Station Parade - Willesden - Unlawful use of cctv

 

Miss B stopped in the taxi bay in mid March 2026. Mr Mustard does not approve of that, not even for a minute. The sign says 'No stopping' so 2 seconds is enough to commit a contravention.

Had Miss B been issued with a PCN by a 'traffic warden' on foot he might have told her that he is too busy with work to assist (which is true, he still has over £5m to collect on his latest work assignment so arguing over your £160/£80 PCN is not a good use of his time at present) but Brent Council sent a PCN by post relying on cctv. Mr Mustard knew that was unlawful and so he acted.

Mr Mustard did three things:

1. He made formal representations against the PCN on 25 March 26. 

2. He made an Information request to find out how long and how much this had been going on.

3. He sent an email to the monitoring officer, the council official who is responsible for ensuring the council follow the law.

#1 For this type of PCN a council must reject representations within 56 days or they have accepted them by default. Mr Mustard checked the on line balance every week or so. On 12 May it was still £80 and the finishing line was fast approaching. On 21 May, day 56, the balance had been set to £zero. Hurrah. Brent did write to Miss B saying they had missed the deadline but that was a tactical move, to not admit they had erred in the first place.

#2. The information was supplied on time.

 

As the error was spotted so quickly by Mr Mustard no PCN had reached the tribunal or a bailiff. 

On the face of it that is only about 3 people a week getting caught, pretty good compliance on the whole. However, the cctv only started on 6 March and ceased on 3 April so that was about 6 motorists a day getting caught. If you are not in a proper London black cab stay out of these bays, they are not for you.

#3. Nothing had come back from this official by mid-June but they may have been off sick, the out of office response not being 100% clear. Someone else should be covering. Mr Mustard was wondering about an email to the Chief Executive when the explanation arrived on 19 June.

This is an excellent response. The council could have acted slightly quicker as Mr Mustard pointed out the grave error on 23 March. Putting that aside the council have still moved reasonably swiftly and most things in councils aren't rapid. They agree with the legal analysis, they have stopped acting unlawfully, they have cancelled all unpaid PCNs and they have refunded all payments received (some of which will be from lease or short term hire companies and those companies should pass on the refund to the client and cancel the administration fee). You cannot ask for much more than that.

Well done Brent Council (they don't like Mr Mustard much as he keeps putting them to the sword at the tribunal but Mr Mustard doesn't care) thank you for your corrective actions.

Miss B had donated to the North London Hospice at the beginning.

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.

Cornwall Council - complaint leads to corrective actions

Mr Mustard drafted a complaint for Tristan to send, it got over-looked at the time but finally got sent on Sunday afternoon. Mr Mustard doesn't mess about, complaints about laws not followed should be sent to the Monitoring Officer:

The Notice to Owner had already been cancelled but Mr Mustard didn't see why the late one that he saw would be an isolated incident.

Ms Langley was quick to respond to her email, wrote back very quickly (Monday morning at 9.09) in a friendly and open way and although Mr Mustard hasn't given you the numbers her email footer includes both a landline number and a mobile. That is rarely the case in Barnet Council where staff don't want the public to be able to phone them up or often to even email them. Public accountability should include multiple easy contact methods. Well done Cornwall Council.

There wasn't long to wait for parking to research and send their reply early in the afternoon of the same day. Realisation had probably dawned pretty quickly that they had blundered and were in the sights of someone who knew parking legislation pretty well.

Good to see a parking manager expressing regret rather than trying to excuse the department. The error was identified by Tristan though not by the council as you could read that sentence. It is slightly worrying that their system was not set up to prevent the council from breaking the law, there is too much automation in the world of PCNs and in the rush to extract money from the motorist for wrongful behaviour the council forget there are also rules which apply to them. Most time limits for councils are much more generous than the 28 days which is all the motorist ever gets.

The council get a pat on the back for admitting there were 9 other similar cases of which 4 had been paid and those motorists are going to get a pleasant surprise, a refund for monies they paid which were not legally due. Cornwall Council's reputation will be enhanced by their behaviour.

The apology feels sincere and there will be no need to go to stage 2.

There is however one odd fact about this, Mr Mustard himself sent a Freedom of Information request to Cornwall Council in April, which they answered quite quickly (so another bonus point) as follows:

The bonus point is somewhat wiped out by the minus 10 for a wrong answer.

