Camden Car pound Cock-up

 

If you have the misfortune to have your car towed by a council (now £280) you should be given a notice of your right to make a representation in writing (or sometimes also by email or on a portal) to the relevant enforcement authority (Camden Council in this case) to argue why the PCN and/or the tow was wrong. If the council reject those representations, which they inevitably will otherwise they have to give you £360 back (the tow fee + the discounted PCN, £80 in this case) the door then opens to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals.

What you should not be given is a Notice of Appeal form to start an Appeal to London Tribunals because that stage has not yet been reached.

This is what Miss EV was also given (she had accidentally parked on an EV bay as there were two spaces with the charger sat in the road in the middle of them so it looked like two separate bays and only the right hand one had a sign - Mr Mustard has told her that finding a free bay in Camden was optimistic).

The above form explains why the first email from Miss EV to Mr Mustard was so confusing, the lady had been mislead by Camden Council car Pound which is doubtless outsourced.

Mr Mustard thinks this amounts to a procedural impropriety as it is a failure to follow the Regulations about PCNs and should be an automatic cancellation at the tribunal. That will be the first argument before the unclear signage one and only one ball needs to be kicked into the net for a cancellation.

The end, for now. 

Lots wrong at the Kensington & Chelsea car pound

As readers will know, there is a risk in some boroughs that a car with a PCN on the windscreen can be removed to a secure pound (in Lots Road for this borough) and recovered only after paying 50% of the PCN (as you are hopefully paying within 14 days so get the discount) a £200 removal fee and £40 per night storage.

For parking PCNs (as opposed to other types) the pound may only demand payment of the PCN which led to the removal. This is the law and it is also stated in the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State which a council must know and follow.

How, therefore, did the car pound operated by NSL on behalf of the Royal (as in right royal cock up) Borough of Kensington & Chelsea ('K&C') decide to hold Mr Calm (not his real name) over a barrel and decide to simply refuse to follow the law. Lord Mustill, in the case of Doody, had this to say:

Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.

There is no exception to the law at the Lots Road Car Pound - well not after this episode there isn't.

So there you are late at night being right royally messed about and lied to by the senior staff at the pound and all credit to Mr Calm, he really was pretty calm under the most severe provocation and whilst his Human Rights were being trampled on.

This was a situation which was being managed late at night by telephone by a particularly knowledgeable pro bono PCN expert called Ivan Murray-Smith. He can quote parking laws faster than anyone Mr Mustard has ever met and in the background he was being guided by other experts although Mr Mustard had been working hard and was a bit jetlagged from a work trip so at 1am he went to bed.

Two complaints were made to K&C. Here is their response along with commentary by Mr Mustard

It is pleasing to see the Head of Parking take responsibility.

There needs to be a bit more flexibility in documentation for release. If you have the keys and can state what items are in the glove box, for sure you are closely connected to the vehicle. If you are visiting from Birmingham or Manchester you are unlikely to be carrying anything other than your driving licence. Mr Mustard leaves an insurance schedule in his car as others sometimes drive his car (yes, they are insured!).

At the end of this first page you can see that Mr Calm was 'asked' to pay for 4 other PCNs. That was an 'ask' where a metaphorical gun is at your head, it certainly wasn't asking nicely, it was an if you don't....

This is how to respond to a complaint. Admit you were wrong 'should not have asked Mr Calm to do this'.

Having had his nose pressed into the Traffic Management Act that empowers him the Duty Pound Manager has been awakened from his entitled slumber.

There is a world of difference between making motorists aware of something and refusing to release their car unless more money is handed over, a payment which brings the challenge process to an end.

When K&C refer to friend/solicitor they mean 'representative'.

Refusing to leave at midnight was fair enough. It wouldn't have made any difference if Mr Calm had objected to the police being called, the pound would have phoned them regardless. Did the pound give Mr Calm the name and number of a suitably senior officer, who did know parking law? no, of course they didn't. They are the public face of K&C and should have dealt with this situation much better.

What the police did isn't a matter for the parking manager who wasn't there. If he was on call for the pound this situation could have been prevented.

The police response seems to be entirely correct in the circumstances although K&C were breaking the law it isn't as clear cut as being called to a burglary and letting Mr Calm have his belongings from the car was helpful (Mr Mustard doesn't know what but it could have been important documents, medicines, money, whatever).

Here it is admitted that payment of £265 should have led to the release of the car.

When K&C say they 'discovered' the absence of an MOT they mean they looked it up on the DVLA website just like we all can. It had expired on 23 November and they nabbed the car on the 25th so out of date but not hideously so. It now has one.

K&C say they have 'internal processes' which enable paid PCNs to be challenged. Do they publish these anywhere as otherwise how would the public know? Mr Mustard had a look around the K&C web pages but couldn't find this policy. He will have to ask for a copy of it and any others they keep to themselves.

Having deliberately got things wrong at the pound the permit team then make matters worse by accidentally refusing a permit application and Mr Mustard doubts that there is a single road in the borough where you can easily park for free for 24 hours a day as the entire borough has controlled parking zone hours for some of each day on most days of the week. This was to compound Mr Calm's problems and expense.

'NSL were incorrect', say K&C, too right they were.

'NSL should not have insisted', correct again.

'I can assure you that NSL were not engaging in extortion or blackmail...' but what were they doing, it certainly wasn't lawful.

 

Mr Mustard's main takeaway from this shocking fiasco are the arrogant and contemptible statements of the staff who, safely ensconced behind their glass screens, think they can say and do what they like:

'We do not follow the law' and

'I don't want to listen to the law'

Mr Mustard thinks they will be following the letter of the law from now on as will the staff at any other NSL operated car pound.

Reprimands are the order of the day, without the tape recordings there would be an argument about what was said. Feel free if you end up at the car pound to leave your camera or voice recorder running.

Oh dear, there is no TMA 2008 (Traffic Management Act). What the manager meant to refer to is correctly identified on the K&C website, if only they had looked at it.

Second-hand apologies aren't worth much. Personal hand written apologies would be more valued, remember this one?

Mr Mustard thinks they will play with a straight bat at Lots Road from now on.

This was not a one off. Please come forward if you have been hoodwinked into paying more than one parking PCN (not bus lane or moving traffic) by any car pound in London.

The End.
 

Camden Council stopped in their tracks

Here is the story of Mr W.

Mr W's adult son is staying with him for a short while and he buys him a modest 14 year old car to use - the son drives to Haverstock Hill one Saturday evening (1 February) and parks perfectly legally without any restriction until 8am on Monday 3 February. Socialising with friends the son decides he should not drive home so leaves the car where it is.

Early on Monday 3 February father& Son go to collect the car. It is gone. They report the theft to the police and are given a crime number. They give the crime number to the insurers.

5 February the police say they will take no further action.

7 February. The car is issued with a PCN and taken to the Camden Council car pound. It must have been the third PCN as the car was in a bay for which payment was required each and every day.

10 February. The insurers agree a car valuation of £1,100

11 February. The insurers pay out less the excess.

11 March. Notification is received (probably by Notice to Owner) of two PCNs. Representations are made and accepted, the PCNs are cancelled.

12 March. Notification is received (probably by Notice to Owner) of a third PCN. Representations are made and accepted, the PCN is subsequently cancelled.

17 March. Notice is received of the cancellation of a PCN.

25 March. Camden Council write to say the car is in the pound and notification is received by Mr W of the cancellation of two PCNs. The letter mentions that evidence of the police report was provided.

11 April. Camden Council write to demand £2,920 being the £80 PCN + £200 for the tow & 66 days overnight storage at £40 a night. The letter said the vehicle would be destroyed if the charges were not paid. As Mr W no longer owned the car, and was not liable for the actions of the thief, he ignored the letter as he had already provided proof of this. By now the insurer had owned the car for 2 months.

24 May, Camden Council wrote again. Here is the body of the letter.

At this point Mr W became concerned and consulted Mr Mustard. A very short letter was drafted which pointed out the car was stolen and reported to the police, that ownership had been transferred to the insurer as notified to DVLA and that Mr Mustard was now the representative of Mr W.

In less than two weeks Camden Council slammed themselves into reverse and sent the below:

The council had ample opportunity to verify the crime reference previously and had already cancelled three PCNs on the grounds of theft so that was just something to say to try and cover up why the writer's colleagues had been so useless up until then.

Other questions which arise are why the police did not tell Mr W that the vehicle was in the car pound as upon removal a record should have been made in TRACE a London wide record of all towed vehicles to which both the police and councils have access.

Given that £40 a night is being added to the bill councils should be more pro-active on getting cars released from the pound. Often the keeper or driver turns up very quickly as they need the car to get home in. If however, the car is stolen, and the police don't know or tell of the impounding, then a bill of £2,920 has already accumulated (on a vehicle worth £1,100) before anything substantive happens.

This is what the law says about removed cars:

That says, in terms, that as soon as a car is impounded the council should write to the registered keeper. Not doing so for several weeks whilst profiting from high storage charges looks like self enrichment.

As soon as Camden Council knew the car had been stolen they should have asked the obvious question, was an insurance claim made?

How did Camden Council manage to sell for £150 a car which insurers found to be worth £1,100 (an allowance must be made for there not being any keys). Who buys all the unclaimed cars? Is there a cosy arrangement with an employee of the car pound?

Why did it take the input of Mr Mustard to get this fixed? It often does. Parking managers across London know his name and his incredibly detailed knowledge of parking law and if they are wise, they sit up and take notice.

Have Camden Council now wrongly destroyed the property of the insurer? Yes.

Does the insurer know? No, probably not.

Camden Council are liable to the insurer for the amount by which the sale proceeds exceeded the costs due, which is of course zero, but only if they have taken the steps a competent authority would take to identify the true owner, which they haven't so they are probably liable to the insurer for the sum paid out (which Camden Council could reclaim from the operator of the pound).

Camden Council need to improve their procedures, that is for sure.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

 

Council clamp down

Mr Mustard has a new and exciting line of work following the below email

This change in policy was voted through (possibly or probably unwittingly) at the Environment Committee meetings of 18 November 14, 27 January 15 and 19 May 15 (link here) which contained amongst dozens of pages, the following:

Mr Mustard suspects that the 'log book' V5 of his newest client will turn out to be out of date and that will severely limit his options for contesting what has happened but time will tell.

Mr Mustard recommends you go and find your V5 (if you have moved since you purchased your car) and check the address is the current one. Then check your driving licence. You have to tell DVLA twice that you have moved.

If you think you can hide your car forever, forget it, ANPR will almost certainly find you. The better policy is to fight your PCN to the end, not to ignore them.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard