Barking & Dagenham Council - pathetic behaviour

Back in November 16 Mr Mustard made a complaint to Barking & Dagenham Council about their use of an Outstanding Payment Reminder, a document outside of the statutorily defined process for PCNs. The complaint was 'disagreed' but as the response didn't actually deal with any of Mr Mustard's substantive points he asked for a review. B&D lost, mis-filed or ignored most correspondence to the point at which, more than 6 months after he started down the complaints process Mr Mustard tweeted the Chief Executive, who was formally pretty senior at Barnet and so their paths had crossed, in the nicest possible way, before. As was entirely predictable a Senior Complaints Investigator then hastened to respond to Mr Mustard on 7 June. The complaint response included the following paragraph:

The Chief Executive should have marked their card in complaints but doesn't seem to have done so.

On 12 June Mr Mustard wrote:

Thank you for your response. I would be pleased to see a copy of the revised 'pre-debt reminder' (Outstanding payment reminder) once it has been decided upon.

On 13 June B&D wrote back:

I write further to my email of 12 June 2017 as officers have completed a review of the pre-debt registration letter.

Officers have told me they do not plan to make any changes to the pre-debt registration letter as our legal requirement to notify a motorist of any further right of appeal is satisfied in previous correspondence.

So in 24 hours we have gone from a letter being 'reviewed' to nothing having changed. They think they are in 'Yes, Minister' at Barking & Dagenham. They aren't.

Did they really think that Mr Mustard would stand for being fobbed off? There is more action to come on this matter.

Should a council say they are going to review a letter, the complaints about which have been known to them for 6 months, when their clear intention was to do nothing at all? That is not the standard of consideration Mr Mustard expects from public servants although low behavioural morals do appear to be standard in parking.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Enfield Council mend their ways

Mr Mustard carefully explains to his clients, and sets out in his written guide (to be updated and published as an ebook shortly) the steps in the Penalty Charge process.

Then some councils decide they want to add to the process, which a clever legal draughtsman has carefully worked out, and send non-statutory documents. This leads clients to think that Mr Mustard doesn't know what he is on about and undermines his credibility. It also puts the wind up nervous motorists who are now driving in unknown territory.

A few months back Mr Mustard complained to Haringey Council about their pre debt reminder letter and by a happy coincidence they had decided to stop using it the previous week (Mr Mustard also believes in Santa Claus).

When Mr Mustard's client received the above letter he wrote to Enfield's parking manager who is always prepared to engage, usually replies quickly, answers the same question as is asked and seems to be a perfectly reasonable chap.

Mr Mustard's critique of the above letter was this:

I attach an authority letter and the pre-debt reminder about which I wish to complain, as a matter of principle, not just for my client.

There is a statutory process which I tell my clients about. It undermines my credibility when local authorities then take steps which are outside it and in my view to depart from the statutory process is procedurally unfair and the pre-debt reminder should not be sent.

The complaints about the wording of the pre-debt reminder are:

- It states that a debt will be registered. The legislation only allows that may happen, if the county court so orders.
- It is headed pre-debt reminder but then the letter states "the debt remains outstanding". At this stage of the process there is no debt.
- It refers to the majority of drivers paying parking fines within 14 days. The pre-debt reminder is about a bus lane PCN so the statement is not relevant. Please also prove it is true by telling me the number of parking PCN issued on 14 October 2016 and the number of them which have been paid at 50% by 27 October 2016. (This can be answered as business as usual or FOI).
- On what basis was my client's failure to pay an oversight? There are other possible reasons. How did you decide that it was an oversight being as how you have made a factual statement?
- How do you consider my client's failure to pay can be attributed to a positive choice, a factual statement on your part? There are other possible reasons.
- Why do you not state that the further charge will be a mere £8? Is it because you want to worry people into thinking it could be a lot more?
- Why do you not mention the witness statement procedure in order to fully explain the choices which may be available to vehicle owners? Is it because all you are interested in is revenue raising?
- Who selects the cases to receive this reminder? Is it an NSL or council employee?

After a little nudge, as Mr Mustard thought the reply might have been issued when his email was broken, he received the following:

I apologise for the delay in responding, normally I can get back to you promptly but in this case I was unable to.

With regard to the generic pre-debt letter, thank you for your comments all of which are noted and we will review the letter next week and make changes as all your points are valid.

The letters are sent to all those with unpaid PCNs after Charge Certificate stage and before Order for Recovery stage. With regard to your question 108 PCNs were issued for being in a bus lane on 14 October 2016 of which 57 were paid at discount stage (by 27 October 2016). (Only just a 'majority of drivers').

Mr Mustard commends Enfield's parking manager for facing squarely up to the criticism and agreeing to change the letter. Mr Mustard has now asked him to stop using it entirely. Let us see what happens next.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard