Barnet Council - automation gone wrong - charge certificates

Mr Mustard mostly reads decisions about Barnet Council at London Tribunals the home of independent PCN adjudicators.

 

This isn't the first time that he has seen the premature issue of a Charge Certificate, which increases the PCN value by 50% (from £130 to £195) and contains dire warnings about the county court, bailiffs and extra charges if you fail to act.

 

The problem with charge certificates is automated progression of PCNs. Everything possible to push a PCN forward through the process is taken without any human input whereas steps taken by motorists, such as starting an Appeal at the tribunal, rely on manual processing to freeze the process. The computer marches on relentlessly, an oversight or staff shortage in manual handling means that mistakes are made and illegal demands sent.

 

Accepting that errors can occur, even in the best run workplaces, it is what you do next that matters. A motorist who was unaware of the proper procedure and has the philosophy that a council doesn't get things wrong (however bizarre that thinking should be nowadays) may have been bullied into paying up at an inflated price and cancelling their Appeal. 

Luckily this motorist is made of sterner stuff. The area where Barnet Council could improve is that if they make this error they simply leave it until the hearing for the adjudicator to sort out, they may even get away without the error being noticed. The motorist is left worrying, in this case, for 10 days about the possibility of an increased financial loss.

Mr Mustard was brought up to admit to error. What Barnet Council should do when they make such an error is to contact the motorist without delay, apologise and tell the motorist that they have been put back to the correct place in the process. If what has taken place would lead to an adjudicator cancelling a PCN the council themselves should take that step.

Parking departments generally lack good manners.

End.

Lewisham Council - automated stupidity

The scene is set, above. Note that the no entry signs are set a metre or two back from the give way lines. It was, in the adjudicator's view, when the Traffic Management Order is read, ok to drive up the road towards the camera and then reverse (the van in the picture is a handy illustration of the point near which the motorist in this case changed direction from forwards to reverse) as the prohibition is on driving along Giffin Street, which is to your left and right, and turning away from the camera into Frankham Street.

Here is the decision on the Appeal and on costs.

There is an unhealthy amount of automation in the world of moving traffic PCNs. this is because council's wouldn't make any money if they employed real people instead. This leads to an unhealthy reliance on computerised decision making which Lewisham have been brought to book over.

Additional points on which the adjudicator could have found for the motorist are that the PCN did not accurately describe the alleged contravention. 'Failing to comply with a no entry sign is a contravention but it was there in support of a prohibition on 'causing a vehicle to enter Frankham Street from Giffin Street' so the contravention as alleged had not taken place.

The council said about the PCN that it 'cannot be withdrawn' which is a pack of lies. The council can cancel what they issue, for any reason, even if they accept that there was a contravention.

Councils are always keen to warn motorists that false statements can lead to a Court fine of £5,000. Lewisham have got off lightly in this case.

The adjudicator boots out of the window the idea that costs should not be awarded because the motorist could have had his case heard on the papers. One of the good things about the tribunal (unlike outside London at the TPT nowadays) is that the motorist gets the chance to put their evidence in person and the adjudicator gets the chance to ask all the questions they need to in order to refine the arguments & fact find. Lewisham are lucky that the adjudicator did not order them to turn up to argue their case, a power which he opted not to exercise.

Mr Mustard finds all the time that enforcement authorities bend or misrepresent the evidence to suit their position, they often answer a different point to the one argued in order to try and negate the argument. They will say things like 'the  PCN was properly issued' which it was, when the real argument is about the facts of the parking which led to the issue of the PCN.

Before a PCN is issued a human being is meant to check the cctv to check that a contravention did occur. Mr Mustard is fond of parking up for 10 seconds in the middle of an empty yellow box at midnight to make sure the cctv verifier is awake and doing their job properly and not just ticking yes to a PCN. However, in this case, he thinks that a checker would be so mean that they would issue a PCN to anyone who went a metre past the back of the no entry signs and then reversed, which is not the reason why the signs were installed, taking a purposive approach.

We'll see if Lewisham learn. If they don't things could go badly for them.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

For experts; decision 2180445409