Hackney Council FOI - 'Sorry' not in their vocabulary

 

Mount Pleasant Lane

Before we get to the purpose of the blog Mr Mustard just wants to say that if you drive through this gap you are an ignorant or an incompetent driver, you choose (why?, 6 signs, 6!). Remember Mr Mustard's mantra, 'planter = penalty' (probably). Still unsure? google 'flying motorbike sign'.

So here are the two responses received to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The first one was patently wrong, there being no ambiguity in Mr Mustard's eyes.

If Hackney Council were unsure what was required they should have asked for clarification. Mr Mustard would have respected the council if they had simply said, 'sorry, we misunderstood what you wanted and here are the new figures' but instead they blame Mr Mustard for asking ambiguous questions, that is an unedifying approach.

It is very concerning that 1 in 8 PCNs have reached a bailiff. Part of the reason for this is the disaster which was DVLA in the early stages of the pandemic when they didn't have on line systems for updating the address at which a vehicle is kept.

On the positive side Hackney Council were more than fair in sending out zero value warning notices for 3 months which gave the people for whom this was a regular route the opportunity to chance their habits for free. Thereby Hackney achieved their objective of changing traffic flow without soaking the motorist in the process.

End.

Not quite the end as there is another story coming about this location, although Mr Mustard might let the newspapers have it.

Merton - Pandemic parking enforcement

Here we go then with the same FOI questions as you saw Ealing answer. First of all, full marks to Merton Council for such a prompt answer.

Merton only issue about half as many PCNs as Barnet so presumably have about half as many traffic wardens (CEOs). A pleasingly low sick absence level. Not pleasing that they have not transferred any traffic wardens onto other duties in these exceptional times.

Just the same as Ealing, with the notable exception of enforcement around schools, so almost business as usual.

A worrying lack, just as in Barnet, of personal protective equipment (PPE) for traffic wardens. Traffic wardens could have the virus, not know and transmit it via a PCN.

'School safety zones' are becoming more common although they don't exist in the Traffic signs manual, 2019 edition. They are marketing speak for sections of road which you can't drive down at certain times of day.

The website is misleading, as the Traffic Order says nothing about the restriction only operating in term time and Mr Mustard wouldn't know the term times for Merton if he was passing through. The sign below also doesn't say anything about operational dates. The council may not enforce outside term times but if so they should cover the signs over.

This is a sign from Frinton Road.

Rather oddly, if you enter between 9.30am and 2.45 pm you also mustn't stop on the yellow zig zag markings outside of the school as they restrict stopping from 8am to 5pm. A completely illogical arrangement (unless it has been changed since April 19 when the google car went down the road).

This sign, the 'flying motorbike' sign (and which means 'no motor vehicles' of any type including vans, buses, lorries etc) will have a delayed action in creating a safe space as in Mr Mustard's experience, borne out of talking to motorists who were just about to wrongly pass the same sign in Connell Crescent, Ealing, it is one of the least known signs in the Highway Code. Thus it takes many months for compliance and better safety to be established by the blunt instrument of receiving a PCN in the post during which time the council wrings its hands in sorrow, wonders why their scheme isn't working effectively and coincidentally pockets tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds from PCNs. A council which implements a scheme which they know from other boroughs' statistics won't work instantly and fully is morally repugnant.

Anyway, regardless of how effective the sign is, Merton are, perfectly properly, not enforcing these signs during lockdown, and there shouldn't be many vehicles about anyway. They will probably catch the same motorists later so what would be better, from a public education point of view, would be to send zero value PCNs and an explanation of the sign and their locations in order to help achieve the road safety objective.

So that is 2 points to Merton who have hardly backed off parking enforcement.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The Royal Borough of Kingston exhibit poor judgment

The Kingston Honeypot aka Surbiton Crescent

Although Mr Mustard thinks that the above location is poorly signed the adjudicator who, to date, has heard most of the cases at that location, does not agree. Thousands, absolutely thousands, of motorists have missed the signage and The Royal Borough of Kingston are laughing all the way to the bank and coincidentally not changing the layout (unless you know otherwise). The 'flying motorbike' sign, correctly the 'no motor vehicles' sign is, according to some research, understood by 88% of motorists.

Mr Mustard has conducted his own on site research at locations where the flying motorbike sign is to be found and his findings are that only about 10% of motorists know what the sign means.

That is all well and good but this blog post is about the miserableness to be found within the PCN section at the Royal Borough of Kingston.

His client, Mr B, had a brain tumour surgically removed in 2013. He had experienced some seizures in 2016 and following further investigations he had to be operated on again in 2017 for the same serious medical condition. On the day of his operation his wife, Mrs B, drove the car registered in the name of Mr B, through the above restriction in breach of the flying motorbike signs but in accordance with the blue arrows (that tell motorists where to drive) and politely giving way to oncoming traffic, again as directed. A PCN duly arrived in the post for contravening the restriction signed by the flying motorbike sign.

Mrs B wrote to Kingston, saying that the signs were not adequate, and explaining that she was on her way to see her husband, the registered keeper of the vehicle, in intensive care. Documentary evidence of his medical condition was supplied.

The council's rejection of the representations included the following:

- 'have decided that grounds or a suitable reason to cancel the PCN have not been established'

- Whilst I empathise with the situation you described we are unable to withdraw the PCN as this does not fall under the mitigation of a medical emergency'

Mr Mustard's carefully considered view is that the Royal Borough of Kingston don't have even the tiniest scintilla of empathy for Mr & Mrs B as if they did they would surely have instantly cancelled the PCN to reduce the burden of life for this couple at the moment.

Kingston are able to cancel the PCN, to say otherwise is a terminological inexactitude. This is what an adjudicator has had to say on the question of being 'unable to cancel'

The local authority's response that it is unable to cancel the PCN is incorrect. The local authority is always able to decide not to enforce a Penalty Charge Notice. It is under a duty to consider all the representations made by a motorist.

An Appeal at London Tribunals was duly lodged and at that point Mr Mustard was instructed and took over. He duly attended the hearing and he discussed the mitigation with the Adjudicator, who cannot allow on grounds of mitigation as his role is to decide if the contravention occurred or not, which it did. The Adjudicator was however, distinctly unimpressed with the attitude of Kingston and so adjourned the hearing, which Kingston had opted not to attend, as per usual, and wrote to them and asked them two questions:

1. How did they not notice that Mrs B made the representations when the car is registered to Mr B, so he is the only person legally entitled to make representations?

2. Given the medical history, did Kingston really want to pursue the PCN?

At that point someone at Kingston realised either that they had made a procedural blunder or that they looked terrible from a PR perspective and wrote to the tribunal to say that they had considered the comments of the adjudicator and decided not to pursue the PCN on this occasion.

That is belatedly wise of them but what sort of world do we live in where chasing a PCN is seen by the Royal Borough of Kingston as being more important than a recurrent brain tumour? Many motorists, faced with difficult medical circumstances, would have been too weak to fight and just paid up, the desired outcome of Kingston. Those are the very motorists whom Mr Mustard particularly wishes to help.

The need for Mr Mustard never seems to diminish.

Councils everywhere, you need to accept more representations where the motorist has some other burden of life to carry, whether or not the contravention occurred. Just try to be nicer.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard