Come on Barnet Council - give the money back - you are legally and morally in the wrong

Mr Mustard noticed an unusual statutory notice in the local paper, here it is:

Mr Mustard hadn't been asked to fight a PCN at any of these locations and therefore he hadn't noticed the omission error in the map based traffic order. Mr Mustard concluded that any PCN issued there would be ultra vires i.e. beyond the powers of the council to issue it.

To be sure, in March 21, he emailed the boss of parking at Barnet Council to ask pertinent questions

Usually Mr Mustard gets an email back within 24 hours, even outside the usual working week. This time his email was met with a resounding silence. Mr Mustard knew he was on to something. Mr Mustard then sent, in August 21 (he was busy doing nothing during the summer) a request to Parking Consultations. Again he was busy and it wasn't until December that he noticed the lack of response and had to nudge the department. They registered his request as a Freedom of Information request with a request date of 8 December. That is how you fiddle your FOI statistics, the request was made on 17 August. For some reason there was delay in responding (this was the simplest of requests, get a document out of the electronic filing cabinet and send it to the requestor, Hackney can do that in 10 minutes) for which FOI apologised and said Mr Mustard should have the documents by 25 January. They arrived on 27 January.

Mr Mustard went back to the original 2012 Traffic Order which led to signs being erected about the Event Day zone. He couldn't find a complete copy Traffic Order but did see that Barford Close was listed as being eligible for permits and thus was clearly part of the Order and signs were erected to reflect the rules. Back in 2012 every section of road had the rules described based on written descriptions, like this one

In 2014 the council decided to move over to a mostly map based Traffic Order (there were still a lot of words). The statement of reasons included this gem, 'without change', which Mr Mustard knew was nonsense as some of the boilerplate was different and various forms of words used over the years were simultaneously brought up to date.

Mr Mustard worked out over time that the way in which all the dozens of Traffic Orders were consolidated didn't involve anyone reading them and plotting them on a map. No, it involved people with gps trackers walking the streets of Barnet pressing buttons at the start and ends of bays or lines and recording the data on all signs they saw, whether or not they were correctly installed. What must have happened in the case of these now added roads is that either the foot soldiers forgot to walk down them or the data fell off the computer somewhere and when the map was checked before publication the omissions were not noticed (not a surprise in a place as big as Barnet).

You can see the differences here. 

Before:

After:

Here is the relevant section of the CPZ map produced in 2012 when the Saracens zone was first mooted. 

For your reference, here is the amending (correcting) Traffic Order.

Traffic Management Order - Barnet Council - fixing omissions 2021 by MisterMustard on Scribd

Then Mr Mustard went to look at tribunal cases for the omitted event day locations since December 2014 when the maps became law. There were only 3 cases all of which the motorist won without the maps needing to be carefully consulted.

Finally Mr Mustard's research took him to the April 2015 to March 2021 database of issued PCNs. He extracted all of them (codes 01,16 and 19) for Wheatley Close, Barford Close, Westside and Hall Lane. Here they are.

Barnet Council ultra vires PCNs in the Event Day Zone by MisterMustard on Scribd

So that is 864 PCNs, all but 15 of them issued at £110. The usual rule of thumb is that half of them will be paid at 50% and then enough at 100% or even 150% to counterbalance the ones which aren't paid and lead to an overall income level of c.50% of the face value.

864 * £110 * 50% =  £45,720 of illegal income.

Mr Mustard would have heard if the council had made plans to automatically refund the PCNs as would be the proper course of action. Consider also that some will have been sent to bailiffs and the warrant cannot be valid if the underlying PCN isn't legal.

If you are affected (you can check with Mr Mustard if you are unsure, email mrmustard@zoho.com) Mr Mustard recommends you make a complaint.

You can do this by telephoning 020 8359 2000 although Mr Mustard doesn't suggest this method as you don't have a written record, by writing to: Corporate Complaints, Barnet Council, 2 Bristol Avenue, London, NW9 4EW or, using Mr Mustard's preferred method, by sending an email to barnet@nsl.co.uk

If you no longer have the details of any PCN that you paid for, give the council the name and address of the registered keeper and the vehicle registration and ask to be refunded for any PCN in the streets listed at the very top of the blog issued to the vehicle registration number which you will provide them with.

Please add a comment if you get a refund. If you do, please also consider donating part of it to the North London Hospice.

End.

