Helping the mentally or physically ill, the elderly & the poor to fight Council PCNs.
Writing about blunders, democracy and profligacy at Barnet Council.
What Mr Dada has demonstrated is the advantage of good planning and preparation and presenting a clear, simple argument which is well documented. That makes it easy for the adjudicator to find in your favour.
This isn't one of Mr Mustard's cases but there is enough description for him to identify the bay in question.
Looking on google the far bay is also one without a sign which must be cluster 1.
The adjudicator noted the presence of single yellow lines which bookend cluster 3 in the middle of this square. They should not be there as they can only be placed at the edge of a carriageway.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, Newham need to do better. Mr Mustard presumes this is to stop motorists parking in invisible spaces 6 or zero (i.e. at each end of the 5 bays) but no lines are required to enforce if someone parks that way, they will have their entire vehicle more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a marked out bay so a PCN can be issued for that.
Back to the PCN in question. There being no sign adjacent to the bay in which Mr Dada parked he was at liberty to park there for free and a warning PCN would have been unfair. What Newham should do when they erect the new sign is to make a note of all vehicles in those 5 spaces at that time and not ticket them until they have left and returned (if they do, making note of tyre valve positions facilitates that knowledge).
The traffic warden (CEO) having taken a photo of a sign from a different bay had cheated and the back office had reinforced this by rejecting a perfectly valid representation and then contesting the Appeal at the tribunal. Cheats all of them and found out.
A CEO (Civil Enforcement officer, or traffic warden as was) records 's&l ok' which stands for 'signs and lines ok'. That was a lie. The motorist had their own proof of signage being absent and it is clear that the traffic warden photographed a sign from another bay, which does not apply, every bay can have different rules so assuming is dangerous.
Checking on google street view we see that the first bay on the left was missing its sign in 2022 with the sign in the second bay being ok. That makes the first bay free and the traffic warden a cheat and supported by the back office who ignore inconvenient facts and reject perfect challenges.
The role of an adjudicator is to apply the law and if therefore, as in this case, the permit is not adequately displayed. In this case the resident was issued with three PCNs in quick succession because his permit was slightly hidden by the black dots around the edge of the windscreen.
The evidence to the tribunal from Redbridge Council included this:
The same car had been parked in the same road for a year and the traffic warden often chatted to the resident and was well aware which car was his and should therefore have exercised discretion and not issued a PCN or three. In the alternative, why doesn't the traffic warden ('CEO') use his radio to contact the office and ask which vehicle the permit is for. That would be equitable given that permit zones are there to protect the residents, not to punish them.
Mr Mustard isn't entirely convinced that traffic wardens are kept in the dark. If you live there do ask a warden to look up your car and see what they say.
If there hadn't been other grounds except for being a permit holder the adjudicator might have made a recommendation to cancel as he was clearly unimpressed with Redbridge Council wanting (initially) three PCNs to be paid for as they rejected both the informal challenges and the formal representations. The evidence pack arrived at the last minute and the cheapskate council by using second class post rather than first class opened the door to what was, in the end, an easy win. They also didn't prove the past this point zone entry signs so Mr Mustard was too observant for them. Councils win so many Appeals against unrepresented motorists because the public doesn't have a history of fighting back and know what is likely to work. Mr Mustard hopes to write some guides this year to particular aspects of parking law and practice.
photo credit: anonymous member of public (not Helen Michael before you ask)
Mr Mustard has not spoken to this particular traffic warden and doesn't know what the medical problem is but can't believe that elf and safety allows for someone who needs both hands free to use the parking ticket equipment and to use their crutches to stay upright as well as to get about during a long shift of many hours, to be on duty. (The ever lovely & kind Queen of Parking, Helen Michael of Cafe Buzz offered her a free cup of tea and a sit down when she saw her but the traffic warden refused because her supervisor was about.) There is something really morally wrong here. The lady is being inhumanely treated.
He is amazed to see that she has been sent out on the street by NSL rather than given a desk job whilst she recovers.
Be nice to the lady if you meet her but don't let that stop you driving away before she gets the ticket stuck to your windscreen. You are under no obligation to take it from her hand. Then you have good grounds of appeal "the PCN was not served" if it does not get posted to you.
Given that we are probably paying £50,000+ to Penna to recruit a new Chief Exec is it too much to hope for materials that are better than the ones we have.
Is it an overview on or an overview of?
The independent councillor didn't get asked?
Shouldn't it be "play the leading role in the implementation"
Shouldn't it be political with a small p?
A key priority(and then list more than one priority and use the word "all"?)for the Chief Executive, as leader of the Board, will be initiating, fostering, encouraging and monitoring a wide range of partners and multi-agency alignment(multi-agency what?)all aimed at the provision of integrated, cost efficient and effective services to the people of Barnet.
and feel able to act as critical friend whilst respecting the democratic process. (sounds like a description of a blogger).
Not good to start a sentence with "But"?
A successful transition and maintaining business as usual will be an initial priority for the new chief executive. Isn't this two priorities?
The values and behaviours play an important part of how they ‘do business’ and (they) would want a chief executive who feels passionately about engaging citizens, employees and partners in an aligned organisation where values and behaviours are lived, not just written on the wall. Shouldn't it be "in" how they do business? Are values and behaviours written on the wall in your office?
The organisational structure in Barnet has recently undergone major change with a number of services outsourced and delivery structured into clearly accountable units the leadership team of the Council has been reorganised to reflect these changes and support the Commissioning Council approach. Might Mr Mustard suggest a full stop after the word "units" and then a capital letter on "The".
The SCB will drive the strategic future of Barnet to deliver the political mandate and ensure that the services delivered, by whatever method are the most effective and cost efficient for residents. How about a comma after "method"?
So that is enough of Penna. A quick note about the timetable. Applications have to be in by 20 May 13. Why have the council been so slow to try and fill the post, anyone would think it is unimportant? The interim appointment of Andrew Travers was approved at Remuneration Committee on 24 October 12. Why is it only 6 months later that recruitment is getting going? An appointment won't be made until after the full council meeting of 16 July.
Any chance of a Barnet person being suitable for the role? Only 350,000 residents to choose from.
Call Mr Mustard picky if you like but one can't conflate Barnet the place and Barnet Council the council. The first line isn't properly expressed. Barnet is a place not a council.
Hopefully none of the candidates will have been under a stone for the last few years and will know that Barnet is not a sleepy backwater. It is easy to pick out odd areas of success but what we want a CEO to tackle are the areas of failure. For example it was only on Friday that we heard that 6 former parking employees had, with the help of Unison, won their claims for unfair dismissal when their jobs were TUPE transferred to NSL who moved the jobs to Croydon and Lancing such that it was impractical for the employees to retain their jobs. When posts do have to be made redundant the staff are meant to be given details of other vacancies in the council which makes sense for both parties as the employer can perhaps fill a vacancy without paying a recruitment consultant and the employee can use his knowledge of how the council works to help a different department and keep his/her job. The council failed to notify vacancies properly and are having to pay out thousands in compensation, as reported here in the local paper.
So it looks like the new CEO should put the better treatment of staff higher up the priority list but that will rub up against the political decision to sign 10 year contracts with private providers.
Ha Richard "not resting on your laurels" which means "relying entirely on long-past successes for continued fame or recognition"so you admit that any success was a long time ago. I agree that you do take difficult decisions. They are very difficult for the people you make redundant by the hundred and often are also the wrong decisions.
Looking at your statement "our relationship with residents would have to change" Mr Mustard looked at the Residents' Perception Survey 2012 and the question "To what extent does the statement - Is doing a better job now than one year ago - apply to your local council" led to the following responses:
A great deal 79
To some extent 300
Not very much 310
Not at all 238
which leads Mr Mustard to conclude that the relationship of the council with residents is indeed changing, it is getting worse.
The One Barnet programme is not based upon delivering the best possible outcomes for residents. It is mostly based upon privatising services which leads to job losses and pay cuts for staff. Jobs are only kept in-house if that is the cheapest option or if the political fallout from doing otherwise would be too hot to handle. Try asking the residents of Friern Barnet if they think closing their library was the best possible outcome, or the many people who used to like visiting Church Farmhouse Museum or the supporters of Barnet FC whether Copthall being virtually gifted to Saracens was the best outcome? and one is likely to get the answer "No".
You have somewhat accelerated the bringing back in-house of the recycling service Richard. It won't happen until October so you should have used the future tense.
Are we still doing a JV on DRS? It is hard to keep up with changes in the status of any part of the transformation programme; it is as if policy gets made up on the fly.
You are over-egging the pudding with "will allow" when you talk about savings. You might recall you still owe me an answer from November about the parking service outsourcing that went way off the rails and needed a top secret improvement plan to get it back towards the rails.
"Streamlined senior management" does sound lovely and idyllic. Let us take a look at it and see if it looks streamlined.
Mr Mustard hopes you followed all of that as he doesn't and he thinks that tasks are going to be missed because everybody will think it is someone else's responsibility. There was nothing wrong with having silos i.e. departments. Everyone knew what they were responsible for.
"pursuing innovate ways of delivering" is a typically sloppy piece of writing. Mr Mustard guesses that Richard meant "innovative" but that Richard didn't read what was written in his name very carefully, if at all?
"The best future for the people of Barnet." That will be in May 2014. Vote this shower out of the Cabinet.
The message, part of the internet puff for a new CEO to fill a black hole in the management structure, is simple but also simply wrong and meaningless piffle, we are not "your" residents, we will be here for ever and you councillors and officers are transient. Here is what it should have said.
The message is simple:
We work for the residents; they are more important than us.
a cynical blogger might suggest the following instead:
The messenger is simple.
but that would be unkind and overly personal.
Another question:
Do residents want the council to outsource for 10 years? Answer:
No idea as we haven't consulted them.
The big question is what sort of CEO we will end up with? A cast off failure from another local authority still spending their massive pay-off, an acolyte of Common Purpose (and whose purpose are they most interested in?) or a yes man/woman - time will tell. There is always the possibility that we will get a super-efficient, warm and personable highly skilled team leader with an MBA but given that the appointment will be made by committee it is much harder to choose the best candidate and who, in their right mind, would want to be the CEO of Barnet Council.
Traffic wardens (CEO) like to change their name. You can call me Ade, or Oladokin or Arsen but unfortunately they were not their real names.
Take a look at page 39 in Item 7 of the report pack for the Audit Committee of 21 June 2012
and you will find that Ade Oresanya was really Adebukonla Alaba Oresanya
that Oladokin Awonusi was really Olalekan Abraham Oduwaye and
that Arsen Fundi was Eddy Nduwimana.
The first two, who were detained by the UK Border Agency as a result of Operation Quest acted as Civil Enforcement Officers for Barnet Council as direct employees.
The third one, Eddy, has form for Theft and Deception who, whilst a postman, posted anything of value into the boot of his car. That must be what is known as Special Delivery. He was dismissed by Barnet Council when the subterfuge came to light which it did when he had been working through a temp agency and then applied for a permanent post.
The report does not say which agency supplied him although it is most likely to be through the Hays contract which is an umbrella arrangement covering about 100 agencies. In the Hays contract, signed with Haringey Council on behalf of such other public bodies in Greater London as wish to use it, paragraph 4.5 states that is the obligation of the contractor to obtain two professional references for each Temporary Worker. ( There is not a definition of what a professional reference is. In the case of people who are prepared to change their names supplying a professionally forged reference probably won't be that difficult. Mr Mustard recalls that 30 years ago he had a boss, an accountant, who had a stock of blank letterheads for all of his previous employers so that he could type out any reference he fancied!)
Para 4.5 goes on "The contractor shall, at no additional charge to the council ensure that all checks including, where appropriate, CRB checks on Temporary Workers are carried out prior to the said Temporary Worker being placed with the Council. Subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 the Contractor shall pass the results of such checks to the Authorised Officer."
Now, whether or not it was Hays ( and one would expect the same type of clause to be in any contract with any agency supplying temporary staff ) we have to ask ourselves if the agency, probably Hays, obtained the "professional references" and we have to ask ourselves if the CRB checks were being carried out properly by the agency and also if the documents were passed to the council and/or whether they noticed they hadn't had them. Has there been recruitment of Temporary Workers by Barnet Council in default of good HR procedure and outside of contract because the criminal conviction only came to light when Eddy tried to go from temporary to permanent staff?
Out of a workforce of about 50 Parking wardens to have 3 in one year (6%), who were not who they said they were, get through the recruitment procedures is a pretty dismal performance. It is easy to look good in CAFT, it just tells you how pathetic other departments have been.
HR = hardly rigorous
The big question
Can an illegal immigrant, if that is what they turn out to be, or an employee who wasn't entitled to be an employee, issue a valid parking ticket?
This is a question which has come up a lot around England and which Mr Mustard cannot see has been properly tested unless of course, you know different.
An honest body would of course immediately rescind all tickets that had been issued by someone who should not have been out on the streets issuing tickets at all but we are talking about grasping councils so that is too much to hope for.
If any reader knows because of a case at PATAS the name of the traffic warden who issued their ticket, because they had to give evidence, and if it was any of the three named above then please get in touch with mrmustard@zoho.com and we will see what we can do.
