Mr Mustard is a stickler when it comes to paperwork. He creates a physical file for each PCN he manages which contains all the statutory documents, such as the Notice to Owner, and the emails sent and received, as well as his notes. Every two weeks or so he checks the balance on the relevant council's computer so that, hopefully, no PCN gets away from him into a position in which nothing can be done about it.
Not every PCN progresses from the Charge Certificate to the Order for Recovery as council have to pay the TEC section of the County Court £8 for each one they register as a debt and if they don't then collect, it is money down the drain. This is why councils (wrongly in Mr Mustard's view) get bailiffs to vet each debt in advance to see if it is worth registering. Mr Mustard has complained to councils which send a bailiff letter at that stage and Haringey Council, for example, stopped once he raised the matter.
Mr Mustard has a PCN issued by the City of London on which they had issued the Charge Certificate on 22 December 2016. He only knew this as a Reminder (a document which is not within the sanctioned process was sent on 25 January 2017. It is cheaper to post out a reminder than pay £8 to the TEC). Representations had been made on 7 November 16 and a Notice of Rejection had not been received. Mr Mustard was relaxed as he knew both that a witness statement could be made if an Order for Recovery was issued and also as he knew that the City of London never registered PCNs as debts and therefore didn't instruct bailiffs subsequently because they couldn't. Just in case he kept the file in the live draw and it was just as well that he did as in December 18, 2 years and 3 months after the PCN was issued, his client received an Order for Recovery. An in time witness statement was duly filed and the court have cancelled the debt registration, so we are back to £130 at risk. This was a case of a bay suspension, it is well known that the City of London signs for such a move are inadequate.
Most people would have thrown the paperwork away by now but not Mr Mustard. He penned a complaint to the City.
I represent Miss S as attached authority.
You sent a charge certificate on 22 December 2016 and you have now just sent her an Order for Recovery (a TE9 has now been filed) some two years later. This is unfair.
If you refer this PCN to the tribunal I will rely on, inter alia, the attached persuasive decision. You might care to cancel it instead.
FOI request: How many Order for Recovery documents have been issued since 1 November 2018 where the Charge Certificate was issued more than 6 months previously? This is an extract of the tribunal decision Mr Mustard quoted in support of his argument
You sent a charge certificate on 22 December 2016 and you have now just sent her an Order for Recovery (a TE9 has now been filed) some two years later. This is unfair.
If you refer this PCN to the tribunal I will rely on, inter alia, the attached persuasive decision. You might care to cancel it instead.
FOI request: How many Order for Recovery documents have been issued since 1 November 2018 where the Charge Certificate was issued more than 6 months previously? This is an extract of the tribunal decision Mr Mustard quoted in support of his argument
Reasonable expedition means that a council must get on with it fairly swiftly. They must either lose or use the powers that they have.
He now has a response to the complaint.
Thank you for your email below. Unfortunately the authority to act you have provided is dated 5 years ago so it is arguably lapsed and I cannot be fully confident that Miss S has given you authority to act in this specific case. If you have been acting for Miss S for the last 5 years in relation to his/her* PCNs and continue to do so then you should get an updated signed authority to act when approaching local authorities or the tribunal.
The City of London has been delayed in registering cases at Northampton County Court. Despite the time limits for claim for penalties arising from statute being 6 years, the City would normally register cases within 6 months of the charge certificate. We have however been unable to meet this timetable over the last 18 months due the introduction of a new back office system and a requirement to recruit and train additional staff to address backlogs. This resulted in a planned pause in registrations.
The City is however confident in this case that there has been no material prejudice to the keeper as it is clear that they were aware of the original notice through formal representations and a subsequent phone call, both of which are documented on our system. The keeper’s position remains as per their original challenge, i.e. that they felt the suspension notice was unclear, and our position remains unchanged, i.e. we feel the notice was clear, so I would argue that there is no prejudice arising from the legitimate delay in this case although I accept from a customer service perspective it is poor.
If this matter does end up before the tribunal it would be perfectly right for you to question delay and any other matters your client wishes you to raise, provided you have the requisite authority to act. We will address these points and an independent adjudicator would make a balanced decision having considered the evidence of both parties.
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
The City of London has been delayed in registering cases at Northampton County Court. Despite the time limits for claim for penalties arising from statute being 6 years, the City would normally register cases within 6 months of the charge certificate. We have however been unable to meet this timetable over the last 18 months due the introduction of a new back office system and a requirement to recruit and train additional staff to address backlogs. This resulted in a planned pause in registrations.
The City is however confident in this case that there has been no material prejudice to the keeper as it is clear that they were aware of the original notice through formal representations and a subsequent phone call, both of which are documented on our system. The keeper’s position remains as per their original challenge, i.e. that they felt the suspension notice was unclear, and our position remains unchanged, i.e. we feel the notice was clear, so I would argue that there is no prejudice arising from the legitimate delay in this case although I accept from a customer service perspective it is poor.
If this matter does end up before the tribunal it would be perfectly right for you to question delay and any other matters your client wishes you to raise, provided you have the requisite authority to act. We will address these points and an independent adjudicator would make a balanced decision having considered the evidence of both parties.
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
(Mr Mustard has redacted the name of the motorist but the City did know they had sent the Notice to Owner to a lady so have not been overly diligent in their reply).
Mr Mustard certainly will question the delay at the tribunal. The lady cannot remember having phoned the City but it may have been 2 years ago. The City's email is carefully devoid of that detail. Mr Mustard has a tribunal decision in which system error did not excuse the delay.
Mightily magnanimous of the City to agree that their service has been poor but to not then cancel the PCN makes them look foolish and money grubbing (money they are unlikely to ever see).
Mr Mustard does now have an updated authority letter as the tribunal have introduced new rules such that he has to produce one specific to each PCN for GDPR compliance but it was self serving to assume that his authority had expired as how else did he know about the Order for Recovery having been served.
As you saw above Mr Mustard asked an FOI question to find out how many similar cases there were. Here is the answer:
1458 Order for Recovery notices have been issued since 01/11/2018 to 10/12/2018 where the Charge Certificate was issued more than 6 months previous.
Mr Mustard doesn't know when the City got its act together again but we do know that for 18 months they were not acting with reasonable expedition and should simply cancel all the PCNs. Over 18 months they may have late processed about 17,500 tickets and many of those people are going to have moved home and the first they will know about this is when the bailiff clamps their car, as redirection of post will only have been for 3 or 6 months and as when people move they are likely, quite properly, to have thrown away paperwork related to moribund PCNs.
The trouble with parking enforcement in the public sector is that it is assumed that enforcement authorities will wield their power sensibly. If & when they don't, as in this example, there is no supervisory body which could investigate at short notice and ensure that the process is being fairly managed.
We will just have to let twitter take care of it.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
Amazed at your dedication and wish you all the best!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete