Parking in Chipping (High) Barnet

More of this councillors please, all over the borough.

It will help to save the High St.

Islington sign up

Regular readers will remember Mr Mustard blogging about the above confusing sign outside the Lilian Baylis studio, adjacent to Sadler's Wells. The effect of the no loading sign is to make it illegal for a blue badge holder to park there at any time.

Mr Mustard likes to be accurate and so he wrote to Islington Council and asked them, basically, if he was confused or if they were. They promised to see if they could make the signs clearer for the public. In the context of an email from a local government employee the word "clearer" meant "legal" which it would have been better to write in the first place. Despite Mr Mustard going to the trouble of bringing incorrect signage to the attention of Islington Council they didn't write and thank him nor tell him that they changed the signage to the below version on 15 November 13, which isn't very gracious of them.

This is clearer. The blue badge holder can now park there from 10am until 4 pm and overnight from 6.30pm to 8am (no lie in then? and please note that the above sign is a library sign, the actual times are probably the same as they were, Mr Mustard will check for you) and the rest of the time no-one should be parking there. The disabled can now safely park for a lunchtime or evening show but in the late afternoon they'll have to find somewhere else. It seems a bit of a waste. The position appears to Mr Mustard to be OK for a 24 hour disabled bay.

Now Mr Mustard wonders if the reason that Islington council didn't reply to him isn't that they lack basic manners or organisational skills but because they thought that if they kept quiet Mr Mustard wouldn't ask if they were going to voluntarily refund all the tickets that were issued when the signage was incorrect. Bad luck Islington because you were asked that today, weren't you?

Please do the decent thing and refund every PCN at this location for as long as the sign has been wrong, up to 6 years ago (the normal cut off for liability). If you don't Mr Mustard has a feeling that you might be reading about yourself in places with a much wider readership than this blog and an Islington resident might object to this year's Accounts being signed off as you have no lawful right to the income. It won't hurt that much, probably only a few hundred PCN.

Mr Mustard is grateful to the blue badge holder who got stung here and paid up. They might get their money back if they were to write in to islington Council now.

If there is a ridiculously complicated set of signs in your area, feel free to send a photograph and the location details to mrmustard@zoho.com

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Kicking you when you are down

Bailiffs are like the school bully, however, they can be stood up to.

Mr Mustard has so far seen the effects of four bailiffs in action. Their behaviour has not been pretty. They have a difficult job to do and don't do it very well at all. The bailiff who was in the wrong in clamping a Motability car was rude when unclamping when he should have been polite and apologetic.

Here is an example of a badly written bailiff's letter, bullying and a conflict of interest all in one A4 sheet.

click to enlarge

A badly written letter

Now in this case there were three warrants so the "s" of warrant(s) shouldn't be in parentheses. On the second line there is reference to "warrants" in the plural which would be wrong if there was only one warrant and this letter is evidently used in all circumstances. 

There is reference to client(s). Generally there will only be one client being collected for but it should be clear.

It isn't clear why the date of seizure of the vehicle is put in a larger font size or why a continental date format is used when a short form date format is used at the top of the letter.

The amount outstanding "as of today" cannot include an extra £30 a day. What NSL mean is please add £30 on for each extra day after the date of the letter up to the date of payment.

To prevent further enforcement action you could, in this case, file a form N244 for a personal hearing in front of a District Judge in your local County Court. The exhortation that "you must make a full payment" is to try and bully you into paying without considering your other options.

"Please call in to the call centre" must mean by telephone but Mr Mustard expects that when one of his friends says they will "call in" that he can expect a knock on the door not a phone call. A pity that the number of the call centre is not given. We are expected to guess that the telephone number at the top of the page is the one for the call centre? It is impossible to telephone the call centre at least 24 hours before payment unless you delay paying for 24 hours. The normal process would be that you decide, after a lot of thought, to pay and then you do so almost instantly. Thus you couldn't go back 24 hours to warn NSL / TASK that you are going to pay. In addition, the moment that you have paid you are entitled to the return of your vehicle. Councils that clamp and remove cars to a pound are expected to provide a round the clock service for their release.

Bullying

The reason this letter is a bullying one is that an out-of-time witness statement was filed with the Traffic Enforcement Centre ("TEC" - attached to Northampton County Court) and their decision on 7 November 13 was that the PCN would not be put back to the start of the process so that representations could be made. The Order of the TEC (essentially a Court) gave the applicant the option to file a form N244 for a local Court hearing within 14 days of service of the Order. Therefore nothing should have been done before 22 November 13. This bullying letter is 10 days premature, looks like an abuse of process and is the responsibility of Barnet Council who have a duty of care with regards to the behaviour of their bailiffs as it is the Council who are the creditor. The letter is designed to harass the recipient into paying up. 

