NEPP - awful people.

Mr Mustard wrote in July about the problems faced by Mr C who received 3 PCNs when on a double yellow, only one is due as it is a continuous contravention. 

Parking on a double yellow isn't twice as heinous as parking on a single yellow, it just means that doubles apply 24 hours a day and singles don't, you should not be parked when you shouldn't on either line type. Mr Mustard hid in the shadows and advised paying PCN #1 and disputing #2 & #3. That turned out to be the easy bit as after the PCNs had been issued in October 2019 there were some changes of address.

Mr Mustard keeps an on line eye on the balance of every PCN he is asked about. The people he helps vary in how responsive they are to his emails. It was in April 20 that Mr Mustard could see that PCN #1 was paid, PCN #2 was 'not found' presumed cancelled and PCN #3 had risen to the charge certificate value of £105 

Mr C sent an email to NEPP of his own volition on 6 April 20

This revealed that PCN #2 had been cancelled for being issued within 24 hours of PCN #1. As to PCN #3 this was the response

The Order for Recovery is the last stage at which you can take an in time action to stop the process. There is a tight timetable and if you snooze you lose. What the NEPP employee is saying, and this is probably the most stupidly vicious letter Mr Mustard has ever seen, is that even though they know Mr C has moved they are going to keep on sending documents to the old address. The writer is very fortunate that after a lot of thinking Mr Mustard decided not to leave their name on the bottom of what they wrote even though they are supposedly a 'Parking Business Specialist'. As ever, there is the offer to accept 50% for a PCN which isn't payable. Without Mr Mustard providing true expertise & backbone, this might have happened.

Mr Mustard decided on a different approach, out of time representations.

The response of 20 April 20 was as unhelpful as the previous one and wrong in various ways.

The law says an enforcement authority may 'disregard' (i.e. ignore) out of time representations, it is not debarred ('not able') to accept (as in 'consider') them. Pretending you cannot do something rather than saying you are unwilling to do so is misleading. There is no better word on this question that that of the Secretary of State

The much parroted line about the DVLA is a smoke screen. A council can only ask for an address once, at the Notice to Owner stage, so whether or not a motorist updates DVLA is irrelevant. The omission to do so, and Mr C hadn't said whether he had or hadn't updated DVLA, doesn't make the sending of a Notice to an out of date address validly served.

The much quoted 24 hour rule is also bunkum. There was one contravention. Authorities have the option to tow if the vehicle remains in place in contravention but that costs money and doesn't generate multiple PCN revenue.

There was a slight delay. Mr C had many problems in his life and so didn't send the email which Mr Mustard had drafted due to a 'lack of motivation period'. Mr Mustard stepped out of the shadows. Mr Mustard emailed NEPP

More nonsense flowed from the keyboard at NEPP on 19 June 20

Now he was working direct Mr Mustard could get on a bit faster. He emailed back on 24 June and was rather hoping that the recipient would realise they were dealing with a representative who knew his stuff and turn sensible.

Whilst there was some back pedalling by NEPP at this point 'contrary to my prior knowledge' = I know nothing, NEPP then introduced new rules in their email of 1 July 20 that are not part of the law. Oh dear, they really don't know Mr Mustard.

Mr Mustard couldn't understand why NEPP wouldn't simply accept a change of address provided to them by a motorist. 99+% are honest and straightforward, tarring them all with the not trusted brush which isn't borne out by the light of experience is stupid and discriminatory.

On 4 July Mr Mustard set off for Lands End to ride to John O'Groats so was a bit busy. He got passed around a bit between various parking enforcement agencies in Essex, NEPP being a mere agent although owned by the same councils, and he sent this complaint on 1 July 20 just before he went.

This did have one side effect, on 14 August 20 the PCN was cancelled in response to representations which Mr Mustard hadn't made? Why is NEPP exercising its discretion all of a sudden? Because they are wrong but don't want to admit it, fools.

Mr Mustard was then busy on other things and it was February 21 before he followed up on the lack of a proper response to the complaint. He received a short message on 3 February 21 about the PCN. It wasn't cancelled due to discretion, NEPP had broken the law and sent a Notice to Owner out of time. By this time you are beginning to wonder what they did get right, not much is the answer.

Partly due to the pandemic Mr Mustard didn't get back to this file again until June when he chased the response to his complaint. Many don't get answered as it is thought that motorists won't care once the PCN is cancelled but Mr Mustard does care.

Mr Mustard was sent a copy of an emailed response to his complaint that had been sent on 9 February but unfortunately they got his email address wrong which would surely have generated an advice of non-delivery? NEPP did nothing about that.

Thus on 21 June 21, Mr Mustard had the official response.

Mr Mustard has rarely received such a load of old flannel. If the person who wrote the letter which contained statements beyond her understanding was a 'junior member of staff' then she shouldn't be let out on her own and the word 'specialist' should be removed from her title.

Then it is all Mr Mustard's fault that he knows too much! more clearly than the specialists who were writing to him.

Then follows a non-apology 'if' there has been inconvenience. This is not a pleasing way in which to write.

The writer anticipates a 'difference of opinion' which is churlish but accurate. Mr Mustard knows what he is about and NEPP don't is the biggest difference.

The second page isn't much better. The reason that NEPP have to believe that the keeper resides at the new address he has given isn't a legal requirement. You do not have to reside at the address at which you wish to receive your mail, you may provide a service address as a motorist if you wish as any failure to respond to legislated documents can lead to the motorist being timed out of the process. Clearly if you provide an address in Outer Mongolia there may be grounds to think it isn't correct or it may be a fact that you are an expert in mining on secondment and mining for gold for 6 months.

The line that a copy 'Notice to Owner was produced for informational purposes' is odd. The legal department told Mr Mustard this:

Moving on to page 3, the copy was marked with a copy stamp. The letter ends with victim blaming when NEPP have illegally issued a PCN, illegally issued a Notice to Owner, wrongly said they cannot consider representations out of time, wrongly refused a bona fide change of address and so on. NEPP are institutionally incompetent and malicious.

Mr Mustard was starting to think he was banging his head on a brick wall and didn't like the victim blaming in the final sentence. Mr Mustard has a list from the DVLA of when they released information to NEPP. They only asked and were given the information in December 19 (ownership details as at 26/27 October 2019) so any change of address after December 19 would never have reached NEPP.  He emailed on 29 July 21

A response was received on 18 August 21 which goes on with the victim blaming.

They really aren't very bright at NEPP. They think the DVLA address is the only valid one, conflating your duty to keep your address for your vehicle up to date with notifying NEPP of an address. In addition, this is to apply a policy which doesn't exist. NEPP need to write a policy or more simply accept changes of address at face value until they are shown to be wrong. 1000 people at DVLA are off with Covid, there will be delays.

Mr Mustard is sure you can think for yourself of situations which make NEPP's position look pretty stupid. Try this one. You get PCNs at the end of October 2019, as in this case, then you sell the car in November 19 and tell the DVLA. You move home in December 19 - will you be notifying DVLA of all future changes of address? no of course not. What you will do is tell NEPP of the new address so that all future statutory documents reach you. Will you be able to provide NEPP with a copy of a DVLA showing a new address? no, of course not as someone else is now the registered keeper.

NEPP have posited an absurd proposition which operates to the disadvantage of motorists everywhere.

Mr Mustard is going to leave the final word on service to an experienced adjudicator (not a precedent but legally persuasive).

Sadly, there is no mechanism to protect us from enforcement authorities and their agents who don't know what they are doing.

The end.