The question should have rung an alarm bell. Ask yourself, FOI officers, why someone is asking a question that is so precise, it was in this case because Mr Mustard knew the answer was at least one occasion and probably more.

Mr Mustard hopes that the council are now checking all deadlines which apply to PCN processing and adapting their software to make sure they are all respected.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Lack of logic

The guidance booklet is not a statement of the law

The is set out above. A motorist, let's call them Frank, parks with their blue badge on a one hour single yellow line. Provided that loading is not prohibited, notified by yellow marks across the kerb and a sign plate with times (except when there are two marks together which means 24 hours) a motorist can park for up to 3 hours on a single yellow line. The reason for the clock, or disc as it is properly known, is to enable a passing traffic warden to know when you parked in order to establish if you had been there for more than 3 hours. The clock has no function if the yellow line only operates for a single hour, that is very simple logic.

Along came a traffic warden, keen as anything to issue a PCN and duly did so because the clock, which wasn't needed, was set to the wrong time. That was mistake number 1.

Frank challenged, expecting logic to take over. It didn't and the above is part of the response received. That was mistake number 2 by Barnet Council.

Frank wasn't happy so off to his MP he went. The MP duly passed the query on to Barnet Council and clearly doesn't have much logic themselves, and meekly accepted the council's assurance that the council were correct and Frank was in the wrong. Here is part of the response.

 

A senior officer, one would expect, looks at queries from MPs. Well if they were senior they weren't much cop as they too got it wrong. Ironically the Statutory Instrument they quoted gave the correct answer about the situation. What a pity they didn't read it. Mistake number 3. 

At this point Frank contacted Mr Mustard who thought that the answers were not logical and so he carried out some research to confirm his thinking.

It doesn't help that the booklet you get with your blue badge overstates the law although it is safer to put your clock out every time you park so that you get in the bait and so that a zealously wrong traffic warden doesn't make you one of his victims

 

Mr Mustard wrote to the parking manager and all of a sudden some proper thought was applied to the situation. To save time Mr Mustard sent the manager the relevant section of the statutory instrument

To precis for you the above regulations say that you don't need a parking clock for restrictions which do not exceed 3 hours. It took two weeks but then the PCN was cancelled and a brief apology was given. No flowers, no chocolates, no bottle of wine though.

Frank was relieved and grateful and will, on Mr Mustard's advice, display their clock every time they park even though they don't need to.

Now you blue badge holders know and so you won't meekly pay up if any council makes the same mistake as Barnet did. Simply email mrmustard@zoho.com for free help.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Worstminster / Bestminster

Mr Mustard decided to start at the end of the story, with the good news, and go backwards. Marston were not greatly at fault in this matter, they were given a warrant which was tainted by incompetence. Mr Mustard does not think that even had they even-handedly considered the DVLA letter that the vehicle had been sold prior to the contravention and referred it to the City of Westminster that there would have been any change of position. Coming back from your holiday in the early hours and then getting clamped at 7am wasn't the best start to the post holiday period. Unfortunately Mr Mustard's advice to garage the car was not heeded.

The bare facts of this matter are that a car was given away and there was a delay in registering the transfer at DVLA. For a few months after his lucky gift the new owner of the car ran amok all over London. Every PCN but one was cancelled for the prior owner. Mr Mustard cobbled the facts together and sent an epistle to the newly appointed Head of Parking at City of Westminster.

So we end up with a lady having her new car clamped because the bailiff had assets under control but the bailiff has ended up with nothing. It would be better if bailiffs, when offered a plausible reason why the warrant might be wrong, would take instructions from their client and put the matter on hold. The problem is that because bailiffs are remunerated solely on success they are likely to ignore the obvious error and extract their pound of flesh. They end up giving it back with interest which is a waste of their time and causes reputational damage.

The City of Westminster though are to be complimented on having seriously considered Mr Mustard's epistle, which was something of a missile, and accepted their failings and made a decent compensation payment. Mr Mustard wishes the new parking manager all the best. Many other managers could learn from her example.

Remember, we all make mistakes, how you deal with them is what really counts.

If you are selling, or disposing of, a vehicle, make sure you register the change of ownership with DVLA as if the new owner doesn't, you may pay the price.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard
 

An apology of an apology

You'll remember the above cctv from the previous blog post. The car to watch is the one turning right into Avenue Road. Mr Mustard set you a little challenge as to whether or not it was a contravention and told you that Barnet Council thought it was and had sent a PCN in the post demanding £130. So far, 43 people have voted and 38 correctly say that it isn't a contravention and 5 say it is. So 5 motorists would have paid Barnet Council £65 each which they would not have ever seen again.

Here are the relevant rules from the TSRGD 2016:

Thus, the grey car turning right can enter the box, as his exit, the road to the right, is clear and he is prevented by completing the turn by oncoming vehicle(s).

Mr Mustard made both the formal representations in the name of the registered keeper (the driver if different cannot make them), they were short 'I have done nothing wrong' and also submitted a complaint, viz:

I have repeatedly been assured that an operative watches the cctv clip before taking the decision to issue a PCN.

I don't think it can have been the case for this PCN as no contravention has occurred, so that is the complaint.

If, in the alternative, operator 5** (recently employed I think) did watch the cctv clip and decide a contravention had occurred then I don't think they know what they are doing, is my alternative complaint.

The turning is not that busy, most of the people who will be caught are residents of the road, as in this case. I can't see they will cause traffic mayhem at this spot as Sainsbury shoppers are most of the turning traffic. I think you could turn off the contravention spotting for the right turn, all the others PCN at this location that I have seen are for people southbound on the High Rd which is really the intention of the box, to create a break for traffic to exit into Ravensdale Avenue.

If the PCN is unlawful it again raises the question as to whether an apology & cancellation alone is sufficient remedy and as you know I don't think it is.

Best regards

Mr Mustard

It only took 3 days for the complaint to do its work.

Here is what the council have sent in the way of an apology & explanation.

Interesting. Mr Mustard's first email on the subject was on 31 July not 29 July which was the date of the blog (Mr Mustard is pleased to see that Barnet Council read it). Error 1. Oops, Mr Mustard made an error. He really is very sorry. He hadn't appreciated, or remembered, that the motorist had made his own complaint about the PCN on the day of receipt. He has no excuse. He is pleased to confirm that there are not 11 errors in the council's letter, only 10, so that's all right then.

They have cancelled the 'Notice to Owner'. That is quite a trick as in moving traffic cases there isn't a Notice to Owner, only a postal PCN. Error 2.

Of course the decision sets a precedent as they agree that driving like this is not a contravention (almost what they say but read on) and so as this motorist is going to turn into his road like this at least 5 times a week he is going to continue to drive into the box and await oncoming traffic to clear rather than trying to bulldoze through it. Isn't safety the prime consideration, or is it revenue raising? Error 3.

It is not the motorist's responsibility, when turning right, to ensure the vehicle can travel freely through the box junction. It is his responsibility to follow the law which allows for entry, and stopping, when turning right and prevented by other stationary vehicles or oncoming traffic. Error 4.

It is not prohibited to enter the box junction and 'become stationary' (stop!) if you are turning right and.... Error 5.

Stopping in a box junction is not always a contravention. If you are turning right etc etc. Error 6.

It is not an 'exemption' to the box if you are turning right. It isn't, by definition, a contravention. See how the council think in this sentence. They start from the premise of wrongdoing, the public are always guilty as charged. Error 7.

There are no 'oncomming' vehicles, there were some 'oncoming' ones. Error 8.

Of course the officer (whose number Mr Mustard has rather generously partially redacted) needs additional training. He/she hasn't the foggiest what he/she is doing in respect of box junctions. Does he/she even drive and have any sympathy for the plight of the motorist watched by big brother on telescreens? This motorist was simply trying to get home fully in accordance with the rules of the road. Error 9.

One cannot 'assertain' anything. There is certainly an 'ass' involved but if you can't spell 'ascertain' then perhaps you should say 'find out'. Error 10.

Finally an apology 'on this occassion' for 'any inconvenience' as if there might not be any inconvenience on this 'occasion'. If a PCN isn't an inconvenience when it isn't legally issued, what is? Error 11.

"An apology without feeling is just a collection of words.", © Mr Mustard, 2017.

There is a symptomatic sickness at the heart of many local authority traffic enforcement departments (often jokingly called 'services') who think it acceptable to make illegal demands for money and then send out half baked, inaccurate, insincere, spelling error strewn letters and make no offer of amends for the time, stress and inconvenience of their illegal actions. Sadly there is no body with power and the teeth (the LGO would probably regard the cancellation and pseudo-apology as adequate recompense for this maladministration) to keep councils in line. It is only the bad publicity that councils fear & hate and so this blog will go on highlighting their misdemeanours to try and make them learn from their errors.

It is very difficult to get the money back once a PCN has been paid but if you have been wrongly caught turning into Avenue Road, N12 and you paid the PCN do please let Mr Mustard know, by email to mrmustard@zoho.com

The underlying problem here, as the parking manager is a good egg (Mr Mustard never writes about him, oops!) is that when he took over he was already lumbered with outsourced suppliers like NSL who are obliged to keep staff wages low in order to meet the financial imperatives of the contract. It is NSL who initially review the cctv to check if a contravention has occurred. It doesn't necessarily follow that the more expensive the employee the better the literacy level, tales of bin men with degrees are the stuff of legend, but it usually follows and he can't do everything. Clearly this response was delegated, sadly to the wrong person (and whether to a council or NSL employee Mr Mustard does not know).

Councillors, you are responsible for the decision to outsource. That makes this sort of situation more likely. You have ceded control, that was your mistake.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Hackney Council approve of a bailiff attendance fee for not attending

the sort of village the bailiff visited

A friend of Mr Mustard's contacted him with a problem. He had received a note from a bailiff but didn't know exactly what the debt was for. His employer, a Limited company, let us call them P J Ltd, had employed a lady on a short term contract and a car was necessary to do the job. It was therefore fiscally prudent to rent a car. The supplier had a special deal on renting brand new cars provided they got them back before 9000 miles was reached. Therefore, each quarter they changed to a fresh car. He recalled the lady saying she had received a PCN and would sort it out but her contract was up and she had also moved so there was no paperwork to hand. Mr Mustard's friend's address was used for the paperwork but he isn't a director of the firm in question. Somewhere along the line the house name fell off Hackney Council's records.

Mr Mustard pieced together what he could. There was a signed rental agreement from July 2014 but the PCN debt was for parking in a suspended bay in January 16. The recollection was that inadequate notice had been given of the suspension.

One of the problems inherent within the parking regulations is that no matter how innocent you may be you can end up with a debt registered against you in the county court if you fail to follow a procedural step on time or are not served with any statutory documents.

In this case Mr Mustard thought that Hackney Council had wrongly transferred liability from the Hire Company to the Limited Company client as he was told that no further paper agreements had been signed after the first one (but they had been although by the driver who probably did not have authority to bind PJ Ltd). The car was simply changed each quarter and the rental amounts paid as the months rolled by. Mr Mustard's problem was in stopping the council before the bailiff found the correct house out of the 30+ with the same postcode. Technically he was out of time but he expected that he could convince Hackney Council that they were acting beyond their powers. He knew it wouldn't be easy and so it proved.

He emailed the legal department at Hackney.

I represent P... J... Ltd ('PJL') as attached authority.

PJL have recently become aware of the existence of a warrant in the hands of Newlyn Plc bailiffs acting on behalf of Hackney Council for the above referenced PCN.

The warrant is invalid for want of a proper address, for the failure to properly serve preceding statutory documents (due to the lack of a full address) and because the requirements for a transfer of liability from a vehicle hire firm were not met there being, to PJL's knowledge, no written & signed hire agreement for vehicle ******* under which liability could legitimately be transferred to PJL.

I write to you in your capacity as Chief Legal Officer who is responsible for ensuring that the council operate within the law.

Please place the bailiff on hold whilst one of your team investigates the matter and confirm that you have done so.

Please provide me with a copy of the PCN, Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery.

Please tell me in each case if any of those statutory documents was returned undelivered.

Please tell me the date on which the suspended bay sign was erected and provide evidence of same.

Please tell me the full address which the bailiff visited and the time and date as he is now demanding payment of £512 as if a visit to premises has taken place and given that he does not have the full address a visit cannot have taken place. If the bailiff wears body worn video please provide a copy of the recording showing him making the visit to premises.

Legal tried to duck their responsibility:

Thank you for your e-mail passed to me by my Director, I have contacted the Parking Section requesting they provide details in respect of your enquiry. I must stress that decisions to issue instructions to bailiffs rests with the parking department and legal are not in a position to place any action on hold, however they now have your request and will be considering whether this would be appropriate in this case.

Any investigation will be conducted by the parking department and once they provide details as to the action taken in respect of this matter we can consider them at that time.

You will be contacted once the team have had an opportunity to consider the points you have raised.

But of course Mr Mustard wasn't having any of that:

I approached the monitoring officer as I think the law is not being followed by the parking section.

By all means let parking provide the facts to you but it is the monitoring officer's duty to ensure the council follows the law which I wish to see upheld.

The monitoring officer is not without power in this matter as you suggest.
This led to a quick change of stance:

Thank you for your response, I have noted your comments and am aware of the monitoring officer’s duties and appliance of the law, nothing has been established in respect of this matter and will ask you to bear with me until I am privy to all the facts. Unfortunately, due to staffing issues the information we require from parking will not be obtained immediately, however on speaking to them they have advised they will place the matter on hold for 14 days with the enforcement action to give them time to look into the points you have raised.

As stated you will be contacted once they have had a chance to investigate this matter.
Mr Mustard responded, he had achieved his first aim, stopping money being paid.

Thank you. The 14 day hold is sensible.
Then his second aim was fulfilled, cancellation.

I am pleased to confirm that I have now received a response from the Appeals Team who have considered the points made by you, and have decided to cancel the PCN and recall it from Newlyn bailiffs. I will be asking them for confirmation of when this has been done to ensure no further action is taken in respect of this matter and will contact you once I hear from them.

Mr Mustard likes to go to the end of the journey.

Thank you for letting me know.

I still wish to see all my original questions answered please.

Things went a bit quiet.

A month has passed without me hearing anything.

Could you please prompt your colleagues.

Following the prompt a reply arrived pretty quickly. Mr Mustard has interspersed his further comments in red, the correspondence with Hackney being at an end.

Apologies for the delay in providing you with a response to your questions. It appears that there was a miscommunication between involved parties. (Neither party was Mr Mustard!)

Please find attached documents as per your request and response to each point not already addresses in Council’s previous response.

Please provide me with a copy of the PCN, Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery.

Please find attached. All supplied as requested.

Please tell me in each case if any of those statutory documents was returned undelivered.

We have no records of these statutory documents being returned as undelivered. The Royal Mail have a huge operation in dealing with returned mail but if there wasn't an address on the outside of the envelopes it would have gone in the bin.

Please tell me the date on which the suspended bay sign was erected and provide evidence of same.

Please find attached. An adequate 12 days notice was given.

Please tell me the full address which the bailiff visited and the time and date as he is now demanding payment of £512 as if a visit to premises has taken place and given that he does not have the full address a visit cannot have taken place. If the bailiff wears body worn video please provide a copy of the recording showing him making the visit to premises.

The Enforcement Agent has visited the village and has made enquiries at number of properties to find out the full address of the company. This has however been unsuccessful as nobody was able to tell the Enforcement Agent which property is for the company in question. The bailiff spent 'a good 15 minutes' making enquiries of locals is what an email from the bailiff firm to Hackney Councils says. The bailiff was given a hopeless task. The address should have been verified somewhere along the line before then, the council always had the full address & the bailiff must be given a full address from which to start his enforcement.

The Council often finds cases where the registered keeper does not provide a full address to the DVLA, on some occasions intentionally to avoid paying for Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) the onus is on the registered keeper to ensure that the address is correct. The Enforcement Agent can legally apply the enforcement fee where an attempt* to visit the address was carried out, which means that in this case the enforcement fee has been applied correctly, however the address was not provided by the DVLA but inputted by the Council officer who has on this occasion made an administrative error by missing crucial part of the address. Mr Mustard doesn't get why councils pad their responses out with irrelevant generalisations. This was nothing to do with DVLA which the council do admit in the end. However, what do the regulations about bailiff fees say?:

*Clearly, the enforcement fee, which is fixed at £235 is for attendance at the premises, and popping to the village in which the premises are to be found, if you are smart enough, is not attendance at the premises but in the vicinity of the premises. There is no question but that the attendance fee had not been earned and it is very worrying that Hackney Council do not know this as they are responsible for the actions of their bailiff.

Had the bailiff found the house, knocked on the door, found no-one home & left a note of the visit in the letterbox then the attendance fee would, in other cases of good service, have been properly added to the debt. As it was they charged £75 for the first stage, the compliance stage, which consists of sending a letter to the debtor but they hadn't properly managed that either because they needed the full address so no bailiff fees were properly due.

Looking now through the 74 pages of documents Mr Mustard can see that the driver did challenge the PCN but was rejected so she cannot be faulted as the first Notice to Owner went, quite properly, to the hire company as registered keeper and her involvement was at an end.

The hire company provided the details of the company & driver who hired the car, including the house name. They did provide a copy of the hire agreement which the Notice to Owner asks them to do and which Hackney Council should have checked properly before agreeing to transfer liability as there are strict rules to follow. There were no driver's licence details so transfer was invalid. That was Hackney's first error.

Their second error was to omit the house name when sending the Notice to Owner to PJ Ltd and thus it did not arrive and nor did the Charge Certificate or Order for Recovery.

Mr Mustard asked if there was any body worn video. Hackney asked the bailiff if there were any photographs of the visit which is entirely a different question but he had his answer anyway, the bailiff popped to the village to confirm what anyone could tell without going anywhere, the address was inadequate.

Mr Mustard has just google searched for the company name and location. That brought up a senior executive in the village. He then searched for the executive and the village and got the full address. Total time about 90 seconds. No need to go for a drive, no matter how pleasant it must have been. Hackney Council could have found the address more quickly by looking within their own files.

Neither Hackney Council nor the bailiff come out of this one looking efficient or displaying any common sense. Mr Mustard doesn't like the amount of automated processing that goes on within parking departments. If he were in charge no case would be sent to a bailiff where no response was received subsequent to the Notice to Owner as more likely than not, something has gone wrong. If the registered keeper were to be deliberately ignoring the situation then a 'signed for' letter confirming that their current residence has been verified and that bailiffs are to be instructed would be more effective than sending bailiffs on wild goose chases.

You will note that there has been an apology for the delay in replying to the straightforward questions but there has not been an apology for the fundamental error that Hackney Council made in a simple situation.

There really does need to be an outbreak of good manners in the world of council parking. It isn't enough to cancel your wrongdoings; worry has been caused, illegal demands for money have been made, fees not due are being claimed and people's time has been wasted.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Haringey play Hardball, then No ball

A Charge Certificate is a serious document. You cannot challenge a PCN at that stage, you can only pay up or await the court registration and then try to send the PCN back down the line once you are holding an Order for Recovery.

Sending a Charge Certificate when you are not entitled to is an unlawful demand for payment by a local authority (Adjudicators are quick to cancel PCNs in such circumstances) and would be seen by the man in the street as a Hardball tactic. However Mr Mustard's alter ego has been a debt collector for 28 years and has handled over 500 PCN in 2 years so knows the process inside out and upside down and isn't fazed by Haringey Council playing hardball as he is more than their equal.

Let us run quickly through this case of Miss H.

Postal PCN issued for a no right turn (please don't do this in Highgate High St when you have travelled about 100m south from the double mini roundabout, the camera will get you) on 29 June 2015.

Mr Mustard submitted formal representations (there are no other kind for a postal PCN as you only challenge the local authority once before getting the opportunity to Appeal to an independent adjudicator) by the Signed For service on 8 July 15. They were signed for in Lancing (where the scanner lives) on 9 July.

Going slightly back in the time line, on 6 July representations Mr Mustard had made on another PCN for this client were point blank refused even though Haringey Council had a signed authority letter from the client in both cases.

On 21 July Mr Mustard asked a more senior officer to stop the stupidity of refusing representations by a suitably authorised and experienced representative. This was for a different client, a Miss B, but he asked that representations for this client, Miss H, also be checked. The more senior officer "had a word" with the junior clerk on the Miss B case and doubtless repeated himself clearly on this case. Mr Mustard would have loved to have heard what the more senior officer had to say.

On 4 August Mr Mustard checked the balance on Haringey's computer. It was £65.

Imagine Mr Mustard's surprise when his client sent him a Charge Certificate dated 6 August for £195 which is absolutely impossible.

A procedural impropriety is committed by a council which sends a document it is not entitled to send.

It certainly doesn't make it any better if they can't decide if £130 plus 50% is £195 or £130?

Mr Mustard checked the balance on the council computer again on 9 August and the PCN amount due was by then £0.00 so either the council computer has a mind of its own (or two minds by the looks of it) or an officer with some sense has got hold of the file and tried to quieten Mr Mustard down by cancelling the PCN. There are two more PCN he needs in all fairness to cancel.

Presumably there is a letter of apology and bunch of flowers already on their way to Miss H? There should be after sending such a worrying missive as an illegal Charge Certificate but parking seem to have their own moral code which doesn't include much in the way of morals.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Mr Mustard has the hump

look at the sign carefully

When you get a parking ticket you enter onto a treadmill that goes helter skelter through a number of rotations and woe betide you if you miss a deadline as then you lose and have to pay up or the bailiffs will be round pronto to take your car away.

If on the other hand the council owe you money, which they are meant to repay within 28 days, time stands still and NSL move like a snail.

Here is the history of the matter:

On 13 June, Mr Mustard submitted an appeal to PATAS for a PCN given out in Bittacy Hill which he thought was a Saracens Zone PCN (he was only given one page of a letter to work with, no PCN, no copy appeals, nothing else) and he ran up a 5 point appeal which was, it turns out, pretty much all wrong. We will call his client "Mrs R". He instructed Mrs R by letter to tell him if she received the evidence pack, a bundle of 50 to 100 pages which sets out the council's case. 

The address of Mr Mustard was the one put in the PATAS form for service of documents.

Once the hearing date was known he reminded Mrs R about a big bundle of papers she might receive.

The appeal was due to be heard, as a postal appeal, on or after 16 July.

On 11 July Mr Mustard emailed PATAS to tell them that he had not been served with an evidence bundle and asked for the PCN to be cancelled for that reason alone.

On 19 July the appeal was heard and was lost on the balance of probabilities. Not really a surprise except that the adjudicator didn't seem to have seen the email of 11 July.

The decision gave 28 days for the PCN to be paid. Mr Mustard paid the £110 himself as he had blundered.

An adjudicator's decision can only be challenged on limited grounds. Mr Mustard wrote and asked for a review on 19 July "in the interests of justice" as the council's case had not been seen by him. This time he asked to attend in person so as to argue the merits more extensively than can be done on paper.

PATAS agreed to carry out a review and set a date of 6 September.

At the review Mr Mustard discovered that the evidence pack had indeed been sent to Mrs R, and the adjudicator agreed that was a procedural impropriety and so the Review was granted. That meant that the PCN itself was back in play for an appeal and the same grounds of the service of the evidence pack at the wrong address was enough to count as a procedural impropriety and the PCN was cancelled. Thus Mr Mustard was due his money back. 

(If Mr Mustard had seen the evidence pack when produced he would have realised his appeal was all to cock and done a new one.)

On 10 September, Mr Mustard asked Barnet Council's agent, NSL, to refund him within 28 days and provided a copy of his receipt. Silence, no response.

On 14 October, Mr Mustard reminded NSL that a refund was due. More silence, still no refund.

It cannot be equitable that if you owe the council money that you are obliged to pay it within 28 days or face a 50% increased charge initially and then a vastly increased charge by the bailiff on his/her visit, £400 to £1,500 being common amounts depending on if you are merely clamped or if you have your car removed and yet if the council owe you money they don't even have the politeness to acknowledge your correspondence. There does appear to be a dearth of good manners within the parking process.

Maybe Mr Mustard should clamp the mayoral limousine to force repayment?

At the least he should get £165 back. Will he? Will he even get an apology? or will a sensible member of the parking client side now read this blog, see that the PCN number is AG20537719 and make an immediate refund. If NSL have paid Mrs R in error then it is up to NSL to get their money back from her and not wait to repay Mr Mustard who has no financial connection with her.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 6 November 13

From a council officer.

On 10/09/13 the Council were made aware of the direction to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. For reasons unknown the officer who is responsible for the logging / updating appeal statuses was not able to log the updated appeal status on to the case, it was raised with the team leaders whose responsibility it was to raise it with our software provider. 

From what I can tell nothing has happened since then. I am currently investigating why this failing has occurred.

I confirm that I have this morning updated the case to reflect the new appeal status and have initiated the refund process. When I have confirmation that the refund has been successful I will let you know via email

I apologise on behalf of the service.

Mr Mustard has now asked if anyone else is in the same boat, due a refund and hasn't had it. He did have a case last month where the elderly lady (80+) had paid after filing an appeal at PATAS as she couldn't sleep for the worry, won her case and then got her £60 back within 2 weeks so Mr Mustard was simply unlucky? If you are due a refund, send an email to barnet@nslservices.co.uk

An awesome apology (not from Barnet, naturally)

Mr Mustard tweeted liked this at the weekend; it felt good.

Before Mr Mustard shows you what an awesome apology looks like (and he has written a few in his time having got things wrong from time to time) and once you start on an apology it might as well be a good one with feeling, he will give you some examples of how not to right, which are all from Barnet Council.

So you are technically right - Bill Murphy. Assistant Director of Customer Service (and of being technically wrong and writing like a spoilt child)

I have nothing more to add to my previous emails to you on this matter - Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration (how to remain an interim! - Mr Mustard wrote back as the question had been ducked)

I cannot understand what bit of don't e mail me again, you don't understand - Cllr Brian Coleman

The bit where you want to fail in your duties as set out on the Barnet Council website

"They (councillors) represent public interest" so when Mr Mustard writes a long and considered email to Cllr Longstaff with my thoughts on important matters, and cc every councillor, you really shouldn't ask him not to; no other councillor else did. 

Also, the "leader" Richard Cornelius says that "we conservatives are good at listening" so Richard probably expects you to diligently read what you receive from council tax payers (and probably quietly despairs at your antics).

By contrast and as an example of a fulsome apology look at this from East Sussex County Council which followed me asking them why they claimed copyright when they admitted they did not have any (following this long exchange of emails)

Dear Mr Mustard,

Thank you for your continued patience with us in regards to all matters FOI related. Your blog is great and really demonstrates the value of transparency in local government.

I have read the on-going correspondence between yourself and my team with great interest and some disappointment.

Your comments regarding the format of our email response were very useful and we will of course replace it with something more user friendly and ensure that in future it does not contain needless duplication. As you quite rightly point out, the fact the nobody else had commented is irrelevant and we should welcome feedback to help us to improve our service. I am sorry that we did not acknowledge this at the time.

Please accept my apologies that we did not include your own reference numbers in our correspondence with you. I have advised my team that they must ensure these are added as a matter of course.

The use of the copyright paragraphs was not appropriate on this occasion and should not have been included in the response from us. Once again, your feedback has great value and I have advised my team of the somewhat rare circumstances that it would be appropriate to include them.

These issues have highlighted that we need to review our correspondence more regularly to ensure that it is in line with current recommended good practice and is customer friendly. It is very regrettable that we entered into such a defensive position regarding this; in hindsight, this could have been avoided.

The response to your most recent request for information will follow shortly, minus the copyright!

Kind regards 

The alter ego of Mr Mustard had not mentioned to East Sussex that he wrote a blog and of course when asking FOI questions if you don't use your real name you can't complain to the Information Commissioner but as his question had been about Andrew "Black Hole" Travers he might have had to explain to FOI why someone from Barnet was asking about his remuneration. That is speculation. The other way is that when anyone hears about a new senior manager arriving at their authority they google them to see what they can learn.

 

Yesterday Mr Mustard heard from Birmingham City Council about an FOI question and he could also see from his visitor log that they had been on the blog at about the same time. Again he hadn't linked his question to the blog.

That aside, you have to admire the tone and content of the above please tickle my tummy apology where the writer has thrown away any defence whatsoever  and completely won over Mr Mustard with their approach. He has deliberately not named them although the writer is free to out themselves in the comment box.

Now Barnet Council what can you learn from this? You are bunkered down in the North London Business Park and possibly think that everything that every blogger says is wrong. We bash One Barnet hard, mainly, in Mr Mustard's case, because of the lack of proper figures showing if it is likely to work or not. We must see a professional and independently produced cost-benefit analysis to be persuaded.

 

The other thing to learn is how to write a proper apology with feeling (in your own words, don't copy any of the East Sussex wording which Bill Murphy certainly didn't teach them when he was there - a bit incestuous all this swapping of officers/Town Hall Tax Dodgers?).

 

Have a lovely day. If you do something wrong today, please say sorry, and mean it.

 

Yours frugally

 

Mr Mustard