The wrong type of permit - not!

Right, you have a resident permit for the HC2 zone (part of Hendon Central). Can you park in this bay?

Yes, of course you can.

Can you park in this bay?

Yes, of course you can.

However, a traffic warden (CEO - Civil Enforcement Officer) having a very bad day (and someone back at base) thought otherwise. Here is the story from the resident.

Hi

Keen reader of the blog!

I live in NW4 Brampton Grove and witness a fair amount of nonsense from the CEO’s around Barnet. Today reached a new low.

I was parked in a bay where I have parked for the last 5 years. After seeing the CEO put a ticket on my car I ran downstairs from my flat to investigate. She then informs me that I was getting a PCN because car was parked in a bay which was labelled permit holders only and not resident permit holders only like the bays opposite. I then tried to explain that the reason it says permit holders only and not resident holders only because it also allows business permits under the HD code my resident permit code is HC2 which is clearly listed on the sign. She refused to listen to me and I argued that for the past five years the CEOs have not probably looked at my permit and that I should’ve been given PCN’s. She even called someone who confirmed wrongly that I should be given one.

Thought you’d like to hear about this one!

Oh yes. Here is the PCN.

Here also is the permit for the car and location in question.

Mr Mustard offered to sort it out but his reader is robust and well able to deal with it himself and in fact it is already cancelled.

Hi Mr Mustard

Thanks for the quick response.

Re - new to the job - that’s what I asked! But she said she’s been doing it for over a year. I said she may want to retrain or get her eyes tested. Almost want to put in an official complaint due to incompetence.

How do they get away with this! I was not the only car in those set of bays who got a ticket either…!! 

This PCN was ineffably stupid and to double down when challenged and be told the wrong thing by the office is just calamity upon calamity.

If you get a PCN in similar circumstances do not pay it. Make a complaint as unless enough complaints are made the CEO won't be retrained (except that Mr Mustard is going to ask for some to be given as goodness knows what other havoc is being perpetrated. Also, challenge the PCN or come to Mr Mustard, this sort of PCN is only a minute's work - email: mrmustard@zoho.com

The end.

No times = no valid PCN

Today Mr Mustard and the parking manager were in complete agreement. This worries him (the manager) but it does happen.

The above sign is in Marsh Drive, NW9. Mr Mustard's client had 2 PCN which he received over a  weekend. Apparently, since the button factory closed, there aren't any business permit holders needing to park in Marsh Drive and at weekends residents have parked there without problem, until recently that is.

A sign with no times on it operates 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Mr Mustard thought it unlikely that the hours for a business bay would be much more than 8am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. He suggested as much to the Parking Manager who entirely agreed and said he would check the Traffic Management Order which sets out the rules. Having done so this sign has been found to be wrong and will be replaced. Every PCN issued there recently is also being cancelled. That means that 5 people with a PCN will find that if they challenge the PCN they will be told it has already been cancelled and if they try to pay on line the system won't take their money. Luckily no-one had paid so ticket issuing here must have been the new wheeze of a particular traffic warden - a wheeze which is no more.

So well done to the manager for agreeing straight away to cancel everything that was wrong. It is the sort of honesty that residents are entitled to expect as routine. If a PCN had been paid getting a refund might have been harder but the question wasn't tested.

Mr Mustard is looking out for any other Business permit holder only bays with equally defective signage. If you see one, do let Mr Mustard know by sending a photograph to mrmustard@zoho.com.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

£525 p.a. to be messed about

Business permit holders in Chipping Barnet have to hunt for CB signs

Something really should be done about NSL (and in theory someone in the council parking client side who has to decide upon formal representations) rejecting perfectly valid challenges. Every one they get wrong costs the motorist £60 or £110 if they pay up (probably at the 50% rate though) or costs the council £40 when an appeal is then made to PATAS. Here is a recent PATAS adjudication decision with the odd typo corrected:

The Appellant holds a business permit. As he was changing vehicles, he was given a dispensation number which he displayed while he was parked in a pay and display space in Fitzjohn Avenue car park.

I do not think that the issue was about the use of the dispensation number, or whether it was displayed. If that was the issue, I would have no hesitation in finding in the Appellant's favour. That said, the Authority's case was not clear at all.

The Authority said in its letter of rejection that the contravention occurred because a business permit is not valid in all car parks. This suggests that a business permit can be used in some car parks. The Authority has not provided any evidence as to which car parks were permitted and it did not say how permit holders would know which ones they can use.

At the formal representations stage, the Appellant then pointed out that there was a notice in Moxon Street car park which advises permit holders to use the Fitzjohn Avenue car park instead. This notice stated that the change was effective from 25 February. It did not say that the change was temporary. The Appellant also pointed out that the sign at the Moxon Street car park states that business permits are not permitted and this is not stated in the Fitzjohn Avenue car park.

The Authority then issued a Notice of Rejection which suggested that business permits are not valid in any car park. However, a PCN issued in the same circumstances was cancelled at the formal representations stage. The letter of acceptance indicated that the Appellant's representations were accepted.

In summary, the Authority had by this stage contradicted itself on whether business permits can be used in the Fitzjohn Avenue car parks. It had in fact contradicted itself as to whether business permits can be used in a car park at all. One would have thought that the Notice of Appeal should have caused the Authority to consider the position more carefully. It did not.

The Authority went on at length about pay by phone or pay and display, which are not issues in this case. It said that business permit holder/those with dispensation cannot park in the Fitzjohn Avenue car park. It said that each case must be treated on is own merit.

Each case should be treated in its own merit but if the Appellant makes an identical submission and supplies identical evidence, any differences in outcome needs to be justified. Furthermore, the letter of acceptance and the evidence of the notice at Moxon Street car park clearly implied that business permits can be used in some car parks. The Authority has not explained how these sit with its claim that permits are no valid in all car parks.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

The above explanation explains why you need to go to PATAS armed with background evidence of what the parking regime is, perhaps by taking printouts of the council's website or like this person with a photo of a council sign that might become relevant to your argument.

In case you are not yet confused enough, here is an extract of a letter about the changes to parking arrangements in Chipping Barnet from February of this year.

and then this is what a local trader says:

It is indeed a mess.

Before 25th Feb this year when we were kicked out of Moxon St car park I was emphatically told that businesses could only use the car parks! The CB code was assumed to stand for Chipping Barnet. I was told that there were no business bays in High Barnet.

After Feb we were told that CB stood for area C and Businesses. We were in fact NEVER permitted to use any of the car parks!

We were also told that we were forbidden from parking in Moxon St and Stapylton car parks only. That would leave the long stay Fitzjohn as suitable. We have, on desperate occasions, used it. If you have a vehicle larger than a Mini you have to climb out of the windows because the bays are so narrow.

and finally from the council's website

The permit only allows you to park in a "Business Permit Holders Only" or "Permit Holders Only" parking place during the controlled hours, making sure that the same zone identifier letters displayed on the permit appear on the sign. (No mention of car parks.)

Mr Mustard is pleased he has been able to clear that confusion up for you! The council are there to serve us. They do. Badly.

If the council are going to take £525 from traders for a permit for a year the least they could do is to provide some appropriately sized spaces as traders are more likely to have larger vehicles in order to move stock. A charge that is 13 times what a resident would pay for a car is unsustainable and possibly revenue raising. Mr Mustard knows what we need, a judicial review of the charge and some other councillors in charge. Look at the top left and you'll see how many days it is until you can kick the current incumbents out. Traders are likely also to be local residents. Make your voice heard.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard 

Permit me - to be very slow

Here is a report from an independent adjudicator at PATAS

As a matter of fact the appellant did not display his business permit and the contravention is made out since he had parked his vehicle without paying the appropriate parking charge. However, there are a number of factors in this case which lead to make a recommendation to the Authority to cancel the PCN.
 

The appellant did not have dispensation to park because at the time of parking he had not yet received his business permit. Nevertheless, I note that he applied for the permit on 11 th March 2013 and had paid £840 for the business permit which would be valid for 12 months. On 19th March 2013 the appellant still had not received his permit so contacted the Authority with an original intention to cancel the permit due to delay, but the permit was never cancelled and the appellant was informed that the permit would be despatched on 28th March 2013.

Unwisely the appellant parked his vehicle prior to receipt of the permit and on 21st March received a PCN. 

The appellant could not have displayed his permit on 21st March because at that time he had not received it even though it had been paid for by the appellant. When despatched the permit was valid for 12 months until 11th March 2014 which implies that the application and fees were received on 11th March 2013. The appellant may have acted naively, but he had paid for the permit prior to its despatch as the expiry date implies. He will no doubt have learnt his lesson and will not act presumptively in the future.

I accordingly refuse the appeal but make a recommendation that the PCN be cancelled.

This worries Mr Mustard that if the permit section are dealing with refunds of the CPZ overcharges they will not be able to cope as they can't deal with a simple renewal.

The business is paying £840 for a permit and the council cannot manage to get it out the same day. The council should be sending the permit to the business by courier on the same day as a valid application is received. The council want their business rates paid on time, not 3 weeks later; why should you stand for such sloppy service?

Mr G of High Barnet, the council owe you either a 3 week extension on your permit renewal date or a refund of £49. Make sure you get it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Parking prices - the future

Yesterday saw Richard Cornelius, the leader of the council, responding to the many emails he had received that suggested the council not appeal the decision of Mrs Justice Lang, DBE, that the revenue raising CPZ permit price increase was unlawful.

Here is the entire email sent to a friend:

no appeal
Richard

That could be misconstrued by the voters Richard,  they may take you at your word and vote for a nice new independent candidate?

Mr Mustard blogged yesterday about refunds. You can do them online using one of those horrible webforms, here, or you can send an email here. One email will suffice; if you moved since May 2011 give the council both addresses so they can find you more easily. I am told that a separate email is needed for each permit (a tweet has been sent to the council to see if that is true but given that Mr Mustard sold his car and purchased the blogger bus in that time then it might be sensible to do separate claims) and the council website says that it will take up to 8 weeks to process a refund. Come on Barnet Council that isn't cricket. You give people 4 weeks to pay up for a parking ticket or you increase the penalty by 50%. Doesn't asking for 8 weeks look a teensy weensy bit one-sided? 

You have had 2 years to plan for this day, why are you not better organised and staffed up for this. You will have to get temps in and it is a sausage factory operation so easy to manage. Did the applicant pay or not, yes or no, is all you have to decide and then record the refund in such a way that it does not get paid twice.

Mr Mustard didn't want Richard to feel all lonely now that CPZ emails will come to a stop and so he rattled off his thoughts, as follows:



Dear Richard

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply.

I presume that prices will revert to the old ones and then that there will be a root and branch reform of all parking charges to look to the future. That would also be a good time to look at cash parking meters again. There must be room for some compromise. You may be told they are expensive to collect cash from but paybyphone costs are about 10% of income which isn't that far short of what cash collecting costs.

There are two places where cash meters are, in my view, essential and that is car parks and the High Street. They could probably be covered by about 100 machines (there used to be about 450) especially if a number of short term free bays were also introduced at the same time to cut down the number required. Rationing space can be done by time as well as by money; look at Whetstone which merely limits you from parking on one side of the road or the other (with no time limit I think) and how busy it is.

You aren't in it for the money remember.

Best regards

Mr Mustard

Mr Mustard will of course attend any committee at which this subject is discussed and keep an eye out for a Delegated Powers Report by which method it might be dealt (although given the importance it really should be properly discussed by committee).

It isn't only the resident permits that need looking at. If a business is within a CPZ zone it can buy a permit for £525 (or £840 for a permit to cover any registration - intended to help businesses who rent their delivery vans and so have frequent changes of registration) and they can then park in business permit holder spaces. Mr Mustard is struggling to see how a permit to park a vehicle, possibly an estate car or Morris Minor sized van, which belongs to a business can be justified to cost £525 when it takes up the same space as a resident's car or less space than the blogger bus (a Renault Trafic) which has a resident permit. It looks like the council are revenue raising from businesses and will have to stop. A business is limited to 3 permits (that won't encourage businesses with 500 employees to come to Barnet) and so there is some logic in charging the same price for a permit as to Residents.

Near High Barnet tube there has been a campaign to have a CPZ zone extended. It is the D zone. You will find a report here.

Here are some short extracts:

As a result of the consultation the Council received 53 email or letter responses frommembers of the public relating to the proposals which included comments, objections
and requests to revise the proposal. Of the 53 items of correspondence, two were epetitions (which can be viewed at http://petitions.barnet.gov.uk/SupportCPZ and
http://petitions.barnet.gov.uk/ValeDrive ) and 51 were received from local residents.
Of the 53 items, 12 (22.6%) were against the proposed CPZ extension while 41
(77.3%) were in favour.

An e-petition containing 215 signatories not in support of the proposals from
people who work for, represent or visit regularly Vale Drive Primary Care Centre and
St Catherine’s County RC School. Both St Catherine’s and Vale Drive Health Clinic
have a large number of staff who live outside walking distance, who work full time at
these premises. Both buildings have small car parks, which have the space to
provide parking for approximately 40% of their workforce. The remainder of
employees currently use the non-restricted zones in the surrounding roads. The
implications of the extended parking zones is considered by the petitioners to be a
huge inconvenience to staff, it also means vehicles will be parking in Mays Lane
EN5, which already currently becomes hugely congested. The Council has been
informed that at St Catherine’s staff rely on a large number of volunteers to help with
the day-to-day running of the school including school trips, extra curricular activities
and classroom assistance. The proposed restrictions will be a further deterrent to the
willing and kind local community who currently assist the school with the education of
Barnet children.

An e-petition containing 85 signatories in support of the CPZ extension proposal
was received from residents of Elton Avenue, Woodfall Avenue and Milton Avenue
who are currently competing for parking space with commuters, clinic workers,
school workers and college students, leaving little or no room for resident parking
during the day. The detail of the petition goes on to highlight Barnet has plenty of
spaces in the station car park, and Fitzohn (sic) Avenue car park which could conceivably
accommodate these commuters, leaving the residents, and their visitors, (including
carers) to park near their own houses.

Clearly the council want to support its local communities in which St Catherine’s
County RC School plays a vital role so it is also mindful of adversely affecting
amenities that service the area and need support. The Council has recognised this
across the board, and with this in mind the council is, under a separate process,
considering establishing permits for teaching staff that will entitle those eligible staff
of those qualifying schools within the borough, to park in the relevant CPZs. It is
considered that should it be agreed that teachers permits be introduced, that subject
to all statutory processes, they could be in place this autumn. In relation to St
Catherine’s County RC School, it is considered that as the roads are part controlled,
if the CPZ extension is agreed the whole length of each road would have the capacity
for both resident and teaching staff parking.

In terms of the staff of the health centre, no permits are envisaged; however it is
considered that parking provision exists for those motorists wishing to park
throughout the day, through the Council-operated and private car parks situated
nearby.

Following the conclusion of the statutory consultation it is still considered that there is
merit in the nature of the measures proposed for the area to improve the parking
conditions for residents, however, following considerations of comments and
objections received, the council is confident that the proposal would not detract from
what the council originally aimed to achieve in the area, with various concerns about
non-resident parking able to be managed in other ways.

Officers wrote to Underhill Ward Councillors prior to the statutory consultation in
order to ascertain their views on the proposal. No comments were received in the
three weeks given. (Why do we have councillors?)

What do you think of this CPZ zone extension? An unusual precedent has been set (do please tell Mr Mustard if exceptions have been made for teachers anywhere else in the borough) with permits being planned for teachers but not for nurses and with local businesses just up the hill paying £525 for a permit. Mr Mustard doesn't think that the council have got this balancing act right (he readily accepts it wasn't easy).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard