in Camden south of Euston Rd)

Haringey

- No photographs of the vehicle

Harrow

Blue badge holder couldn't have been there 3 hours due to time of day so not displaying the clock doesn't matter.

Southwark

Problem with the PayByPhone system

The 50% discount is a thorough nuisance with more people worrying about losing that than whether the contravention actually occurred.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Lambeth council lash up

 

A courier stopped here, in Durham Street, Lambeth, as he had done countless times before, to make a delivery. He is never long as the number of parcels to deliver each day is huge. It only became a red route bay in February.

It is never a surprise when a courier is given a PCN as waiting around for a few minutes to see if loading is going on is anathema to most traffic wardens even when they see parcels piled high in the front of the van. The surprise in this case was that the PCN was doled out by a Lambeth Council traffic warden, not by a TfL camera.

 

On 14 November 2020 Mr Mustard sent a Freedom of Information request to Lambeth Council to see if this was a one-off error. Apparently not, it didn't even happen.

Mr Mustard thanked Lambeth Council for their speedy response but then he woke up. The response was completely wrong! The PayByPhone app ascribes location 802663 (which number the courier found for him, the how to pay sign being located other than with the red route sign, which is less than helpful or even compliant) to the London Borough of Lambeth.

Not only that, it is possible to search the register of Appeals against PCNs (at the independent tribunal) by borough and location. That led to three Appeals having been decided, all in favour of the motorist.

If 3 cases have reached the tribunal, there are probably 300+ PCNs, as the overwhelming majority of people give in before that stage.

If 300 PCNs have been issued, probably 150 will have been paid at £65 = £9,750

Although signage is poor, some people will have found the sign and paid but how many / how much is hard to say but unlikely to be £zero.

Mr Mustard's next task is to email Lambeth FOI Team and send them a link to this blog.

What a Lambeth lash up - not just the FOI, traffic wardens on the rampage and poor signage.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

 

 

Brent Council - automation, delay and morality.

 

It isn't really a surprise when software which is designed to track the progress of a PCN, with many automated steps from one stage to the next, goes wrong. What matters is what councils do when it does go wrong.

This adjudication decision on a Harrow case makes some serious points:

There are, as the adjudicator says, generally short time limits for an enforcement authority to adhere to and Mr Mustard thinks that the excuse of computer error would get equally short thrift as shortage of resources.

 

Mr Mustard had the following adjudication decision where the delay was just over 6 months.

Note the duty to act with 'reasonable expedition' which are words taken from a decision of a superior court. It isn't reasonable expedition to do nothing for over a year and then start again as if nothing has happened.

They get 6 months for a PCN served to a car to serve a Notice to Owner (effectively 5 as the PCN has to be 28 days old before they can issue one). The Secretary of State says the following in their Statutory Guidance to which a council must have due regard:

The other long time period is for a Warrant, with a bailiff being allowed 12 months to chase the debt. At that point the processing of the PCN is over, it having now become a debt. The time period of one year is reasonable given that it isn't a paperwork task that is being completed but one of locating a car and clamping it.

In Brent's case, there was no action on an unknown number of PCNs from July 18 until March 2020, a period of one year and 8 months. Once the problem was found the proper corrective action was to write off all those PCNs.

Many of the registered keepers will have moved and Brent Council will not have checked for any change of address and postal redirections of a year, a decent interval to pay for, will have expired. 

Many people will have thrown the paperwork away after a few months not having heard anything and assuming, perfectly reasonably, that the council have decided not to continue as they are not legally obliged to take every step in the available process.

If the PCN was for not paying, for example, any proof of payment, such as one of those small receipts that a parking meter gives you, will have been defaced, destroyed or lost.

Almost every PCN which went to sleep for 20 months will have prejudicial consequences for the registered keeper.

The problems were caused by automatic processing which was not checked by adequate human oversight. Upon finding the problem the lack of moral rectitude became the next problem. Councils just hate writing off PCNs it would seem.

What should the residents of Brent do? If I lived in Brent (other people from outside the borough will be affected but far fewer) I would write to 

The Data Protection Officer, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ

or email dpo@brent.gov.uk

and say this:

I live at (insert address) and attach a copy of my council tax (or electric etc) bill as proof. (If you have moved, provide proof of your previous address.)

I am the registered keeper of vehicle (insert registration) and have been since (insert date). I attach a copy of the V5 registration document. (If you have since sold the vehicle, provide proof of the date of sale).

I have become aware of a software error in your PCN system and wish to make sure I am not affected. Please provide me with a list of all PCNs by PCN number which remain unresolved for my above vehicle and a list of dates on which all statutory documents were issued in respect of each PCN, identifying the documents by name in each case.

Yours etc

If you have old PCNs, 2018 and earlier, you might want Mr Mustard's help to resolve them. Email him at mrmustard@zoho.com 

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Miscarriage of justice in Barnet

Everyone in High Barnet knows, and probably loves, the duck pond.

Just to the left is a parking bay, number 9154. The main bay sign, facing the road, shows that this is a shared use bay, for permit holders or for people who pay.

 

Facing the pavement, is another sign which contains some information which should be on the bay sign, that one can park for 2 hours for free (without taking any action to verify the free period).

Here are close-ups of the sign so you can glean all of the detail.

So if you read this sign, which you may not even notice as it is facing away from the road and is largely masked by the pole it is mounted on, you know that you can park there for free for 2 hours, which is most useful.

That accords with the rules set out in the map based traffic management order.

Now Mr Mustard will show you the miscarriage, it isn't in the league of this one from 1660 (chosen just because of the pond)

but it is a miscarriage of justice nonetheless. The PCN was contested all the way to the tribunal.

The contravention description is shortened in the register and will have covered the situation of not having paid (before you tell Mr Mustard that what is recorded didn't happen).

That is a decision which must be wrong. So where has it gone wrong?

The traffic warden got it wrong, Mr Mustard has seen that before (in 2015) at this location and had the PCN cancelled by the council after Mr Mustard contacted senior management. Clearly the signage, which should have been changed 5 years ago, wasn't. The traffic warden relied on the main sign alone.

The back office (run by NSL under the direction of in house parking management) didn't do their job properly. The first place they should look when they get such a challenge is the Traffic Management Order which sets the rules. The trouble is that the person who looks at this, if an NSL employee, is in Dingwall and may have no more idea where Barnet is than Barnet residents do of where Dingwall is (Mr Mustard cycled through it on his way from Land's End to John O'Groats. There is a long hard climb out of the valley which was fuelled by a macaroni pie, yum).

Mr Mustard hesitates to say the adjudicator got it wrong, firstly because he could only decide the case based upon the evidence in front of him, although that should have included the Traffic Management Order as a matter of routine (but probably didn't include a photograph of the PayByPhone sign) and secondly because Mr Mustard might be arguing in front of that adjudicator any time soon.

The PCN though should never have got anywhere near the adjudicator at London Tribunals. Barnet Council, or their agents NSL, should have cancelled the PCN as soon as the 2 hours free challenge was made as it isn't the sort of challenge that one would just make up. Alarm bells should have been ringing that it was, possibly, the truth. Mr Mustard thinks that the revenue raising imperative is so pressing that logic gets thrown out of the window along with the challenge.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard