Newham Council are Cheats - #11

 

Here is a genius bit of cheating / incompetence. It would be funny if the effects were not so draconian and probably a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Newham Council removed a vehicle a day before they were legally entitled to, at a time when it was evidently 100% legally parked.

They then somehow managed to fight the tribunal Appeal rather than realise their blunder, apologise, pay compensation and cancel the PCN and immediately refund Mr Clark.

Not only are Newham Council cheats, they are prize chumps.

Newham Council are Cheats - #10

 

PCNs are used these days as a blunt instrument of revenue raising to fill holes in council budgets. Humanity, service to residents and fairness seem to be alien concepts in council parking departments these days (Mr Mustard does get to see them when he approaches senior management but those cases are the exception, he can't deal with the 5m+ PCN issued a year in London). 

Mr Umar is a good man helping his elderly and disabled grandmother into a wheelchair and to transfer to the car. He has been abused by Newham Council. Luckily he has a backbone and a sense of right and wrong.

He was cheated out of a Notice of Acceptance.

He was cheated out of hours of his time:

- in starting an Appeal to the tribunal which he shouldn't have had to fight

- spent in considering the voluminous evidence pack, probably 100 pages

- spent in preparing his case and appearing on line and explaining his case, clearly in quite a lot of detail, to the adjudicator

- spent worrying that surely a council must surely be right and he would end up having to pay £130 as the discount was long gone.

Councils need to reflect upon the results of their actions and 99.9% of what they write should be accurate, not the usual sleight of hand responses which Mr Mustard gives a good kicking to because of his profound knowledge.

Newham Council are Cheats - #9

 

The reader might think that Newham Council have cheated themselves in this type of case rather than be the cheat but they are 100% in control of the sum demanded. Paying on line gives the council complete control over the amount that can be paid, you cannot for example pay £110 on line if the PCN has advanced to the £165 stage, except by posting in a cheque and that won't stop the process whereas paying on line usually does.

This is not the only case in which £1 has appeared. In another case, which might appear later, Newham Council denied that it was possible for their system to demand the incorrect sum but of course sensible motorists have taken screen shots of the error and the usual band of experts knew of the glitch.

What was cheating was to object to the settlement that Newham Council had themselves offered, which had been accepted, and put the motorist through the tribunal system.

Newham Council are Cheats - #8

 

This is the greatest cheat so far of the lot. What the adjudicator has picked up on here, as he wrote about it in a different decision, is that the event which took place on 15 June 2024 took place in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park but not also in the London Stadium. The traffic orders contains a provision which enables Newham Council to give out event day PCNs on days on which there is an event at the London Stadium deemed by The Traffic Manager to be large enough to warrant an event day and he so designates it. By accident or sloppiness that traffic order has been interpreted as if also applying to events taking place solely in the park.

Here is the relevant part of one such traffic order:

This clearly limits events to those taking place within The London Stadium the park and postcode being its address.

Mr Mustard having picked up on this nuance asked Newham Council for the amount of  income thus derived. It is a shocking amount.

The odd 32p is odd.

So that is £216,429 of cheating.

Now that Newham Council know that their actions are unlawful (thanks to the other tribunal decision) they will surely fall over themselves to do the right thing and make immediate refunds?

Mr Mustard doubts it as they are serial cheats.

 

 

Newham Council are Cheats - #7

 

Mr Mustard is of the view that if the length of bay suspended is more than a car or two and the bay sign is not adjacent to the affected area then councils should bookend the suspended area so that anyone who parks in it is highly likely to spot one sign or the other. All suspension signs are authorised by the Secretary of State in broadly similar form which is a 3 sided affair so that it can be seen at a distance. This is a good example, from a Barnet case which Mr Mustard lost, visible for quite a distance:

Here is the one which Newham erected:

 

Parked 10m or 20m away to one side and getting out onto the pavement there is zero chance of seeing that sign edge on. It is cheating to use an authorised sign in an unauthorised manner.

The PCN was also for the wrong alleged contravention. It should have been for being in a suspended bay. A 'restricted street' is one where there is a single or double yellow line or no lines and a number of no waiting signs to notify the temporary traffic order.

The end, but not of this cheating series.

Newham Council are Cheats - #6

 

This alleged contravention, and a PCN is just that, a document which alleges a contravention which is unproven unless you accept it or an adjudicator confirms it, of being 'parked causing an obstruction' relates only to off street car parking and is a rarely seen allegation. Barnet Council, for example, haven't used it at all for years, if ever.

Given the rarity you would think there would be very good records of such an event but no, not a jot as to what was being obstructed.

The adjudicator correctly noted the absence of evidence of obstruction and that the Notice Board did not warn the motorist against it. What the adjudicator has not told us and will have checked was whether or not 'obstruction' is listed as a contravention in the Traffic Order. Probably not is Mr Mustard's guess.

In summary Newham Council issued an unjustified PCN, rejected one or two challenges by the motorist made directly do them and then fought the case at the tribunal all the while without a scintilla of evidence in support. 

 Mr Mustard calls that trying to cheat a motorist out of £130. 

Newham Council are Cheats - #5

 

Mr Mustard has had the same discussion with an adjudicator about the lack of signage and the effectiveness of a warning Notice. It ended the same way with a cancelled PCN. It might appear in this series later on.

The role of the adjudicator is to apply the law. The law requires that a council erects and maintains signage in bays and so 99% an adjudicator will cancel for inadequate or non-existent signage. One reason is that you had a warning a month ago but the rules of the bay might have changed since then and that is why you have to be informed of the rules every time you park within a bay.

Note the adjudicator said he 'must' allow the Appeal which was entirely correct and proper.

More cheating by Newham Council.