Helpful Haringey

 

In complete contrast to Redbridge Council about whom Mr Mustard just blogged he brings you helpful Haringey Council.

The Notice of Rejection sent to his client, who had driven through Woodlands Park Road N15 which is now for resident access only, went missing. The Haringey PCN portal is good in showing you the key steps a PCN has gone through so Mr Mustard knew when it was issued.

His client was happy, on Mr Mustard's advice, to pay the PCN but naturally he wanted to limit his losses to £65. Time wasn't pressing so Mr Mustard put a note on the PCN portal:

This was responded to yesterday in a straightforward and helpful manner.

This is a win:win situation.

If Haringey hadn't offered the discount again Haringey Council knew that Mr Mustard would, most probably, proceed to the independent tribunal. He can't beat everything and moving traffic PCNs are hard to beat, but the 6 times that Mr Mustard has started an adjudication this year Haringey Council have thrown in the towel without even stepping into the ring so would probably do it again. (They are probably still a bit sore from the 2023 decision which saw the wording of their moving traffic PCNs put to the sword and a challenge to the legality of the consequent income in their Accounts. The PCN is now compliant).

This way Haringey Council get £65 in for certain and don't have to pay out a £30 tribunal process fee, which they can't recover unless Mr Mustard is frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable, which the tribunal have not in over a decade, ever found him to be. The council also don't have to pay out £10 to register the PCN as a debt with the Traffic & Enforcement Centre (part of the County Court but really just a glorified register) only for that fee to be lost when a statutory declaration is processed. They save the time of dealing with all the paperwork and can mark one more PCN off as complete and paid. They have recovered an ample penalty for the error and now have compliance as to the future at that location from this motorist.

The motorist has lost £65 but saved the same amount, learnt about signs and won't drive that way again (if he forgets he is on his own, Mr Mustard is a bit more stroppy these days with people who don't learn).

Well done Haringey Council.

The end

 

Redbridge Council - making up their own rules.

 

There is a series of steps in terms of documents which motorists are sent to respond to when they receive a PCN for an alleged parking contravention. The documents are listed in the 'Do nothing' column above. PATAS is now called London Tribunals. £110 is now £130 (the above chart is a decade old).

The documents are all defined in the 2022 General Regulations and the 2022 Appeals Regulations. They are statutory instruments 2022 no. 71 and 2022 no. 675. They are legislation made by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Lord Chancellor following powers granted to them under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and other enabling legislation.

On one of Mr Mustard's cases his client received a document which isn't listed in the legislation. Mr Mustard thinks that is improper behaviour on the part of Redbridge Council as the legislation is an end to end process which has been carefully defined to take a PCN from the initial issue through a well worn series of steps up to the 'bailiff' (enforcement agent) where it usually ends. The legislation does not envisage enforcement authorities, such as Redbridge Council, taking extra steps, as in this case. Mr Mustard didn't ask them to justify why they did it as he expected the answer to be that the legislation doesn't forbid the issuing of an extra letter between the Charge Certificate and the Order for Recovery.

Such a letter undermines Mr Mustard's authority when he has carefully explained the legally sanctioned process to a motorist and then a council does something different. It makes motorists think Mr Mustard doesn't know what he is doing. Here is the letter:

This standard letter starts with a misleading sentence that the recipient has not complied with a Charge Certificate. There are two steps you can take in response to a charge certificate. The first step, if something has gone wrong with the PCN process, such as a statutory document not having been received, then the motorist should simply wait for the next document, the Order for Recovery, which means that a witness statement can then be made and a, say, missing Notice to Owner, can be issued afresh. 

The second step is that you could pay at that point to close the PCN (you might want to do this is you have missed a deadline and wouldn't lawfully be able to sign a witness statement).

Thus if you don't wish to pay as it isn't applicable to your situation the action which equates to complying with the charge certificate is to do nothing at all. Redbridge Council don't know what situation you are in.

Mr Mustard asked eight questions about this letter to learn more about it and they follow along with the answers.

This answer wasn't precise as to the number of days before the 'Final reminder' (the untitled letter at the top of this blog) is sent. in Mr Mustard's case it was 24 days.

Noted.

That is a lot of letters. Mr Mustard has assumed they are sent out on a regular cycle but they may not be, it may need a council employee to remember to do it.

Redbridge are prolific issuers of PCNs. In 2022-23 they issued 238,284 so almost 20,000 a month. These statistics imply that a quarter of the PCNs they issue each month are not paid or successfully challenged. No wonder they want to avoid registering all of these with the Traffic & Enforcement Centre (part of the County Court but really just a register of unpaid PCNs). Each one they register costs £10.

Let's say it costs £1 to send out a letter. That means they spent £4,951 but they delayed the payment of £49,510 in TEC fees (assuming they intended to register every PCN as a debt which from what Mr Mustard has seen isn't the case, they get their bailiffs to vet the list and try to select only PCNs they will be able to collect on). In theory they saved £44,559 but the real amount is lower.

There was also some extra income brought in by this doubtful letter.

The 80 pence is a bit odd as sums being claimed were all £120 and £195.

A hit rate of 5% isn't that high but a goodly sum was dragged in. If those people had paid up at the start the most the PCNs would have come to is 275 * £65 =  £17,875 (and some were £40).

Never ignore a PCN as it quickly becomes expensive.

Indeed it is (or a mile marker whilst you wait for the next document).

This answer was odd. The wording of the supposedly ignored letter (Mr Mustard's client never ignores PCN documents) was the same wording as the one received. Mr Mustard thinks the start of the letter is just plain wrong, much like the letter itself. 

Mr Mustard thinks that the CCC is the Customer Contact Centre or similar. It isn't part of the parking department so needs a tight script to work from. This makes it unlikely that any error the council has made would be spotted although it is possible as the script confirms at the end.

The bottom of page 1 and the first 2/3rds page 2 relate to our situation. Mr Mustard notes that they force you to go round the witness statement / statutory declaration procedure if you wish to pay at a discount. Some other councils, if there is a good reason why you couldn't pay at a discount, such as not receiving the PCN on your car, will let you pay at the discounted rate at that time as it is quick, is still good income and removes one from the list of open PCNs, which is huge. The bird in the hand policy. Redbridge know that many people will not manage to navigate the process properly and they will get even more money.

Mr Mustard notes that the CC will refer the case to the parking department by completing an internal 'parking enquiry form'. More on that in a minute.

Now that is odd. The final reminder closes by offering the opportunity to pay by instalments. That is to invite people who want to pay to phone up under false pretences and have their hopes dashed.

The Redbridge Council runaround

Mr Mustard often makes Subject Access Requests on behalf of motorists when he doesn't have the full picture about a PCN, usually because the motorist started their own case and didn't keep copies of everything.

On 3 May he made such a request.

The documents provided were a passport and driving licence.

That was more than adequate proof of identity and address but Redbridge wanted to play silly buggers, a game in which Mr Mustard is a grandmaster.

 

The acknowledgment of 8 May demanded proof of ownership of the vehicle. In fact the motorist didn't own the vehicle, it is leased.

If the motorist had been the registered keeper (and the V5C states in big type that it isn't proof of ownership) then Redbridge Council already knew who the registered keeper was, as they asked DVLA before sending the Notice to Owner in the post ('owner' is described in the legislation as the keeper) so why ask for information they already have. As it happens, having sent a Notice to Owner to the lease company the council were given the name and address of the motorist in question so didn't need to see the lease either. Sometimes, for speed, Mr Mustard indulges silly buggers but on this occasion he had time to play with and replied the same day:

Jump forward to 21 May and more nonsense lands in Mr Mustard's inbox:

Mr Mustard fired off a response 11 minutes later:

23 May and more tosh arrives:

4 minutes this time for Mr Mustard to keep hammering away, using irrefutable logic:

Following further radio silence and rested from a week's cycling Mr Mustard decided to increase the pressure:

On 27 June without a hint of apology or a word of explanation the information originally requested on 3 May was received. It was late. Mr Mustard doesn't suppose Redbridge recorded it that way in their performance statistics.

 

What wasn't included, as lease companies don't routinely supply long leases, only the applicable dates, (Hire companies do supply short term hire agreements as the rules for transfer are different) was a copy of the lease agreement which Redbridge claimed, in their email of 21 May, to already hold. Liars.

 

The requested computer printout wasn't included either but it is too late to follow that up now. The PCN is still being fought and is the subject of an independent adjudication hearing next month.

The end.

Newham Council - an open letter to the Local Government Ombudsman

17 August 2024

 

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0EH

 

Dear Sirs

Decision 22 001 827

 

I refer to the above decision which dates from January 2023.

I help people to challenge PCNs. I am assisting a lady with PCN reference PN37240236 which was issued in November 2023 and in view of your decision I made the following enquiries of Newham Council.

to which the council duly responded

 and

to which a self incriminating response was received.

It seems to be that Newham Council are treating the LGO with disdain and the public with contempt whilst simultaneously breaking the law.

 

By chance, I also came across four decisions of an independent adjudicator of London Tribunals on the subject of defaced signs in Newham, all for the same motorist, one is set out here:

which serve to show ongoing improper behaviour.

I'm not sure of the powers you hold to compel Newham Council to follow paragraph 28 of your decision. I thought I would bring this to your attention in case a nudge by yourselves to the council might bring about a desire to follow the law. If not, I could raise a complaint, with due authority, on behalf the lady who is still being chased for PCN PN37240236 for which the relevant sign looked like this:

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Waltham Forest 56 day error #2

 

The above is the grounds of Appeal to the tribunal. The act of parking is irrelevant given the council's own unlawful behaviour.

 

Although written after the earlier post and labelled as error no. 2 this 56 day error occurred before the other one. It does show a pattern of not being legally compliant.

 

Needless to say Waltham Forest didn't want to argue about their dirty linen at the tribunal.

 

 

 

Note the complete lack of any sort of apology for trying to get a motorist to pay a PCN at a time when it was legally no longer due.

 

The 56 day rule only applies to responding to representations made in response to a Notice to Owner for a parking contravention (or a postal PCN for a parking contravention). It does not apply to moving traffic or bus lane PCNs.

The end.

Ridiculous Redbridge

 

You will struggle to believe this story. You are driving along the High Road in Goodmayes and due to a car turning around the traffic comes to a standstill and three cars comes to a halt on the bus stop. No problem with that in law (it isn't a yellow box junction when it would be a contravention) and the number plate of the rearmost car is easily read and a PCN is issued, probably by an automated system. In theory a person watches the cctv clips before a PCN is authorised but for obvious reasons Mr Mustard doesn't think that occurred unless the operative wasn't paying proper attention or is incompetent, or both.

Here is the PCN. Your jaw would drop on opening the envelope containing this.

Mr Mustard made the representations. Whether anyone gets in or out is irrelevant but a slippery enforcement authority might try and argue that alighting was the reason for stopping so Mr Mustard cut off that avenue.

The PCN was cancelled.

The reader will note one thing which was missing from the cancellation. Any hint of an apology.

A lease company might have paid such a PCN and given the motorist an administration fee which would obviously be unjust in the act of paying the PCN but justifiable in terms of having to administer a PCN which they should not have received. If you can avoid leasing a car, perhaps by taking out a loan instead, you do make your life easier.

The end.

Double jeopardy in Haringey

 

It sometimes surprises Mr Mustard how often he knows when something goes wrong, its as if processes go wrong all the time in PCN processing (spoiler alert, they do). As you can see from the above Haringey managed to issue a number of postal PCNs, which must have been for moving traffic contraventions (stopping in yellow boxes, banned turns etc), twice, two weeks apart. 

That must have confused some recipients.

 

Lease companies, some of whom, wrongly in Mr Mustard's opinion, just pay everything, will have tried to pay them twice and might have charged two administration fees which they can't really be blamed for, they have had to process two documents instead of one.

 

The enquiry Mr Mustard made was back in February 2024 and he is only just catching up with an excessive workload (both in his day job and PCNs) and giving you the public the information. Here is the response.

Mr Mustard was satisfied with the answers, except for 'k' as the written procedure was not supplied but as he didn't follow it up at the time he isn't inclined to do so now. He might ask to see various procedures another day. Clearly the existing process was inadequate.

 

The answer about overpayments at 'i' makes sense, as there was only one PCN per number in the database although Mr Mustard has seen credits within PCN databases before which may be overpayments. It is probably only by cheque that overpayment might occur.

 

Legal advice at 'l' is interesting. The question was probably as to whether the PCNs should be cancelled entirely. Mr Mustard should have asked if a letter was sent to all recipients of two PCNs explaining what had happened and for a copy of it. Certainly the second PCN was unlawful but did it render the first one unlawful? Mr Mustard is inclined to agree with the legal advice given but suspects that if any of these PCNs had reached an adjudicator some would have cancelled.

 

A pound to a penny, this will happen again one day in Haringey or to another authority which hasn't made its procedures bullet proof.

The end.