Free Traffic Legal Advice

Mr Mustard - you are a legend - but I respectfully suggest you think again.

As part of my research I read the ruling on case 2240465350, and if that were the only evidence I would not have contested the PCN. However, case 2250099929 introduced significant new evidence in the form of a map from TFL released under a FOI request. The map clearly shows that the sign and the exact location where the turn would be made is, as a matter of fact, a GLA road.

The adjudicator in case 2250099929 stated:
"There is no evidence before me that would persuade me that the official map provided by Transport for London is wrong. In light of that finding, I find as a fact that the Appellant's vehicle turned left from a GLA road into Brentfield Gardens, and section 4(3) of the 2003 Act requires that in such circumstances the prior written consent of TfL is required before a penalty charge can be served by this Authority"
and the appeal was upheld.

I would urge anyone who receives a PCN to read through case 2250099929 before paying what I am convinced is an unlawfully issued PCN.

I wanted my day in court because I understand that the Tilling Rd/Brentfield Gardens location is one of the biggest PCN revenue sources for Barnet. Laws apply to all - to motorists as well as to councils. The issue in this case is not the quality of the signage, but the legality of the PCN. If the council are required by law to have the written permission of TfL to issue PCNs at that location - as I and the adjudicator of case 2250099929 believe, then they should complete the formalities and obtain it.

Two comments: firstly, you could apply for costs if you think the council has behaved in a wholly unreasonable manner, see https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs (you can claim £19 an hour for the time you have actually spent on the case, whether the adjudicator will agree is of course another matter).

Secondly, I think you've taken a wholly unjustified amount of time off work for this. Half a day for a 45 minute hearing? C'mon. I've previously seen a TPT hearing where an appellant asked for a whole day because he booked a day off work for a 30 minute hearing, the adjudicator said they'd not entertain anything of the sort as the time claimed was out of all proportion.

When I ask clients to attend a hearing, most people will move around the start or end of their shift or take an extended lunch break, many workplaces measure annual leave by the hour rather than by the day or the half day, and if your workplace is unreasonably inflexible then it's still not clear why the taxpayer should bear the burden of that.

To the extent that you want to claim time for attending the hearing, you'd be really lucky to get an hour at most. If there was really no way you could attend the hearing other than booking a half day off work, your grievance is really with your employer rather than with the council.

Thanks for your response and for taking the time to engage with my case. I genuinely appreciate the work you and others do in maintaining this excellent resource.

I should begin with an apology. When I said Barnet should be paying me, it was intended as a flippant or humorous remark rather than a serious demand. In hindsight I should have made that clearer by using a  emoji instead of the exclamation mark, so apologies for any confusion caused.

To be absolutely clear, I do not expect the taxpayer to reimburse me for the half-day I took off work. If my post gave that impression, I apologise. My point was to contrast the approach taken by TfL, who gave sufficient notice to avoid any disruption, with that of Barnet. While the taxpayer is not being asked to foot the bill, it is worth noting that a taxpayer – me – has already borne the cost.

This was a complicated case, involving archaic legislation and detailed maps that required careful examination. I am not accustomed to tribunals, and conducting the hearing via Teams added to my anxiety. To represent myself properly, I felt I needed to be at home with a stable internet connection, my annotated documents and printed maps to hand, and in an environment free from interruption. That required an hour’s commute from work. Factoring in the hearing itself and the return journey, booking the afternoon off seemed the most sensible option.

Had I been represented by an expert, I might have felt confident enough to attend via my phone, relying on a patchy 4G connection and without access to my materials. But I was not, so I did what I felt was necessary. This was my choice, and as stated, I am not seeking compensation for it. My frustration stems from the fact that Barnet failed to notify me in advance that they were not contesting the appeal – a simple courtesy that would have avoided the situation entirely.

While I accept that some people can adjust their working hours or take extended lunch breaks, that simply isn’t possible in my line of work. Annual leave is not measured in hours in my field, and this is standard practice not unreasonable inflexibility.

My grievance is not with my employer or my terms of employment. It is with Barnet Council, who continue to issue large numbers of PCNs at this location. I believe they may be acting ultra vires, and by failing to engage with the appeals process they have denied me the opportunity – if not to prove this outright – then at least to contribute to the body of evidence that may one day do so. They will continue issuing PCNs, and most motorists will pay simply because contesting them is disproportionately onerous.

According to this article Barnet Council earn approximately £1.7m per year from PCNs at this single junction – revenue that could potentially be ruled ultra vires. That, in my view, is where the real concern lies.

I won’t be posting further in this thread except to assist other drivers who have received a PCN at this location and wish to challenge it, in which case I’ll do my absolute best to help. If that is you, please drop a note in this thread with a link pointing me to the new thread you have started for your case.