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

No compassion; no goodwill

A truly sickening state of affairs.

Here are the bare bones of the facts.

Day 1. An elderly lady (80+) parks in a 4 hour limit disabled bay, displays her blue badge and forgets to set the clock. It shows 11.00 and the PCN is issued at 15:30 for staying beyond the time allowed. The contravention is for code 30(o): Parked for longer than permitted (blue badge holder).

Day 15. The lady's husband (aged 100) dies.

Day 19. Mr Mustard files a challenge to the PCN & mentions the bereavement.

Day 24. The challenge is rejected. Mr Mustard tweets about it, the Tooting Twister is alert and the Parking Management at the council immediately email Mr Mustard for the details. They subsequently request a copy of the death certificate.

Now for some more detail and comment. Here is the gist of the challenge that Mr Mustard sent in:

Dear Sirs

I represent 80+ year old (Mrs Redacted) of (redacted address) as attached authority.

She received a PCN on 2 January 2015 for being parked longer than permitted. I cannot discern the time set on the blue badge clock and whether it is correctly set or not but even if it isn't that does not prove that the car was parked for longer than the permitted time, it only proves the time that the clock was set at.

I attach statements from the lady herself and a relative who was in the house and can confirm the departure and return times on that day such that we know that the vehicle can only have been parked for a maximum of 2 hours and 15 minutes.

I draw to your attention to the very recent death of her husband, at the age of 100, on (redacted date), and whether or not you agree with my argument I suggest and request that this PCN should be cancelled as a gesture of compassion and goodwill in any event.

Yours faithfully

It is very unusual but NSL decided upon, typed and posted their response to Mr Mustard in just 5 days. A pity they didn't stop to think for longer or refer the matter to the council (which it is thought they didn't but Mr Mustard can't be 100% on that point)

Here is the main part of it:

(proving one of the perils of outsourcing; a complete loss of control)

Mr Mustard wonders about the individual who personally signed this letter and whether they are a fit & proper person to do their job (they will have to be redeployed soon because the handling of challenges is going to be brought back into the council and not a day too soon) or whether they should perhaps do something else that doesn't require any compassion to be shown. Perhaps they are too young to have yet lost someone close to them and so don't understand about life? Certainly, some training is in order.

So officially, the council (but actually NSL and this highlights the loss of control which comes with outsourcing) don't think it appropriate to cancel a PCN for a recently bereaved person.

The NSL employee says a contravention had occurred. It had, but not the one they ticketed for. It should have been this one

and if repeated at the formal representations change the failure to consider the point of challenge would have been counted as a procedural impropriety by the PATAS adjudicator. For that reason alone the PCN should have been cancelled.

So the council sympathise with you having a bereavement of your husband of 60+ years but still want you money. The council didn't even offer the 50% reduction which they sometimes do even if you challenge more than 14 days after the PCN was issued and even sometimes when they have sent you a PATAS form. They usually offer the discount late when they feel that the council's position is weak (is Mr Mustard's feeling). They evidently didn't think so in this case.

The council are unable to issue a goodwill cancellation. Oh dear, Mr Mustard can hear adjudicators seething with annoyance at that remark and writing a decision which puts the council straight about the use oif discretion in no uncertain terms. Mr Mustard's experience is that adjudicators show compassion where it is due (even though they have to apply the law, they will try and find a justification to enable them to cancel the PCN).

The council are happy to continue with enforcement action Mr Mustard doesn't blog the words of the parking manager but reading between the lines he is not a happy bunny. The next monthly management meeting with NSL is going to be a fraught affair (predicts Mr Mustard who, despite being professionally rather busy, has piled the desk of the parking manager high with complaints this month).

Mr Mustard has been asked for a copy of the death certificate. He has in turn asked the grandson for one and then remembered that the contravention code used was the wrong one. Thus the council don't need to see the death certificate no matter how delicately they ask Mr Mustard who then has to ask the family at a time when he does not want to intrude upon their grief. The reason the council ask for the death certificate is that, apparently, lots of people lie to parking about someone having died.

The fact remains that the council have a wide discretion to cancel any PCN for any reason they like. Mr Mustard thinks they should exercise it in this case. Generally his customers tell him the truth (although he may be about to blog about a case where he wasn't - everyone gets it wrong sometimes).

Yours, sadly

Mr Mustard

p.s. Mr Mustard is offering parking management the right of reply.

Update Tuesday 24 February.

Mr Mustard produced a copy of the death certificate yesterday to satisfy parking management's requirement, even though it pained him to ask the family, and they have now cancelled the PCN which is an exercise of their discretion for which they have been thanked. Mr Mustard is still debating with them whether the PCN code used was the correct one. That argument will start again the next time that a blue badge clock isn't set by someone else.