Newham Council - tow truck happy

Mr Mustard has his eye on Newham Council and so the following decision came to his attention.

 

In many boroughs councils also photograph the seats and footwells so that any claim that a voucher for payment, a blue badge or as in this case a carer's permit were on display can be considered in the light of possible supporting evidence.

There is no traffic management purpose to towing a vehicle from a bay in a street which seems to have plenty of space.

It does, of course, raise lots of lovely money.

Worse is to come!

The end.

Why aren't pedestrian zone permits automatically issued to residents?

 

Hawkshead Road in Brent is a short one way road which probably doesn't see much traffic most of the time, due to its location. It is a one way road and because of the school a limited hours restriction on entering is in place.

To park you need a permit.

Here is what the entry now looks like.

Mr Mustard would probably have run an inadequate signage argument due to there being only the one sign, the foliage and the too late set back position but that probably wouldn't work for a resident who has passed it numerous times.

The reason Mr Mustard came across this restriction was because there was a council v council punch up at the tribunal and Mr Mustard always likes to see how good the council is at taking it considering how much they dish out. Not very good usually. Here is the decision.

 

 

Some adjudicators allow an Appeal when the resident has a parking permit because they might think that entitles them to drive home to access the relevant parking bay, not so in this case and that is a correct decision if one strictly applies the law, which is, of course, the task the adjudicator is charged with, to apply the law.

There is no doubt that the driver was entitled to a permit (he/she must use the same vehicle everyday, if they had pool vehicles this would be unworkable).

The obvious question (for other residents with their own registered cars rather than work vehicles) is why every resident in the affected road is not automatically issued with a pedestrian zone exemption permit for as long as they live in the road. After all, the council know who they are, where they live and their vehicle registration. They could easily issue pedestrian zone permits to known residents and prevent them from being penalised for not having a free permit to which they are absolutely entitled.

It wouldn't be the massive income stream would it? Perish the thought.

The end.

The wrong type of permit - not!

Right, you have a resident permit for the HC2 zone (part of Hendon Central). Can you park in this bay?

Yes, of course you can.

Can you park in this bay?

Yes, of course you can.

However, a traffic warden (CEO - Civil Enforcement Officer) having a very bad day (and someone back at base) thought otherwise. Here is the story from the resident.

Hi

Keen reader of the blog!

I live in NW4 Brampton Grove and witness a fair amount of nonsense from the CEO’s around Barnet. Today reached a new low.

I was parked in a bay where I have parked for the last 5 years. After seeing the CEO put a ticket on my car I ran downstairs from my flat to investigate. She then informs me that I was getting a PCN because car was parked in a bay which was labelled permit holders only and not resident permit holders only like the bays opposite. I then tried to explain that the reason it says permit holders only and not resident holders only because it also allows business permits under the HD code my resident permit code is HC2 which is clearly listed on the sign. She refused to listen to me and I argued that for the past five years the CEOs have not probably looked at my permit and that I should’ve been given PCN’s. She even called someone who confirmed wrongly that I should be given one.

Thought you’d like to hear about this one!

Oh yes. Here is the PCN.

Here also is the permit for the car and location in question.

Mr Mustard offered to sort it out but his reader is robust and well able to deal with it himself and in fact it is already cancelled.

Hi Mr Mustard

Thanks for the quick response.

Re - new to the job - that’s what I asked! But she said she’s been doing it for over a year. I said she may want to retrain or get her eyes tested. Almost want to put in an official complaint due to incompetence.

How do they get away with this! I was not the only car in those set of bays who got a ticket either…!! 

This PCN was ineffably stupid and to double down when challenged and be told the wrong thing by the office is just calamity upon calamity.

If you get a PCN in similar circumstances do not pay it. Make a complaint as unless enough complaints are made the CEO won't be retrained (except that Mr Mustard is going to ask for some to be given as goodness knows what other havoc is being perpetrated. Also, challenge the PCN or come to Mr Mustard, this sort of PCN is only a minute's work - email: mrmustard@zoho.com

The end.

Capita exceed their brief

This is the question that NSL (who issue PCN for Barnet Council and provide processing services) sent to Capita who provide customer support activities which include fielding calls about parking permits (Mr Mustard has lost track of who actually processes permits nowadays).

So all that NSL wanted to know was whether the resident was told they had a permit which was valid on 15 December 15 or not.

Here is the response:

So this response doesn't set out what occurred in the conversation of 19 November which is the crux of the matter and concludes by expressing an opinion 'this ticket would therefore stand' and the decision about formal representations in response to a PCN isn't part of the job of a contractor, not even NSL who actually process PCN, so definitely not Capita's role. Any decision about representations being accepted or not must be take by a council officer (contractors can do the spadework, present facts and write decision letters under instruction, they cannot make decisions and should not therefore try to influence a decision).

If you phone up about a PCN please tape the call. If a call centre operator tells you that your challenge will fail and you should pay your PCN, please send a copy of the call to Mr Mustard and he will make the appropriate complaint. It is your statutory right to challenge any PCN you receive.

One final point is why evidence being submitted to the tribunal is being redacted (pretty pointless when Mr Mustard knows who the people are) as you can't give anonymous evidence. If the adjudicator does not pick this up Mr Mustard will be sure to mention it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

A voucher is not the same as a permit; NSL please note.

One of Mr Mustard's friends had a workman in. She gave the workman five Visitor Parking Vouchers to use from 6 to 10 July inclusive. On 7 July, Mr Mustard noticed a PCN on his van. It had been issued because the workman still had the visitor voucher for 6 July on display, an easy mistake to make when a workman is mentally planning the work for the day ahead.

Here is an extract of the PCN.

In the case of a code 19 PCN it is necessary for extra information to be provided in brackets as to the exact contravention alleged. That is because the legislation requires the traffic warden to state "the grounds" on which a contravention is believed to have occurred and not a list of possible contraventions. (emphasis added by Mr Mustard).

Clearly in this case the traffic warden thinks that an out of date permit was being displayed. There was not a resident permit, or any other type of permit, on display.

Mr Mustard sent a challenge to the council (NSL get them to look at first):

He was not displaying an out of date permit, as alleged, as he wasn't displaying a permit at all (as Mr Workman is not a Barnet resident and does not qualify for a permit).

It follows therefore that the contravention simply did not occur and you must therefore cancel the PCN.

Here is what Mr Mustard got back, quite quickly for once:

The council need to be more careful than they are.

The council accept there was an invalid (as in out of date "ood") voucher on display.

They then repeat Mr Mustard's challenge but fudge the wording by changing "permit" to "permit/voucher" which completely changes the meaning of the challenge. Permits and Vouchers are both defined in the Traffic Management Order which the council wrote.

A contravention did occur, but not the one they issued the PCN for, which has not been issued correctly and you can't be punished for the wrong contravention, no matter how much you might deserve a PCN for the correct contravention.

Could this sort of ineptitude be why Mr Mustard's PCN success rate against Barnet Council in 2015 is Won 82 Lost 2?

The problem is that Barnet Council and/or NSL can write complete rubbish to the average motorist and get away with it because most motorists don't know enough about parking law or fight PCN to the end often enough, many wrongly believe the council will be correct? and also because there isn't any sanction for misleading the motorist.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update: 20 July 2015.

Parking management stepped in at Mr Mustard's request, reviewed what NSL had decided upon, found they agreed with Mr Mustard and cancelled the PCN.

Mr Workman is donating to the hospice.

Crapita - Dispensing with dispensations

How many Crapita employees does the system require

An email received by Mr Mustard this week is below. He has redacted the staff names as they are only implementing the stupid call centre system that they are forced to follow or be sacked, so the junior staff are not to blame.

Dear Mr Mustard

I hope that you are very well.

I just want to let you know that today I called the Crapita Call Centre permit section to renew my Housing Permit which expires 14/03/2015 as I could not renew it online as it required a PIN which I do not possess. (PINs are new but no-one seems to have been told what they are. We all have to find out the hard way)

I spoke to the officer by the name Ms Redacted #1, who took my details. I told her that I wanted to renew my permit as it was expiring this week. She informed that she will start my permit on the 15/03/2015. I informed her that she needs to start the permit on the 16/03/2015 as the operational hours of the CPZ is Monday to Friday 10-11. I did not see the point of her starting the permit on Sunday.

She has agreed to start the permit on a Monday 16/03/2015. She then advised me that the permit will be sent today 1st class. (Odd that as Mr Mustard's was sent second class).

From reading your blog I have noted the difficulties other residents have endured. So I asked the officer for temporary dispensation to start on the 16/03/2015, so that if the permit does not arrive I would not be penalised by getting PCN from NSL. The officer refused and Informed me because my permit is still valid, they would not issue the dispensation. She also informed me that I had to call on Monday the 16/03/2015 to get dispensation. I told her that this was not the way when Barnet Council was dealing with the permit and I ask if this is a new policy implemented by Capita. She just kept repeating that they would not issue a dispensation.

I asked to speak to a manager which I was transferred to by the name Mr Redacted #2, and I explained my situation that they have to give dispensation as they cannot guarantee the permit will be received before Monday. In addition it creates hassle to call back the call centre just to get the dispensation on the day of enforcement as Monday is always busy day. (and a dispensation issued on Monday would only apply from Tuesday)

The manager agreed with me and transferred the call to another officer by the name Mr Redacted #3 to issue dispensation from 16/03/2015 to 02/04/2015.

All this could have been avoided if the first officer issued dispensation from when the permit was due to commence. I wonder how many people have been told the same story but later receive a PCN. I never experienced this situation before.

Best Wishes,

If you are unhappy with what the call centre tells you, do as this person did and persist. If Crapita prove to be unresponsive then complain to the council, the only slight snag being that Crapita handle phone calls and you can't know without asking if the person you are speaking to is a Crapita or council employee. If you are unhappy with the level of service received you should complain as that is sometimes the only way to get organisations to improve.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Mr Mustard gets treated as a second class citizen

No fault by the Royal Mail - they deliver the paid for service

A few months back, Cllr David Longstaff, otherwise christened Goldenarse by Mrs Angry (not because he bears any resemblance to a James Bond character in Goldeneye but because of an acting part in his show reel which showed him with a gold painted posterior, sorry about the imagery) went to Coventry to the Crapita call centre at Coventry. Slightly naughty Mr Mustard tweeted the question as to whether the staff there had ever heard of the councillor (thinking they were sure not to have) and back came the reply that yes they had (well of course Goldenarse is so important they would have) and they had also heard of Mr Mustard which Mr Mustard thought was unlikely. It would have been wise though of the council to have given the call centre a list of VIPs (very irritating persons) which would have included the bloggers and local troublesome cafe and sweetshop owners, the BAPS committee members etc. but no, that would be too sensible.

Anyway, Mr Mustard collected a car (his first ever Mercedes, 4 years old & very nicely made) on 25 November as he is spending a lot of his life on motorways at the moment.

On 25 November he made a permit application and uploaded his insurance etc. documents.

On 26 November Mr Mustard was busy but no-one rang to say his application was accepted and he could pay now.

 

On 27 November at 18:40 (real work got in the way again) he paid on-line having checked for himself if his application had resulted in an "offer". Mr Mustard looked to see if he could print his permit out at home as he had been able to the previous year. The option had quietly disappeared which is a typical council trick whereas those people who had previously relied on this method should be told in advance. This page on the councils website still says you can

but council management tell Mr Mustard you can't (expect the website will be updated once this blog post is read by the council).

Just going back to 25 November for a moment, Mr Mustard phoned the parking department line, which is answered by Capita in Coventry, and asked if he could pay and for a dispensation. Mr Mustard couldn't pay as the documents weren't yet showing, apparently they take up to 24 hours to become visible on the server when that should really be instant in this day and age. Mr Mustard's ears pricked up (usually they just stick out) when he was told that he couldn't have a dispensation and he politely asked why not. Because now it is only for a change of vehicle or a change of address. Apparently last month too many were given out to residents who were not renewing their permits on time (could this be because the council aren't sending out reminders? cause and effect) and so they were giving out "too many dispensations". Mr Mustard having purchased a second vehicle was not in that category but still couldn't have one and yet since then a friend, a troublesome cafe owner, was late in renewing and was given one (and no, she didn't receive a reminder and yes, you do take your coffee in Cafe Buzz, N12 don't you?). Mr Mustard asked if the parking manager (meaning the Barnet Council one, knew about the new policy) and was then very helpfully given the name of the Capita Parking Services Manager which Mr Mustard has filed away for later use.

Mr Mustard was parked outside of the zone all this time which means he had a 10 minute walk to his car and back although it did mean that he met three ladies walking their dogs, one of whom was his neighbour and expressed surprise that Mr Mustard of all people wasn't given a permit, and one other lovely lady said "oh, you're that famous man aren't you" well, not in Coventry is all Mr Mustard can say.

Back to the calendar.

On 1 December the printed permit arrived at Mustard Mansions. It came with a letter dated 27 November in an envelope that was post-marked 28 November. It was sent second-class. Mr Mustard has paid £70 and expects first-class service at all times. Things got worse. The permit had an expiry date of 25 November which means that Mr Mustard had been short-changed by £1.15 worth of permit. Multiply that up by 12,000 permits a year and a nice profit is made for the council. Anyone who paid more slowly than Mr Mustard could have been robbed of more days of validity.

On 3 December Mr Mustard received the letter saying his application for a permit had been accepted. It was in a letter dated 27 November and again sent second class in an envelope post marked 1 December. What a palaver.

Needless to say Mr Mustard took his concerns up with the real parking management. They were not happy. They didn't seem to know that changes had been made and they think that permits should be sent out first class, that the permit should expire a year and two days after the posting of the permit, that on line printing should be made available but that would have to wait its turn in software development and other councils would also need to ask for such a function.

This function of permits was clearly out sourced in a half baked manner by the commissioners who possibly didn't know the subtle nuances of parking permit renewals. Parking itself, the thin client side (getting thinner with all the worry caused by having to answer to Mr Mustard?) are now on the case and when they update Mr Mustard with any good news, he will tell you.

Now just before you go why not pop outside and check the expiry date of your permit and then go here to renew if it has expired. You'll need to phone the council to get a PIN as clearly your renewal letter has not reached you.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

You pay your parking ticket and then the bailiff clamps your car!

This story simply shouldn't have happened.

23 September 2013 - The Chipping Barnet 'D' CPZ zone, near High Barnet tube, was extended. The lady in question, Miss H, a lady in her late seventies, applied twice for a permit but partly due to the judicial review result her applications didn't get processed as her cheque was for too much money. This left her without a permit when the zone started. A dispensation was issued but no-one told Miss H that it would expire.

3 October 13 - A permit was issued but not put in the car immediately.

9 October 13 - A second PCN was issued, for £110 (the first one was paid in full).

11 October 13 - An informal challenge was made.

11 November 13 - A Notice to Owner (NtO) was issued.

?? November 13  - Formal representations were made in response to the NtO.

28 November 13 - The council (NSL) reject the representations but said £55 would be accepted if paid within 14 days of the letter (no time allowed for delivery as is customary).

6 December 13 - A cheque for £55 is sent by Special Delivery at a cost of £6.22

11 December 13 - The cheque is cleared.

18 December 13 - A Charge Certificate is issued for £165 less a credit for the £55 paid. This is a blunder of the first water and is an illegal demand for money and threatens to register the non-existent debt at the county court and then send in the bailiffs. Miss H was abroad on holiday. This was one reason why she had paid up (she wouldn't have paid anything if she had been introduced to Mr Mustard sooner than she was).

9 January 2014 - An Order for Recovery is issued.

24 January 14 - TASK bailiffs write to say they are investigating and will respond within 28 days. Mr Mustard doesn't know what prompted this letter from TASK apart from some correspondence from Miss H that was probably sent to the council (which means NSL who own TASK).

18 February 14 - The Warrant of Execution is issued.

18 February 14 - The standard first letter is sent by TASK bailiffs.

20 February 14 - Miss H phones the bailiffs and is asked to send proof of payment (which Miss H will have sent off.)

14 April 14 - A bailiff arrives at the home of Miss H, clamps her car and then knocks and asks for £408.52 which she pays as she needs her car to get about.

16 April 14 - Mr Mustard visits Miss H at home at the request of a charity who happen to know of his expertise. Miss H is upset, shocked, annoyed, seriously out of pocket and innocent of any wrongdoing.

16 April 14 - Mr Mustard emails the Parking Manager at Barnet Council (thus cutting out NSL) and outlines the above. His email includes the following paragraphs:

What should happen now is that the sum paid to the bailiff of £408.52 is refunded as it was not due for payment and in compensation the PCN value paid, of £55, should be refunded. A letter of apology should also be sent by NSL Ltd to Miss h as she has had the worry of this to deal with and can ill afford to be without the funds paid to the bailiff.

This whole mess has come about because permits were dealt with in one place (I have not studied it in detail but Miss H did try to get a permit in good time and had two applications returned by the looks of it, probably due to the judicial review of the price), customer service calls in another and enforcement in a third. The system that is in existence in Barnet is simply not fit for purpose. I know it is not your decision to be set up in this way but it isn't properly serving the residents of Barnet.

Our senior citizens should not have to suffer the attentions of bailiffs as a result of the administrative incompetence of NSL Ltd, the parking enforcement contractor of the council.

30 April 14 - Mr Mustard reminds the parking manager that he is waiting.

30 April 14 - The parking manager says he is awaiting feedback (presumably from NSL who must now be in a right sweat - this event isn't going to do their KPI any good)

20 May 14 - Mr Mustard reminds the parking manager that he is waiting.

20 May 14 - Mr Mustard receives a full reply.

Dear Mr Mustard

I apologise for the lateness of my reply. I had again been called away unexpectedly.

Miss H should not have been subjected to the Bailiffs nor paid any additional money. I confirm that a full refund of all monies paid to the Bailiff will be refunded with immediate effect. I confirm that our service provider have internally identified why this error has occurred and will be taking appropriate action. An apology letter will be sent to Miss H confirming the refund.

I apologise on behalf of the Council for the poor level of customer service Miss H has experienced. As a means of making amends I have requested 40 visitors vouchers be sent to Miss H at her address in zone D, they should arrive by the end of the week.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to email me.

Kind regards

Parking Manager

So, there is the happy ending that you were promised.

What went wrong? Just about everything.

Permit issuance was in-house back in September (it is now being dealt with by Capita which won't make things any better) and instead of rejecting the application the council should have banked the larger cheque and then sent a refund. That way Miss H would have had her permit on the day the zone extension came into force. Why this was still a problem when the council had declared on 2 August that they would not contest the parking judicial review decision is unclear.

The council should have cancelled the PCN as they knew Miss H had been issued with a permit. The fact that it had not been put in her car within a few days is not a heinous crime and she should have been given the benefit of the doubt.

When the council sent their letter of 28 November 13 they probably didn't set the computer properly to stop all action if £55 was paid by 11 December 13.

When the payment of 6 December was banked no-one thought to stop all further processing as this was an agreed full and final settlement. This is probably because cheques were sent, at that time, to Worthing and that is the offices of RR Donnelley and their job probably finished at the point of banking. It would be up to someone at NSL in Croydon to review the list of receipts and then update the processing software. That probably wasn't anyone's job either.

It looks like TASK, who shouldn't even have been involved at 24 January 14, as there isn't a Warrant in existence at that date, didn't properly follow up the promise made in their letter. NSL should not have given the query to their sister company TASK to investigate and really shouldn't use their own group company bailiff at all as there isn't sufficient scrutiny of what the bailiff does or enough independence.

It looks like the proof of payment sent in by Miss H didn't get looked at properly.

The amount charged by the bailiff was excessive (this one was under the old pre 6 April rules) even if the £117 was owing, which it wasn't.

So this is what you get when you outsource your parking enforcement to NSL and TASK. The mistreatment of pensioners. That is what One Barnet means. Remember this when you vote tomorrow. You didn't find this One Barnet outsourcing in the 2010 Conservative manifesto. What has been left out of the 2014 one? more of the same but worse?

Mr Mustard will see the apology. It had better be a good one.

At least he hasn't got to send this case to the Local Government Ombudsman, unlike Harrow Council who haven't yet twigged that when Mr Mustard sends them a complaint, that there will be plenty to complain about which they should take seriously. In Harrow they (the Newlyn employed bailiff) have removed a car that doesn't belong to the person named on the warrant which is a big no no. The compensation due will be sizeable. Mr Mustard gave them every chance to return the car and be reasonable.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Printed, promoted and published by Derek Dishman, 21 Carnarvon Rd, Barnet EN5 4LX