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.
 

Harrow Council Bailiff's "special" offer - a 75% discount

First of all Mr Mustard is going to say something nice about Barnet Council, he realises he doesn't so it very often but he is all relaxed and happy, just back from 10 days in Sri Lanka being a guest at a wedding and seeing some of the sights. Also, haggling with Tuk Tuk drivers over a £2.50 fare when they were tyring to fleece him for £5 which looks very small beer when compared to a Newlyn bailiff acting on behalf of Harrow Council. This story simply would not happen in Barnet as Mr Mustard has good contacts with two of the in-house parking managers (he cuts out the middleman NSL as they don't really get him) and they would have realised that what had been done was wrong and sorted it out following amicable discussions.

Sadly we are dealing with Harrow Council who are a different kettle of (rotten) fish altogether.

Now you are going to have to concentrate here as I give you the time line. All names are fictional.

1 November 11 - John Johns buys a car, a small people carrier which is perfect for use as a mini-cab. He slightly naughtily registers the car at his work address, Maestro Minicabs.

5 March 12 - He sells the car to Harold Smith who registers the car to his home.

18 March 12 -  Harrow's cctv spots the car, at 2am, on a double yellow in a service road in front of shops. The driver has been to a late night shop.

28 March 12 - The vehicle record has not yet been changed at the DVLA and a postal PCN is sent to John Johns.

7 June 12 - The car is sold to John Smith (Harold & John are related but live at different addresses) who registers the car to his home.

31 July 12 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd is incorporated. It trades from the same shop unit as Maestro minicabs and there is also a beauty business in the same unit.

10 September 12 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd buy the car for £2,900 in cash and rent it out straight away to a taxi driver.

19 July 13 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd rent the car to Alan Alans for a year.

6 January 14 - The bailiff finds the car near to Maestro Minicabs (not surprising as Alan Alans gets his fares from there) and clamps it and doesn't believe there has been a genuine sale when there have been three. This is because a friend of Fred Brown's who is helping them is called John and the bailiff thinks this is John Johns when it is actually John Roberts.

So starts a long round of complaining to the council, Harrow councillors and a local MP, Matthew Offord, none of whom seem to be at all interested. Rather than spend money on legal fees Mr Mustard thought the Local Government Ombudsman would see how wrong the seizure was, but he was wrong. Legal action will have to be next.

There are some interesting aspects to this case.

Harrow Council told the Ombudsman that the law is that they can only ask DVLA once for keeper's details. The LGO accepted this. In Mr Mustard's view that is bunkum. He will catch them in future months doing just that on another case, for sure.

There was no action by Harrow Council after issuing the Charge Certificate in June 12 until the Order for Recovery in August 13. As John Johns was no longer working for Maestro Minicabs, and as they destroy driver's records 6 months after they leave, it is unsurprising that John Johns did not respond to any PCN paperwork. The undue delay of more than 6 months at any stage in the processing of a PCN is, per London Councils, reason to cancel the PCN and would almost certainly have lead to a cancellation at PATAS if the case could have got there.

The Ombudsman refused sight of the Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery to Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd on the grounds of data protection, as they do not know John Johns. So their car can be taken without sight of any document about the relevant PCN and they have no rights of appeal. A right Catch 22 that one.

The DVLA supplied all the ownership dates. They show that the PCN was issued to the wrong keeper, it should have been to Harold Smith. The LGO, the bailiff and Harrow Council are not concerned by this.

In all this time the vehicle has not been sold by the bailiff which indicates a certain nervousness on their part. They are right. There is going to be one hell of a claim against them.

Why was the car taken in the first place when it was clearly tools of the trade?

The vehicle has now been in storage for over 200 days.

The bailiff has provided the following figures for the debt at 1 August 12; best take a deep breath here and sit down.

Item	£
150 days storage	7,200.00
Bailiff fees	963.02
PCN itself	172.00
Total	8,335.02

which is a storage rate of £48 a day (it must be at Heathrow Airport in the short term car park?) Why have only 150 days been charged for when the car has been in storage for over 200? Doesn't that 2p really hurt!

But, if Fred Brown's want to make payment to take the vehicle (note that the bailiff isn't planning to return it even though it won't be in a drivable state; it will be filthy, it will have flat tyres and the battery will be as flat as a pancake despite the bailiff's duty to take care of seized goods) then they can pay a mere £1,980 as follows:

 

Item	£
150 days storage	1,016.98
Bailiff fees	791.02
PCN itself	172.00
Total	1,980.00

So why is the bailiff offering a discount of 75% and doesn't that evidence the excessive nature of bailiff's fees?

The main reason, in Mr Mustard's opinion is that they know they are in the soup and they hope to negotiate their way out of it.

Imagine a bill for £8,335 for a vehicle which cost £2,900, what sort of idiot would pay that?

Even £1,980 is ridiculous as the vehicle has depreciated in the "care" of the bailiff. They will be lucky to get £500 for it at auction without a log book or keys so returning the car if they can get more for it that way from the owner than at auction makes for more profit for the bailiff.

Mr Mustard thinks that they are going to find themselves in front of a County Court judge explaining why they took a car away from a company that didn't even exist when the PCN was issued and who aren't liable for the PCN which is in any event in the wrong name. Mr Mustard is looking forward to the hearing when he will sit in the back row, smiling to himself, saying nothing, quietly taking notes and watching the bailiff sweat.

This story isn't over yet.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard