Blue badge holders - a source of unfair profit

 

A PCN was issued to a blue badge holder whose time clock was wrongly set to 4 o'clock.

Mr Mustard challenged it on two grounds. The first one was that the wrong contravention had been alleged. He sent the council tribunal decision 2170012879 in support.

The council agreed and cancelled the PCN.

The second ground was based on logic. Blue badge holders can park for up to 3 hours if they display a valid badge and a correctly set clock. Mr Mustard offered up the following second ground:

In his haste Mr Mustard wrote 'badge or no badge' instead of 'clock or no clock'. Mr Mustard thinks that an adjudicator would look kindly on such an argument but hasn't tried it out yet. You are welcome to use it if the situation applies to a PCN that you have.

What would be fair to blue badge holders is to not issue PCNs where it is self evidence that the 3 hours time limit cannot have been exceeded but that would be the council losing revenue and they won't like that.

The end 

Clock this

The below is the blue badge and clock which was on display.

The clock in question was supplied by Motability many years ago although they are usually supplied by a council with the blue badge and are meant to be blue in colour and are usually a light shade. This clock has been used for years without a problem (and will now be replaced, you can buy clocks on ebay if you are in a rush).

If the cover is removed this is what is left:

Mr Mustard can't see that it matters the colour of the outside of the clock, it isn't there to look pretty but to indicate the time of arrival, within 15 minutes.

The first challenge was rejected:

It is incorrect. A parking clock was displayed but it was of the wrong colour which is what the rejection should have said.

The motorist didn't wait for the Notice to Owner but wrote in again as many people do and it must annoy the council as they have to take time in responding (it can be argued that you can write in more than once before the Notice to Owner is issued as the back of the PCN says that representations before the Notice to Owner will be considered. The statement is not in the singular).

A second rejection was received.

Another error, the clock was correctly set.

In due course the Notice to Owner arrived, was challenged and at the third time of asking Barnet Council cancelled having wasted everyone's time.

What this nonsense tells you is that persistence pays.

The end.

 

Tower Hamlets play fair

Mr Mustard's friend had a blue badge passenger in the car. He knew that was OK in Barnet and Enfield* to park in a residents bay and therefore assumed it would be ok in Tower Hamlets. It wasn't. Mr Mustard thought about the matter and sent in the following informal challenge. (* do put Mr Mustard right if he is wrong about this).

Tower Hamlets were quite quick and replied after 2 weeks.

The content of the letter, which was sent attached to an email, was somewhat contradicted by the covering email.

If there was a scoring system for this PCN Tower Hamlets would get a 9 out of 10, so well done them for cancelling for a first error which should not get repeated. This is how it should be.

This does highlight though the problem for a blue badge driver who really needs to research where he/she can stop for free before he/she makes a journey across London. It wouldn't need much, a blue badge logo on all bays where blue badges could be used would be a simple addition and bring clarity to all. Tower Hamlets sadly didn't answer the simple question posed by Mr Mustard, once they have cancelled a PCN they don't want to spend more time on it.

The end.

Targeting the disabled in Redbridge

Another decision which Mr Mustard stumbled upon

 

Mr Mustard had forgotten that organisations can have a blue badge. It is entirely sensible as if you have a minibus with, say, a dozen spaces for wheelchairs and/or the disabled, picking up and dropping people off all day, having to display new personal blue badges for each journey, it would be an administrative burden that would be likely to go wrong.

 

Redbridge Council have given this social enterprise a burden they didn't need or deserve and two people had to use time to attend the tribunal which they could have better used to further their work with the disabled. Mr Mustard notes that the council didn't send a representative to argue their case, that may have been because they knew they looked bad or that they didn't have any proof of wrongdoing.

 

Mr Mustard notes two things:

 

1    The adjudicator was clearly satisfied that the badge was not being misused (and councils often throw out accusations with no proof whatsoever).

2    Oakmont aren't hiding away. They have asked for a meeting to discuss the matter and Redbridge Council has failed to meet them.

 

Councils that continue to behave badly will continue to feature in this blog. There isn't a shortage, the only problem is Mr Mustard doesn't have enough spare time to blog them all.

The end.

(Dog) collared after 3 years in Southwark

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Mustard often looks at cases where the adjudicator's decision is to refuse the Appeal but suggest (recommend) to the council that they cancel the PCN (or not collect the sum due under it).

As soon as the first PCN was issued the Reverend, or his wife, should have woken up and put the blue badge in the car and stopped the rot. It is unlikely that the blue badge would have been stolen in the short time it would have taken to obtain a new AD permit on line.

Shocking really, no PCN for three years and then three in a fortnight. Doubtless the council didn't follow up with residents who hadn't transferred from a paper permit to a virtual one. Mr Mustard's experience in Barnet is that they leave you to find out each time the system changes, rather than proactively helping the public.

Southwark should really have proved that they made the Reverend aware of the new system at the time and, given that this bay was installed especially for Mrs Lucas, not treated it as a profit centre but public service went west a long time ago in parking departments.

End.

Blue badge misuse - please don't do it

Auditors at Barnet Council looked at PCN cancellation processes last year. Here are some of the points they were concerned about:

Best not to cheat by using a blue badge when you shouldn't or use the same untrue excuse time after time as you'll put yourself under the microscope. In addition, Mr Mustard will not assist you if he thinks that you may well have cheated.

If you are a cheat, take the hint and stop now.

End.

N.B. CAFT = Corporate Anti-Fraud Team.

Bexley Council - fettered discretion

 

The above tribunal case, one of seven that afternoon, didn't require Mr Mustard to say much to the adjudicator other than 'thank you' as he had done the spade work, argued the case consistently and placed a skeleton argument on file to boil the case down for the adjudicator to what was disputed.

It isn't only awful that Bexley Council has a policy of refusing representations if the blue badge holder isn't the driver given that the nature of some disabilities would hamper the safe driving of some (so you want them to be the passenger for the good of the community) but that having placed a bay outside the house of Mrs Sehmi for her convenience the council wanted to part her from £110 when she was suffering post operative pain following a major operation. 

It is morally repugnant of any council to enforce a PCN in such circumstances. A policy change is desperately needed. PCNs have got to stop being used as a vehicle for revenue raising.

End.

Brent Council - zero common sense

Mr B had the misfortune to have his car broken into and his blue badge taken. His car is over 20 years old so after having spoken to his insurers he decided to pay for his own repairs as it was, taking into account future premiums, the most economical solution. He reported this to the police who issued a crime reference number but said they don't send a written confirmation.

The day after the theft, Mr B received a PCN outside his home because he didn't (couldn't in fact) display a blue badge and the arrangements for such an instance aren't helpful as they involve a long wait for a replacement. Mr B ended up paying for a residents permit for 3 months. Mr Mustard has to make enquiries of Brent to see what policy and procedure they have for this kind of case, sadly all too common, which complies with their duty under the Equality Act. They seem only to have punishments and not much help.

Mr B (acting by a family member) made a challenge over the internet, which is beyond Mr B's capabilities, but got rejected, twice, and the miserable letter from Brent Council contains the following.

The challenges made prior to that letter included the following statements:

I did not claim the glass replacement via the insurance as I was advised that this would significantly increase my insurance premium

and

The Crime was reported and I was given a Crime reference number CAD****, I contacted the police and was informed no documents are provided, just a CAD should suffice.

What did the car look like when the CEO photographed it, the day after the theft? Like this:

Why do Brent Council need any paperwork at all, they have collected evidence of the car windows being smashed in for themselves?

Why also do they ask for proof in the way of documents that they have already been told are not available?

Why are they so unhelpful to a disabled person?

Why do they not make due adjustment under the Equality Act?

Why do they fail to serve the public? Could it be that they want to help themselves to money out of the wallet of a poor, disabled pensioner?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet - blue badge stolen? - tough, have a PCN

The theory goes that councils are there, in part, to serve the public. That is the theory, the reality is cruel and unhelpful.

The adjudicator has done the best then can in accordance with their duties and the law. Mr Mustard doesn't know the outcome, as he wasn't acting in this case, but does hope that on fourth thoughts (they had possibly rejected the motorist at the informal stage and definitely at the formal stages and then decided to fight the Appeal so had already had ample opportunity to do the decent thing) some common sense and decency will prevail.

Challenges to PCNs are made in remote back offices or even home offices at the present. There is no independent oversight of the process. Mr Mustard thinks that if a council officer had to sit opposite the motorist and tell them why they were refusing the challenge that a lot of more sensible decisions would be made.

Mr Mustard doubts there are sensible measures in place to assist blue badge holders who are the victim of crime. The very least they should do is put the registration number of the affected motorist onto a white list for 6 weeks so that they do not get a PCN within Barnet during the time it takes to get a replacement badge.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Copthall Playing Fields - rules changed

Mr Mustard received the following enquiry

Seeing the words 'double yellow lines', you may not have much sympathy.

In this case though, the situation is more nuanced. This is a road within a park which drivers might not realise is actually the public highway and subject to the usual driving and parking rules.

Also, for many years this road could be freely parked on. Perhaps rugby supporters were parking on it on match days and that was causing problems. The rules were changed in 2018

Mr Mustard checked the database of PCNs issued. There wasn't a single one in 2019 but enforcement did take place in the first quarter of 2020 but only on random Sundays (when football is likely to be played and thus a traffic warden has more chance of catching someone out)

Later data has not yet been published and enforcement was paused for a while due to covid.

Mr Musatrd's advice is to not park on those lines any longer as the inevitable will occur and an extra £55 (if you pay the discounted rate) is a bit stiff to watch your child play football.

The best defence is one of 'legitimate expectation' - you parked that way throughout 2019 and 2020 without, up until now, being ticketed. This defence only works once, after that you are on notice.

Here is an adjudicator's explanation but the decision in any particular case is fact dependent and in the mind of the adjudicator.

If you have a blue badge you can park there for 3 hours with a correctly set clock.

Otherwise, park somewhere else.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Lack of logic

The guidance booklet is not a statement of the law

The is set out above. A motorist, let's call them Frank, parks with their blue badge on a one hour single yellow line. Provided that loading is not prohibited, notified by yellow marks across the kerb and a sign plate with times (except when there are two marks together which means 24 hours) a motorist can park for up to 3 hours on a single yellow line. The reason for the clock, or disc as it is properly known, is to enable a passing traffic warden to know when you parked in order to establish if you had been there for more than 3 hours. The clock has no function if the yellow line only operates for a single hour, that is very simple logic.

Along came a traffic warden, keen as anything to issue a PCN and duly did so because the clock, which wasn't needed, was set to the wrong time. That was mistake number 1.

Frank challenged, expecting logic to take over. It didn't and the above is part of the response received. That was mistake number 2 by Barnet Council.

Frank wasn't happy so off to his MP he went. The MP duly passed the query on to Barnet Council and clearly doesn't have much logic themselves, and meekly accepted the council's assurance that the council were correct and Frank was in the wrong. Here is part of the response.

 

A senior officer, one would expect, looks at queries from MPs. Well if they were senior they weren't much cop as they too got it wrong. Ironically the Statutory Instrument they quoted gave the correct answer about the situation. What a pity they didn't read it. Mistake number 3. 

At this point Frank contacted Mr Mustard who thought that the answers were not logical and so he carried out some research to confirm his thinking.

It doesn't help that the booklet you get with your blue badge overstates the law although it is safer to put your clock out every time you park so that you get in the bait and so that a zealously wrong traffic warden doesn't make you one of his victims

 

Mr Mustard wrote to the parking manager and all of a sudden some proper thought was applied to the situation. To save time Mr Mustard sent the manager the relevant section of the statutory instrument

To precis for you the above regulations say that you don't need a parking clock for restrictions which do not exceed 3 hours. It took two weeks but then the PCN was cancelled and a brief apology was given. No flowers, no chocolates, no bottle of wine though.

Frank was relieved and grateful and will, on Mr Mustard's advice, display their clock every time they park even though they don't need to.

Now you blue badge holders know and so you won't meekly pay up if any council makes the same mistake as Barnet did. Simply email mrmustard@zoho.com for free help.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Traffic wardens not trained in blue badge abuse / fraud

Mr Mustard is fighting a PCN, and he has just started a case at the tribunal, where, the driver says, the traffic warden confiscated the blue badge because the holder, a juvenile, was not in the car. The motorist, his mum, says she was collecting him. Whilst Mr Mustard believes the motorist, he thought he would check the knowledge of the traffic warden and the training which enabled him to do his job properly. Thus, he asked Havering Council about the training of traffic wardens and was worried to receive this response:

Misuse of a blue badge is a fraud. Typical council semantics.

The removal of the badge caused extra difficulties for the young boy whose badge it was. Mr Mustard did get it returned pretty quickly by complaining to the Chief Executive of Havering who quickly delegated the task to a senior manager who arranged a same day interview of the driver, who was the holder's mother, and then gave the blue badge back to her, the driver on the day in question.

You can't blame the traffic warden for getting it wrong, as he hasn't been trained (although motorists are expected to digest without any error the Rights and Responsibilities guidance which runs to 34 pages) but he shouldn't be asked to exercise the powers of a blue badge fraud investigator (and make no mistake as soon as a badge is seized it is assumed that you are guilty) nor should he confiscate a badge, without being fully trained. It would be better if a traffic warden merely reported the suspicion of fraud to the blue badge investigation team.

Mr Mustard has further concerns about the traffic warden. This is part of his written report.

If it wasn't such a serious situation Mr Mustard would be smiling as he thinks of Allo Allo:
for "I was pissing by the door, and I thought I would drip in"

we have 'I was petroling on St Nicholas Avenue'

but this is no time for humour.

The other point Mr Mustard notes is that the traffic warden, who pulled up alongside the parked car which was on double yellows, asked the driver to move on before looking in the windscreen, where the blue badge was to be found. That speaks volumes about the attitude of traffic wardens. Anybody on a double yellow must be wrongly parked and yet tens of thousands of motorists in greater London have blue badges and the right to park for 3 hours on a double yellow (except where loading is banned, identified by yellow marks across the kerb).

The blue badge has been returned, then renewed just a month after the incident without any hesitation, no proceedings have been commenced or even threatened, but yet Havering Council want to force the motorist to the tribunal. The motorist won't have to attend, Mr Mustard will handle it. Will the council fight the tribunal Appeal or will they wisely throw in the towel and file a 'do not contest' form. Time will tell and Mr Mustard will let you know.

Mr Mustard is of course wondering which other London local authorities have untrained traffic wardens going about confiscating badges in an ignorant fashion. Best smarten your act up parking managers before Mr Mustard starts asking questions.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Time to stop this sort of PCN

This is the type of situation which Mr Mustard hopes will arise less often if the residents decide to vote Labour councillors into power as Mr Mustard thinks that they will be more inclined to listen to his advice and be more reasonable towards the public.

The above car was given a ticket for not being 'parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space'. The driver is a blue badge holder and that is a disabled space that his car is within. Given the large distance to the next bay, which is now an electric vehicle charging bay, no difficulty would arise for any car in the adjoining bay as there is plenty of space within which to open car doors.

One question is therefore why this sort of borderline but miserable PCN gets issued? (and this one to a client of a money advice centre which Mr Mustard assists) and the answer that Mr Mustard comes to is that ruling councillors take very little interest in day to day ticketing activities carried out by NSL, their outsourced supplier of traffic wardens, unless a resident complains and residents tend not to.

The second question is to whether the car is outside the markings of the bay at all, as the hatched area can be seen to be part of the bay, at least up until the mid-point between two bays. Mr Mustard can't see an adjudicator upholding such a PCN given the complete lack of a traffic management purpose, the only obvious purpose being the raising of revenue.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Cancerlation - no chance.

Mr Mustard is a busy man working full time and fighting councils PCNs in his 'spare' time. He gets tired just like anyone else who works hard but what keeps him going is helping people less fortunate than himself. A Mr Mustard shouldn't, in a civilised society, be necessary, but parking departments have gone so far down the raising revenue at all costs route that they have lost sight of humanity and need someone to tug on their chain, hard, and use the oxygen of bad publicity to try and make them change their ways.

This next decision of the tribunal isn't of a case that Mr Mustard dealt with but it makes him sick to his core of council parking departments. This heartless decision was by Barnet Council.

The vehicle belonged to Motability so we know that the motorist is physically disabled.

The appellant appeared before me today accompanied by Redacted, both of whom made submissions.

The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle was parked in a disabled badge holders bay without displaying a valid disabled badge.

There was no dispute that an expired disabled badge was on display in the vehicle.

The appellant gave evidence as to her serious medical condition she living with cancer and other disabilities it being clear from her appearance that she was very unwell.

I accepted that although the appellant had intended renewing her badge she had overlooked that renewal due to the very serious health issues she was experiencing at the time together with a family bereavement.