The Parking Code and morality

Penalty	Notice	Charge	Days
Charge	to	Certificate	NtO to
Notice	Owner		CC
15/04/2011	21/07/2011	29/01/2013	558
18/04/2011	18/08/2011	05/02/2013	537
24/04/2011	03/08/2011	09/01/2013	525
11/05/2011	25/07/2011	30/01/2013	555
03/06/2011	16/08/2011	05/02/2013	539
24/06/2011	23/08/2011	05/02/2013	532
25/06/2011	23/08/2011	05/02/2013	532
06/07/2011	06/09/2011	06/02/2013	519
08/07/2011	06/09/2011	06/02/2013	519

Last Saturday at PATAS there were 8 cases that had been dredged up by Barnet Council from 2011 and in all of which they lost. It wasn't specifically mentioned by the Adjudicator who was generally unhappy with the delay but para 170e of the London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking & Traffic Enforcement says (emphasis added):

PCNs should be cancelled:-

where there has been an undue delay at any stage in processing of the PCN. This would certainly be the case with any delay exceeding 6 months, but even shorter delays may be considered unreasonable, for instance if they contribute to a motorist being unable to make detailed representations or present a case for appeal

The chart above shows 3 consecutive steps in the process (there may be representations after the Notice to Owner but they have to be submitted within 28 days and any rejection within a further 56 {why do the council get twice as long as us to react?}) so the maximum time between the Notice to Owner and the Charge Certificate is 183+28+56 = 247 days or thereabouts. The council were 300 days behind the ball.

Mr Mustard is unhappy that the council is continuing to chase old parking tickets as justice delayed is justice denied, most people will have destroyed their paperwork by now, and they can't reasonably be expected to remember what they were doing on, say 15 April 2011.

Mr Mustard has written to the leader of the council, Richard Cornelius and the cabinet member with responsibility for parking, Dean Cohen, and asked them to justify this chasing of PCN that should have been cancelled as he thinks it is immoral.

A Code of Practice should be followed just like the Highway Code should be (the council often quote from the Highway code in their case summaries saying why a parking ticket should be upheld).

If Mr Mustard gets a sensible answer he will blog it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council - They lie, claim to destroy data and have bad manners - Parallels with Metpro

On Saturday 14 November 09 my friend Mr D. received a parking ticket (PCN) despite being legally parked in a "Disabled badge holders only" space. Here is a photograph of the plate at the bay which is near the Alexandra Pub in Wood St ( near Barnet General Hospital )

On 15 November  Mr D. appealed on the grounds that he parked on a Saturday whilst the bay was not in operation.

On 17 November Mr D. sent a further appeal that the road markings & signs were not in accordance with Regulations ( as they are usually wrong ! )

On 7 December LB of Barnet cancelled the ticket as " due to insufficient evidence recorded by the CEO at the time of the contravention I have cancelled the penalty charge on this occasion"

On 15 December Mr D wrote back to check he can park in that particular bay on a Saturday as his friend is still in hospital and as he always tries to follow the rules. He thinks the wording of the sign is possibly ambiguous.

On 14 January 2010 LB of Barnet wrote back as image above. Two grammatical errors, oh dear.

On 3 February Mr D. wrote again.
He pointed out that use of the word contravention is incorrect; he was legally parked as it was a Saturday.
He points out that the ticket was cancelled due to a lack of evidence and now the Council have produced a photograph taken at the time of his parking.

Mr D. asks for a written apology.
Mr D. also asks the Council to refund all other motorists who have been similarly affected.

On 23 February LB of Barnet write again. There is a page of guff about a full investigation and more training of the members of staff involved. It was only one and all he needs to be trained to do is to read a sign. Management will consider the request for automatic refunds to all affected motorists. Then the apology

"Please accept our apology for any convenience that this may have caused"

"May have caused" of course I have been caused inconvenience and worry but Barnet don't give a hoot.. A bit mean as apologies go but at least Mr D. received one, on request.

On 27 February Mr D. wrote again. He asked for management to write to him in the next 30 days about the unjust enrichment that the Council had enjoyed. In effect they have demanded money with menaces when none was due and anybody with honour would initiate refunds. Mr D. wrote

In the spirit of your slogan "Putting the Community First " I am sure that the Council will be rushing to prepare refunds.

It was not until 19 April that LB of Barnet stirred themselves again, a question of morality evidently being too difficult for them. And this is what they said:

You have stated that others who have parked in a similar manner be refunded monies already paid. The London Borough of Barnet would of course issue a refund to any vehicle that was incorrectly issued a Penalty Charge Notice. I would state that only the Registered Keeper of a vehicle that has been issued a Penalty Charge Notice may write in to formally contest their liability; thereafter the Council would follow the statutory process. 

So having been made aware of a procedural error and taken money from motorists when they didn't owe it the Council think that it is OK to keep it as other motorists are none the wiser. Tut tut.

So what lessons do we learn from this morality tale.

Barnet Council lied about there being no evidence of where and when Mr D. was parked. He never denied being parked there; he just wanted clarification.


If they lie about evidence having been destroyed and then produce a photograph can we believe they have destroyed the Metpro tapes ( how do Barnet know how many tapes have been made since 2006 ? ) And its only when the pressure builds up that Barnet bother to do anything.

They think of all motorists as contravening even when they haven't. What a bad mindset.


Barnet don't think to apologise automatically when they have made an error. They have to be asked to apologise; bad manners on the part of the Council. I suggest if Barnet had to pay out £100 when in error they might become a bit less slapdash at issuing penalty charge notices.


If you hadn't been so badly behaved Barnet, this blog would not have even started.

Mr Mustard