If Mr Mustard sees another letter like this one, sent before time, he will start a complaint with the view to it reaching the Local Government Ombudsman.

Conflict of Interest

Barnet Council outsource its parking enforcement to NSL. It isn't clear from this letter who gave the instruction to proceed with enforcement but Mr Mustard has all of his money on NSL. So this means that NSL decided if their own bailiff Task Enforcement should proceed down a route which would lead to the car being auctioned off (it was worth something approaching £3,000 although seized cars somehow don't sell for their true value) and at that point Task (part of NSL) would bank their considerable fees. It simply cannot be right that the company that makes the decision profits from it. We are always being told that NSL don't make more money if they issue more PCN, well they do if the PCN end up for enforcement with the bailiff that they own. The Contract with NSL needs to be changed so that either Barnet Council make decisions affecting the bailiff (if they don't already and Mr Mustard hasn't seen that in the NSL contract) or NSL should be barred from giving warrants to Task.

Conclusion

The more closely Mr Mustard looks at parking enforcement the murkier it seems. Over the festive break he will decide what his plan is for 2014. It will probably include, amongst other things, the introduction of a voluntary charitable contribution for his personal assistance with a PCN appeal (but only for the 97% of cases that he wins) and talks for motorists, such as:

• How to park and not get a parking ticket
• The appeal process in outline and some standard arguments
• Dissecting the evidence pack prior to a PATAS hearing

If you have a group which would like Mr Mustard to educate them (for 20 to 30 minutes) do please get in touch at mrmustard@zoho.com

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The Jackson Roadies guest blog

As far as Mr Mustard can tell the above building was approved in 2011 for the bottom of the garden at 69 Jackson Rd and will tower over the lovely cottages in that road although some planning matters still have to be considered.

Given his opposition to the Cat Hill development one would expect Cllr Robert Rams to have opposed this over-development in his own ward but he hasn't spoken against it, so far as Mr Mustard is aware. Robert might have some trouble getting votes in Jackson Rd next May if this sort of over-development gets voted through.

---

SAY  NO !

Nov  21st  2013

Two separate ‘planning applications’ have been submitted to Barnet Council for a 4 and 3 storey block of flats behind number 69 Jackson Roads garden.

If you do not ‘object’ to this proposal within 21 days then one of the block of flats will be built.

Jackson Road is made up of traditional railwayman’s cottages and is a unique road with architectural merit; by letting developers build what they want where they want will destroy the areas charm and well being of people who live near the proposed site.

The developers do not live in Jackson Road or the area and do not care about the negative effects this block of flats will have on the good people and families that make up our great community.

All they care about is the large profit of cash if planning is given, even if that means making us sad and depressed.

They do not care about – the loss of natural light / loss of privacy / loss of quality of life / extra pollution from extra cars and vans / extra noise from 4 flats – human noise, boiler noise /

a negative effect on house prices because of this eye sore / possible flooding sewage and subsidence problems to other properties because of building on this site / a major threat to wildlife in the immediate area including bats, etc

If you are against more major development on or around Jackson Road which is already built up and unable to accommodate any more cars as well spoiling an architectural and historic part of East Barnet, then say no.

Send a letter or e mail or fill out a form on Barnet Councils web site to -

Barnet Council – Ms Mumtaz Shaikh

Planning Services,

Building 4,

North London Business Park,

Oakleigh Road South,

London,N11 1NP

If writing a letter you need to add your name, address, daytime telephone number and email if you have one and quote the Planning application reference –

B/05 234/13.  (four storey block of flats to the rear of 69 Jackson Road.)

B/05 238/13  (three storey block of flats to the rear of 69 Jackson Road)

If you have any further questions please contact Ms. Mumtaz Shaikh , the person from Barnet Council dealing with this, at email -
Mumtajbanu.Shaikh@barnet.gov.uk

Jackson Road Neighbourhood Watch enquiries  –   en4@hotmail.co.uk

Jackson Road FaceBook Page  -  The Jackson Roadies

(Worst) regards

Mr Mustard will spare the blushes of the unsympathetic manager at Barnet Council who wrote the above miserable email in response to a heartfelt plea for the return of her car from a lady who was, at the time, 6 months pregnant and who is now 8 months pregnant and only got her car back last week after 2 months without it. She also has to take her disabled grandmother to weekly medical appointments whilst looking after a little child who is not yet two years old. The manager's name deserves to be in the open but Mr Mustard has agreed not to blog about named junior employees, ones who earn less than £56,000 (not so junior then!).