I noted that her renewed badge was valid from 19-12-17 she not receiving it until 05-01-18. (The PCN was dated 7 December 2017)

I was satisfied that the contravention had occurred and acknowledged that the council had cancelled a previous penalty charge incurred by the appellant's vehicle on the ground of 'first time cancellation' but I was satisfied given the appellant's personal mitigation that this was on appeal a suitable case for the exercise of the council's discretion and I would invite it to cancel this PCN.

Why doesn't the council think that someone living with cancer, who is visibly ill, doesn't merit a second PCN cancellation. Is that just one mistake you are allowed in your lifetime, or one a year? We should be told.

Would any reasonable person not just cancel a PCN for someone who qualifies for a blue badge but doesn't put it on display for whatever reason, given that if they did, they would qualify for free parking.

Are cancer sufferers just a source of revenue for Barnet Council? Yes, they are.

No criticism can be made of the Adjudicator. Their legally defined role is to decide if a contravention has occurred or not. They will always do their best to find a legal escape route in deserving cases but in this one they did not have one available.

The exercise of discretion, or mitigation, rests entirely in a council's hands. They are so blinkered in parking departments as to whether or not a contravention occurred, and the revenue they raise, that they forget to be human.

Part of the fault for this rests with councillors who delegate too much power to council staff, or 'officers' as they are over grandly titled. Councillors need to set out circumstances in which all PCNs should be cancelled and that should include blue badge holders who forget to put their badge out, who place it upside down, who forget the clock, or who have health problems that cause them to overlook something.

Something in Mr Mustard's brain tells him that PCNs are not issued by Barnet Council until a blue badge has been expired for 14 days, in this case only 10 days had elapsed. It would have been a far better solution to issue a warning PCN for £0.00 which would have alerted the badge holder to the problem and prompted them to renew their badge.

Councillors are going to be knocking on your doors asking for your vote. Ask them what they are going to do to make PCNs less about revenue generation and to make the borough a nicer place in which to live without fear of miserable penalties.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Blunders abound - updated, but not compensated

Although Mr Mustard is very busy working and really hasn't got the spare time for PCNs he can't leave wronged motorists without the necessary help.

A PCN was issued to a Scotsman for code 87: Parked in a designated disabled person's parking place without displaying a valid disabled person's badge in the prescribed manner. The photo above was taken by the traffic warden.

Although the clock is displayed and shows a time of about 11:05 it wasn't necessary to display it as blue badge holders park for fee all day in this car park. The gentleman in question had driven down from Scotland to visit his brother in Barnet General and then nipped up to the town centre where, after finding the PCN on his car, he was lucky to be spotted by a friend of Mr Mustard's on his way to band practice (he plays the tuba whereas traffic wardens just play the fiddle) who passed on the necessary mobile phone number.

The motorist has done nothing wrong, he has clearly displayed a valid blue badge the correct way up. Now he has to fight a PCN and make a charity donation for Mr Mustard's help so will be out of pocket even if the PCN gets cancelled the instant that Mr Mustard's complaint goes in.

Mr Mustard has seen more instances recently of complete lash ups by traffic wardens. Service really needs to improve as being wrongly threatened with a £110 penalty is not cricket. This is another example of an instance in which the motorist should automatically be compensated for the inconvenience.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Here is the council response: 

The arrival time does not appear to Mr Mustard to be wrong (and the council don't actually know the time of arrival) but what usually happens is that the traffic warden looks to see if the clock time is later than the current time & if it is assumes that the motorist was trying to gain extra minutes. The snag with that thought process, if indeed it is one rather than simply mechanical, is that the rules say you just have to set for the quarter hour within which you parked, so arriving at 11:01 you can properly set your clock for 11:14

Note that there is absolutely no mention of compensation. The council do not have to compensate you by law for their errors so the council won't pay any. Bah humbug. When PCN laws get refreshed Mr Mustard will be pushing for automatic fixed sum compensation for council errors.

24 December 2017

Do bailiffs bully the disabled?

Without access being offered, entry would not be legal

Mr Mustard's client has got herself in a bit of a pickle. A proud person, she didn't want to bother him with her Ealing PCNs as she thought she could sort them out herself. Thanks though to being ill such that she has to be checked up on every 2 months and suffering from depression due to her illness, lack of money and general quality of life, she has not beaten the PCNs and they have ended up with bailiffs.

Last June she asked Mr Mustard for help with the bailiff at a time when he was so overrun that he couldn't deal with bailiff matters (he also prefers to stop tickets reaching that stage) & passed her the details of a bailiff advice helpline. He told her not to worry as the bailiff could not remove or clamp her car. Guess what happened next? Yes, in September 16 a bailiff acting for Ealing Council clamped the car. Mr Mustard was on his way to the parking tribunal when it happened. He only had time to text the bailiff to tell him he could not clamp the car as the blue badge is permanently on display. Mr Mustard found out later that within 30 minutes the clamp was removed. That bailiff at least realised the game was up having chanced his arm with the wrong person. Mr Mustard's client may be ill but she will not be bullied.

Just before Christmas with perfect timing a second PCN reached the bailiff stage. Now Mr Mustard, as a debt collector in real life, accepts that bailiffs have a job to do and they have draconian powers of removal of goods. There are though also some limited checks on their power. In a civilised society parliament has decided that disabled people will not have their mode of transport removed. In addition, your home is your castle and forced entry cannot take place without specific court consent (for a traffic PCN, it can be for a magistrates court debt) which Mr Mustard suspects would not be granted against a disabled person claiming PIP as they won't have any assets worth the cost of seizure & sale.

The first Notice was delivered on 23 December 16. It was for 2 PCNs.

The next one came on 6 January (perhaps even bailiffs have some time off)

Just another 6 days and here is the third letter, just for one of the PCNs, not for both for some reason.

Another visit on 20 January, for both PCN this time. By now, the bailiff, or at least a bailiff, must have seen the car as it is parked off street outside the property in a disabled bay and with the blue badge clearly visible. It was also the case that the blue badge formed part of the representations which were made & the badge was issued by Ealing Council so they know they are sending a file to bailiffs for goods, nearly always the car, to be seized when the car is exempt by law from seizure. This is information which in Mr Mustard's view should be communicated to the bailiff by their client, Ealing Council (or any other one) at the start so that the disabled do not have their car clamped in error. The previous clamping by a bailiff in the employ of Collect Services may be a factor in them not having clamped or removed despite their many letters and in fact means that in their records they knew from the start of this correspondence that they could not remove the car.

The question is why are they hand delivering letters which state that they will remove 'your Vehicle' when they know it is exempt?

Only 4 days to wait and a third PCN has reached the bailiff stage.

Ooh, a different letter was issued on 3 February. The bailiff didn't need ANPR as the vehicle is usually parked outside the address on the warrant. Another threat to remove which the law will not allow. The balance cannot have increased if a bailiff (enforcement agent) has called recently as the debt already included 3 separate visit fees, one for each PCN, of £235 a pop.

Nearly a month went by, one of the warrants had expired and was not renewed so the debt dropped.

 Another 10 days, another letter.

On 13 March the ANPR letter was again sent containing another threat of illegal action.

Another 11 days and another visit and another illegal threat to remove the car

Another 10 days again, another letter threatening to break the law.

A month until the next letter, sorry if you are already bored, try imagining receiving all these letters especially if sick and living on benefits.

On 8 May Collect had got themselves a new template and sent a different letter about an appointment that never was and again illegally threatening to remove the car.

Just 3 days later back to one of the other letters

Mr Mustard can't quite read the date on the next letter but thinks it may be 10 June. It might be the final roll of the dice by Collect or else they saw that the Newlyn bailiff had only gone and clamped the same car on behalf of Brent Council, a matter about which a solicitor is still waiting a response from Brent Council, the clamp having only been removed after it was in place for 6 days.

Mr Mustard wonders if Ealing Council keep a close enough eye on what their bailiffs get up to, whether sending the debts of Motability car drivers and blue badge holders to bailiffs is even reasonable given that the power of the bailiff is to seize goods and they can't seize the car (and secondhand household effects are pretty worthless) and whether sending 15 letters threatening the removal of an exempt item is harassment (a question which Mr Mustard will ask his lawyer tomorrow but feel free to comment if you are one).

It really isn't very attractive to threaten to break the law in order to enforce it.

How has it made the lady herself feel? Like this:

There are right and wrong ways of doing your job. If the above message is the result of how it is currently done, it is undoubtedly the wrong way.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard