On 1st November the parking enforcement contractor changed from NSL to APCOA. The first problem has already arisen as per the screen above. Mr Mustard is looking at a complete Notice to Owner dated 22 October 2025. Last week he could have challenged it using the on line portal as a web code was not demanded and hasn't been needed since at least 2009. He has seen it in use in other boroughs, such as Newham.
Now, either web codes will be printed on all future Notices to Owner (and postal PCNs) or there has been an error in setting up the APCOA parking portal as no-one told the programmer that web codes wouldn't be used in the future, or, if web codes will exist, no-one thought to have a transitional system to allow for Notices to Owner served in the last 28 days.
You have two other methods for making your formal representations ('formal' just means they are the ones allowed by law in response to a Notice to Owner or PCN received in the post).
The first is good old post to Barnet Parking Services, PO Box 333, Sheffield S98 1BJ (this address may change on documents posted to you on or after 1 November). Mr Mustard recommends you use the signed for service so that you have proof of delivery.
The second method is by email to barnet@nsl.co.uk but again that email address is likely to change for PCNs issued on or after 1 November 2025. It won't be long before Mr Mustard is looking at one as he gets new requests for help nearly every day.
Mr Mustard checked the 'view evidence' internet address on the NSL issued Notice to Owner:
Mr Mustard found himself re-routed to the Pay a PCN page which is a rather large nudge as to what the council would like you to do:
Sharp eyed readers will have noticed you don't need a web code in order to pay a PCN, so a hurdle present in the challenge system is refused if you want to pay. Not even handed at Barnet Council who even if they blame APCOA should still oversee them properly.
Mr Mustard will inform a manager of this teething problem.
The end.



I'd suggest that they are fettering themselves byt requiring it to appeal but not pay.
ReplyDeleteProcedural impropriety? Not treating the public fairly?