Mr Mustard will now comment line by line on this email of 7 October.

The three PCNs currently at bailiff status are now the subject of court proceedings, as a result of the action taken by yourself. Yes, the lady knew this as she filed the out of time Witness Statements at Court. They were only out of time as she didn't get any of the correspondence which she had told the council and which they blithely ignored.

You should now wait to receive a decision from the Court in due course. The Traffic Enforcement Centre, is likely to uphold any objection made by the council and the council duly filed dubious Statements of Truth on 24 November. Given the removal of the car it is a pity that the council don't deal with these applications within 24 hours and instead take up pretty much all of the 28 calendar days that are allowed (actually allowed 19 working days). Mr Mustard has seen a handout from the TEC that says the council can accept or reject an out of time application so telling the lady that she had to wait for the Court wasn't providing a full explanation of the process and the council's role in it.

I note your dissatisfaction with our response in this matter. Mr Mustard is also not content. Before he saw the papers they had been seen by at least three council or NSL employees none of whom spotted the handling errors (probably because they didn't look for them) that Mr Mustard picked up in minutes.

In response, I would explain that we are constrained in regards to the concessions that we can make when cases have lawfully progressed onto bailiff status. Sadly the progression had been unlawful. Also, the council are not constrained, they can cancel a PCN at any stage (see paragraph 177 of the London Councils Code of Practice), and the contract with the bailiff will have the right within it to cancel any instruction without cost to the council.

It is worth mentioning that the decision to engage a bailiff company in the PCN recovery process is not one which is taken lightly. Oh yes it is. 16,723 PCN cases were sent to bailiffs in the year 2010-11. It is implausible that each file will be closely scrutinised. Instead, a list is churned out by computer and then split between 2 firm of bailiffs.

We have to be satisfied that the registered keeper was appropriately notified of the contravention and also the potential consequences of non-payment. All this line does it express in vague terms the steps that have to be taken in the processing of a PCN. The council will consider that the posting of a letter is a notification without any thought as to whether it actually reached the registered keeper or not.

In your case, PCNs were placed on the windscreen of the vehicle or handed to the driver, in the first instance. The driver wasn't the registered keeper but her sister who kept quiet and then emigrated.

Three subsequent statutory notices were issued in respect of each PCNs (sic) to the address registered with the DVLA.  Yes, they were issued but one came back which you haven't mentioned and none of the others were actually put through the letterbox of the flat.

Whilst I note your comments pertaining to your housing situation, I regret to inform you that we cannot recall the cases from the bailiff company based upon such statements, given the facts of this case. Which facts is the first question? A week prior the lady had written "I have not received any letters from the Council or the bailiff" seems not to have been a sufficient statement for the council to make further enquiry into.

Furthermore, the bailiff company have incurred certain material costs associated with pursuing the outstanding penalty charge on behalf of the Local Authority. True, a bailiff is paid on a results basis and is not on a heads we win, tails you lose deal. A bailiff makes enough money out of the cases they win to more than cover the 75% that they don't collect on.

Current legislation provides that these costs are to be met by the owner / registered keeper of the vehicle. Mr Mustard concurs.

If the Local Authority were to intervene by recalling the cases at this stage, we would have to be prepared to meet any costs that are due to the bailiff company. Hogwash. There will be nothing in the contract which allows for this. Certainly there is nothing in the contract between Barnet Council and NSL which makes the council liable.

I hope you can appreciate that we would not willingly place ourselves in such a position at this time. The council shouldn't do so, the bailiff simply has to take it on the chin.

I trust that this response has clarified your concerns. The only thing clarified is that the council don't give a fig.

Regards What? "Regards", not "Yours sincerely". Is this any way that a council should write to a motorist whose car has been wrongly, as it happens, taken away by bailiffs, or is Mr Mustard being an old fuddy duddy?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Human Rights Act - Article 6

When it comes to Penalty Charge Notices the council are required to get on with the processing in a businesslike manner (a vulgar person might call it the piss or get off the pot principle).

Barnet Council have not done so.

There isn't a strict time limit laid down in the Human Rights Act but PCN sent by post have to be issued within, usually, 28 days.

Notices to Owner have to be issued within 6 months with 56 days being best practice.

Replies to formal representations have to be within 56 days.

The Code of Practice of London Councils states that there shouldn't be a delay at any stage of more than 6 months and if there is a council should cancel a PCN. Barnet Council don't like doing that as it costs them money (is the way they see it).

So if we follow the Code of Practice there should be no more than 168 days between the Notice to Owner and the Charge Certificate or more than 365 days between the PCN and the Charge Certificate.

Here are 30 or so cases which ended up in front of the Adjudicator at PATAS. As soon as a motorist mentions delay and Human Rights the PCN gets binned. Do make sure you mention it.

PATAS	Hearing	PCN	NtO	C.C.	Delay - days
2130290209	03/08/13	23/04/11	28/07/11	09/01/13	531
2120323727	05/08/13	07/07/11	08/09/11	26/03/13	565
213026715A	06/08/13	15/04/11	21/07/11	29/01/13	558
2130267138	06/08/13	18/04/11	18/08/11	05/02/13	537
2130332444	06/08/13	25/06/11	23/08/11	05/02/13	532
2130314737	06/08/13	11/05/11	25/07/11	30/01/13	555
2130299597	06/08/13	24/04/11	03/08/11	09/01/13	525
2130296850	06/08/13	08/07/11	06/09/11	06/02/13	519
2130290934	06/08/13	03/06/11	16/08/11	05/02/13	539
2130267841	06/08/13	06/07/11	06/09/11	06/02/13	519
2130267386	06/08/13	24/06/11	23/08/11	05/02/13	532
213038799A	20/09/13	31/05/11	11/08/11	19/03/13	586
2130408943	24/09/13	22/09/11		05/04/13	561
2304453008	08/10/13	24/06/11	24/08/11	22/03/13	576
2130422172	13/10/13	15/09/11	25/10/11	04/04/13	527
2130443525	14/10/13	21/05/11		16/01/13	606
2130433667	16/10/13	03/06/11	16/08/11	05/02/13	539
2130504517	21/10/13	10/08/11	26/10/11	05/04/13	527
2130465073	24/10/13	26/09/11	03/11/11	08/04/13	522
2130473468	28/10/13	13/09/11	24/10/11	04/04/13	528
213044810A	28/10/13	02/06/11	16/08/11	20/03/13	582
2130473468	28/10/13	13/09/11		04/04/13	569
213044810A	28/10/13	02/06/11	16/08/11	20/03/13	582
2130473821	29/10/13	09/07/11		27/03/13	627
2130478310	29/10/13	13/07/11		27/03/13	623
2130512548	30/10/13	25/07/11	04/10/11	28/03/13	541
2130450837	30/10/13	12/05/11	26/07/11	12/03/13	595
2130522530	04/11/13	20/07/11		28/03/13	617
2130517621	04/11/13	26/07/11		28/03/13	611
2130491867	04/11/13	19/07/11		27/03/13	617
2130433496	04/11/13	13/07/11		27/03/13	623
2130450939	05/11/13	03/06/11		20/03/13	656
2130487870	08/11/13	19/04/11	11/07/11	09/01/13	548
2130434626	08/11/13	21/06/11	22/08/11	21/03/13	577
2130435844	19/11/13	06/06/11		15/03/13	648
2130504528	20/11/13	18/10/11	18/10/11	02/04/13	532
2130517177	26/11/13	24/09/11	01/11/11	08/04/13	524

So the number of days from PCN to Charge Certificate should not exceed 365 and the number of days from Notice to Owner to charge Certificate should not exceed 183. You will see that it frequently does. 656 days is the winner so far although Mr Mustard did have a case heading for 1,000 days but he fixed it without recourse to the Adjudicator.

Mr Mustard remains hopeful that if he continues to highlight the ways in which parking goes wrong, they will start to do it right.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Free parking in Chipping (High) Barnet

Lights to follow shortly

At last some good news on the parking front in Chipping Barnet. Some free parking bays, which have been carefully placed in the areas which are currently hardly used so the council isn't actually giving anything away and this won't hurt their projected income much at all.

The letter was 3 pages long so Mr Mustard took the scissors to it (old style cut and paste) and brings you the relevant parts:

click to enlarge

Note the crafty clawing back of funds by making over 2 hours on Hadley Green £4.55 whereas before it might have been £2.60 (for up to 3 hours). If you are staying longer Mr Mustard recommends parking on the edge of the CPZ and walking in (not the St Albans Rd please as that is becoming dangerous). Better maps are coming of the CPZ areas, Mr Mustard will be road testing them during the development stage and will report back at the time.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard