Amazing coincidence

When your PCN reaches the tribunal Barnet Council often put into evidence (at item C) their processing notes. The notes can be revealing as to the thinking which goes on.

In this case two different back office workers put the same notes, displaying an identical choice of words, on the same file a week apart.

Anyone would think that there is a set of ready typed rejection notes to try and make out that deep thought has been given to the representations rather than a standard formulaic rejection.

Of course there wasn't a permit on display. The motorist had just parked and popped to a nearby property to obtain a visitor parking voucher. The council are rejecting the representations because the permit/voucher was not on display from the very first second of parking. Mr Mustard is sure that he has previously written about the preposterous attitude of the council in this matter and he will keep on doing do until some common sense is bashed into the back office and/or management.

Civil Enforcement Officers don't ensure anything except that a whole load of PCNs will be issued by them every day. Permits are no longer displayed as 99% of them are now electronic records.

No-one was arguing that the Owner wasn't liable (if anyone is).

Saying that a permit was being obtained isn't mitigation, it is a direct challenge to the legitimate issue of the PCN.

Mr Mustard hadn't seen this attitude from Barnet Council for a while and now he has two similar cases in both of which the observation time by the traffic warden was zero minutes.

Do not pay if you were genuinely obtaining a Visitor Voucher but ask Mr Mustard for help (mrmustard@zoho.com)

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Pull the wool?

You've got to be good to pull the wool over Mr Mustard's eyes.

His client paid to park in the Golders Green Road, she forgot she was driving her husband's car and so paid for her own one. Needless to say she received a PCN. She challenged the PCN and then the Notice to Owner on the not unreasonable grounds that the council had not lost out. She was rejected twice.

For the tribunal appeal Mr Mustard's help was sought. He filed an Appeal which was partly on the grounds that the bay sign did not tell you that you could use a parking meter, at which it is impossible to pay for the wrong car as a registration number is not required (and you are unlikely to place the machine receipt in the wrong car!).

Here is the relevant section of the council's case summary:

PbP = PayByPhone

and here is the plan they produced of the area showing the parking restriction signs

No parking meters on that plan.

Mr Mustard went to the council's maps and extracted another version just a little further down the road and oh, guess what, there is a parking meter which was just off the page in the council's evidence to the tribunal.

ooh, a parking meter at the other end of the bay.

A coincidence, an outright lie or just an unfortunate oversight? Mr Mustard will be filing a complaint with the council that he has been lied to.

The other interesting fact about this PCN is that the motorist paid £2.10 to park for an hour (including the optional 10p text reminder which Mr Mustard does not opt for as it is poor value being 5% of the parking charge) and then extended for 30 minutes at a cost of £1.10 (a 10% uplift to receive a text!) and the council had not refunded the charges paid to park although that would be the obviously fair thing to do.

This time, once the case hit the tribunal stage and Mr Mustard argued that it was procedurally unfair (a general law requirement for enforcement authorities so to be)  the council refunded £3 (not the 20p you note) in order to see if they could hang on to the £60 PCN. That looks unlikely given that they have either mislead or lied to the tribunal and to the Appellant (the motorist making the Appeal). There are dire warnings on council paperwork that motorists risk fines of £5,000 if they tell porky pies; Barnet Council need to get their own house in order.

If you are in the same boat and going to the tribunal do ask for a refund of the parking fee that you paid.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council have now been in touch with Mr Mustard, apologised for the inconvenience and cancelled the PCN. It was just an error, not an attempt to deceive.

26 coincidences in Charnwood Place, N20.

Mr Mustard was approached in his own road by a man with a PCN for parking adjacent to the dropped kerb just above the middle of the picture. Odd thought Mr Mustard as if you go straight across the road there isn't a corresponding kerb to make a crossover for pedestrians, there is no driveway there (in fact there is a fence) and there isn't a cycle lane so the three possible reasons for the issue of a dropped kerb PCN did not exist.

What also exercised Mr Mustard was that the traffic warden had stood to the right of the estate agent's board so as to get in the dropped kerb at that point and make the situation look as bad as possible. This is borderline fraud at worst and misrepresentation at best.

Nowadays you can look at lots of data about all Barnet Council PCN on this excellent link. Mr Mustard has to accept that in this respect Barnet Council are being open and transparent. Mr Mustard doesn't use the data very much due to shortage of free time but does look at the data now & then. 

He thought he would see how often this little backwater had seen a PCN issued. The answer was 26 times.

Every single PCN had been issued for the dropped kerb.

Even more coincidental every single PCN had been issued by the same traffic warden despite them not having regular rounds so the road has been at the mercy of all 50 traffic wardens, none of the other 49 having seen fit to issue at this spot (well done the 49).

Mr Mustard thought this was a bit naughty and with his challenge to the PCN (his client was worried that the £110 would wipe out his earnings for the day but Mr Mustard assured him the PCN was fated for cancellation so he was not to pay the 50%) he also raised a complaint that no contravention had occurred and that the traffic warden was in a minority of one who thought this was a contravention and that there was no traffic management purpose (the whole point of the PCN regime after all).

It only took a day for a council officer (the traffic warden is externally employed by a contractor, NSL Ltd) to agree with Mr Mustard that the location 'does not meet the criteria necessary to be enforced as a dropped footway restriction'. 

They were also going to assess whether the traffic warden needed further training. Mr Mustard doesn't think so, he knew the rules exactly hence the dodgy photo, but in the area of fairness & probity, the traffic warden concerned has had his day of reckoning and will not be wandering down Charnwood Place in the future, hazards Mr Mustard.

Sadly, probably half of the 26 other people wrongly given a PCN will have paid it and there is no mechanism, save the goodwill of the council (in short supply), to force the council to make refunds in this situation. A honest council would, but.......

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Does Vicky Pollard work for Haringey Council?

You know Vicky Pollard, Yeah but no but yeah?

Let Mr Mustard tell you right from the off that Haringey Council have done something sensible. They have abolished a "Pre-Debt reminder letter" that they have doubtless issued by the shed load.

Here is the history. His client received a bus lane PCN. There is nothing in the relevant Regulations (the London Local Authorities Act 1996 as amended) that allows for a Bus Lane PCN to be challenged before the Enforcement Notice is issued (not to be confused with the Notice of Enforcement which the bailiff might send you later) and Mr Mustard was going to make the formal representations at that stage. Haringey invite earlier challenges which is probably a tactical offering as they know most people don't have staying power and so they don't then have to offer you the chance to Appeal to an independent adjudicator but do offer you the discount again as what they really want is for you to pay up. Whether at 100% or 50% both of which represent a lovely little income stream.

The Enforcement Notice did not arrive and Mr Mustard knew his reliable client had not received it as the balance had increased on the council computer from £130 to £195. He told his client the Order for Recovery would be next at which point he could rewind the process back to the Enforcement Notice. Instead, his client received a Pre-Debt reminder letter, this one in fact:

Mr Mustard was unhappy with this so he made a complaint to Haringey Council.

For brevity Mr Mustard has spared you the council's attempt to avoid his complaint about the specific PCN and the pasting he sent in return. Here is the substantive reply with comments by Mr Mustard in red.

Dear Mr Mustard

Your complaint about Penalty charge procedure not followed, our reference: LBH/*******

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to investigate your complaint. (You don't have a choice, it isn't an opportunity).

I note that you have raised concerns regarding London Borough of Haringey’s use of a pre-debt letter after a Charge Certificate has been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, in this case your client Mr H. (and in general for all motorists)

Our records do show that the Enforcement Notice was sent on the 21 July 2015 to the same address as to where the Charge Certificate was sent on the 26 August 2015 which Mr H clearly received. (Mr Mustard said the Charge Certificate was received but not the Enforcement Notice. Why repeat him?) The Charge Certificate clearly states if we do not receive payment before the end of the 14 day period we may register the charge as a debt at the County Court and ultimately we may pass the case to an Enforcement Agent to recover the debt. From your complaint it would seem that you must be equally unhappy and discontent with the prescribed content of the Charge Certificate, as this makes no mention of the witness procedure either and in particular no mention that your client could be sent a second enforcement notice. (Mr Mustard is grateful to Haringey for pointing out that the statutory document does not mention the Order for Recovery but that was not his complaint) Therefore your argument that the “pre debt reminder” is “procedurally unfair” must be questionable. (Not all all. The pre-debt reminder letter is as one-sided as a Mobius strip)

The statutory guidance, which the borough does give due regard to, does not state that we cannot enter into any additional communication with a debtor (indeed but if there is a statutory process with a number of pre-ordained steps then there needs to be a pretty good reason to depart from it which Mr Mustard has yet to hear.) The pre-debt reminder letter is in addition to the statutory process and is designed to allow people in a similar situation to Mr H the opportunity to avoid the penalty charge notice moving to the next stage and possibly paying an additional £7 (but not to tell them that if the process has gone wrong in certain ways that they can wind the process back). Therefore your suggestion that the Council is merely seeking to save itself £7 is incorrect s someone who simply wanted to pay the £195 and forgot has another chance (but those like his client who want to file a witness statement are being caused delay and stress whilst they wait). It’s therefore disappointing that you seem to be advocating something that may cost some people more. (One could only decide this if you have some statistics to show how many more people save £7 than needlessly pay £195)

I am sorry to hear that Mr H was upset by the receipt of the letter (who wouldn't be upset at having a debt registered against them in the County Court when they intend to fight the PCN to the end) but in general it has been found beneficial to send a pre-debt letter after the Charge Certificate (to whom? the council or the motorist?). Not only is this good customer relations practice but also experience is that a proportion of recipients will pay in response (which is why we send it. Has any research been done as to what motivated people to pay? Mr Mustard will ask). If a pre-debt letter generates a response from the owner, in accordance with best practice (what best practice?) the borough handles a response at this stage as if it were post Charge Certificate correspondence (Which is the stage the process is at so there isn't any other choice. What Mr Mustard sees all the time in response to post charge certificate correspondence from motorists is a letter from the council saying that you can't do anything now but await the Order for Recovery).

The ‘DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER’ heading and, I am sorry if you feel this is biased advice (Mr Mustard doesn't feel it is biased, it is biased), is merely designed to act as a prompt to encourage the registered keeper to contact the authority (the only phone number supplied is for making payment on; there is no number to discuss any possible error that may have occurred) or to make payment of the outstanding penalty charge bearing in mind that previous statutory documents had already been sent to Mr H (but not necessarily received. Mr H has written to the Royal Mail about his postal problems).

Notwithstanding the above, at the point of receiving your letter the service was already in the process of reviewing the very matter of the “pre debt reminder” (Well strike Mr Mustard down with a feather, what a co-incidence). I can tell you that the outcome of that review is to no longer use the letter (despite it being so disappointing that Mr Mustard advocated just that!). Arrangements are already in hand to discontinue it. (Not hard to not do something is it?)

We will not be cancelling the Penalty Charge Notice at this stage and our records show the order for recovery is being processed and sent out to your client today. (It has been received and will be sent to the TEC very shortly)

I hope that I have resolved your concerns to your satisfaction. (Perversely by abandoning something which the council clearly thought was wonderful, yes, in so far as no more motorists will be bullied by the receipt of the misleading pre-debt reminder letter but not in his client's case but that will be raised at London Tribunals).

A good end to the week. The Haringey PCN process is now fairer than it was.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Spot the no difference competition.

Its time for a game of spot the difference where you have two pictures that are meant to be slightly difference and you waste hours looking at them only to find that the printer made an error and the two picture are to all intents and purposes, the same.

Here is the first picture.


View Larger Map

Now pop here to Mr Mustard's good friends at Barnet CPZ action for the second picture. 

So how many visible potholes in the second picture? Correct, nil, as the tarmac is brand spanking new.

How many potholes in the first picture above. Correct, nil again, as the tarmac is still pristine, a bit of kerb has just been repaired in this google photo.

So the question is why the road was resurfaced. The answer of course isn't that it is the road which the "leader" of the council, Richard Cornelius and his lady councillor wife Alison, live in, no of course not don't be silly. Look forward to a press release from the Tooting Twister saying that there had been oodles of complaints by residents about the state of the road, it was in danger of collapse (a One Barnet road then?) there were potholes that you couldn't see with the naked eye, that an engineer had checked the road and it definitely fitted the criteria for resurfacing etc. etc. ad nauseum.

No prize for you but entry to the competition cost residents over £30,000 (all credit to Barnet CPZ action for this little gem).

Is your road surface worse than in the picture above? Then it evidently qualifies for resurfacing. Have you got broken kerbs or paving slabs? Yes, then send an email to the Assistant Director of Highways & Transport, Declan Hoare and I am sure he will get it fixed in days. Email declan.hoare@barnet.gov.uk with some photos c.c. mrmustard@zoho.com if you wish and he will publish the worst examples. There is obviously lots of money around for road repairs. (updated 24 April 14; better to send your emails now to cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk although all the money might have already been spent in Golders Green)

Residents of Totteridge. Councillors get enough in allowances without them accidentally getting little perks like this. Whether or not your road in Totteridge is in a bad way, why don't you stand for election in May 2014 (start planning now) and kick this pair out or at the very least campaign against them. You have also suffered Brian Coleman for long enough haven't you? Who votes for him is a complete mystery. Look past the blue rosette and look at what the individuals do or say and then put your cross somewhere else. Start coming to council meetings to find out what really goes on. They are a fun night out. You might get insulted in the public gallery but that is all part of the experience of local democracy.

If, as a candidate, you could also have policies that are fair to everyone then that would be handy.

Finally, if you have any interesting information about our councillors then send it in confidence to a blogger. Please though, no topless pictures of Brian Coleman.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Here Today Gone Tomorrow - AD of Commercial Assurance

Nothing but trouble ( in procurement? )

Now if we go back to Walkley's warblings of August 2011 Mr Mustard blogged the following:

Welcome this week to Mick Stokes who joins us as the Assistant Director of Commercial Assurance.  Mick has specific responsibility for corporate procurement and I’m sure you all know how critical this role is at this time. Welcome Mr Stokes the fastest joiner into the blog ever. You are either very good & very brave or you are mad to try and sort out procurement in Barnet Council - it is a disaster, the biggest poisoned chalice imaginable and you need to watch out for the ceremonial sword if things don't go well. Hopefully that also means we have one less consultant ( Chris Malyon - CCMPS Ltd ) but he probably got a sideways transfer onto a One Barnet project - lots of jobs for One Barnet old boys.

OK Mr Mustard was wrong. Mr Malyon has gone back to Eastleigh (why does Barnet Council insist on using people from so far out of town. Mr Malyon wasn't paying PAYE so could, when he was here, claim his travel and/or accommodation costs against his tax bill but that little ruse is fast becoming unpopular with government and the people - it always was with the bloggers.) having used Barnet as the filling in a Capita / Serco sandwich.

It looks to Mr Mustard like things didn't go well in procurement for Mick.

The rumours are Mick that you were brought in as you worked with Andrew Travers at the LDA. Now that might just be co-incidence but as there are now a number of other ex LDA staff in procurement at Barnet the coincidence might soon stretch a bit thin. Mr Mustard knows of three but if you, dear reader, know of any, do please send an email in confidence from a private email address to mrmustard@zoho.com

The LDA is being closed so their staff have to go somewhere. No need for you all to head to Barnet now is there?


It looks like Mick caught that nasty allergy to PAYE that has been going around. Mr Stokes is a Director of JDA Procurement Consultancy Ltd which was only incorporated on 7 June 2011 ( company number 07660750 ) and is registered in Loughton which, for once, isn't a million miles from Barnet. The word is that £600 a day was paid to Hays HR. Mr Mustard also hears that you have gone off to help with the Olympics; you should enter for the sprint, the speed you high-tailed it out of Barnet you are bound to get gold.

How is the contract situation now in Barnet Mick? Did you get everything under contract before you left? No, Mr Mustard thought not. Will it get better now? Absolutely not. Here is a Q&A from the last full meeting of Council on 24 January 2012


Question 15 Councillor Alan Schneiderman
What is the latest update on the percentage of contracts that are / are not in place for all Council suppliers
 

Answer by Councillor Daniel Thomas
Of the suppliers on the Corporate Register, 89% have a contract.

 

Only contracts above £25,000 have to go on the register. Sadly the question as to what percentage of eligible suppliers were on the contract register was not asked but we still have 11% non compliance some 9 months after the problem came to light. A glacial rate of progress.

We will have to wait and see what happens next.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The things bloggers think of

Last week Mr Mustard was talking to one of his neighbours over the usual cup of tea about, of all things, snow. Mr Mustard thought he would check whether the road in which he lives had been upgraded as requested in February because of its proximity to a library, a church hall and a shopping centre and because it is on a slope. That means it should be graded priority 2 which has been agreed.

Thank you Roger at the Barnet Eye

Roger wrote about snow in 2010. Here

Barnet Council has 3 gritting priorities. Priority 3 is the lowest priority and means, in effect, that you won't see a snow plough, unless it is lost.

Priority 2 is for Carriageways and footways in the vicinity of Shopping Centres, Railway Stations, Hospitals, Public Buildings and Schools. Cul-de-sacs with steep gradients. It should be emphasised that Priority 2 roads are treated only in times of heavy snow and only after Priority 1 routes have been treated and found to be clear.

Here is a list of Priority 2 roads

Grit Priority 2 2010 - Barnet Council

Priority 1 is for

main commuter routes and Bus Routes. These total 238 km or 35 % of the network and have been split into 8 routes. Carriageways on these highways are pre-treated with grit (rock salt) when ice or frost may form. Gritting is normally carried out at night, starting when the evening traffic peak is over. In times of snow, Priority 1 routes will be gritted first and until these routes are found to be safe and running, treatment of Priority 2 routes will not commence.

Here is a list of them

Grit Priority 1 2010 Barnet Council

Barnet residents will generally recognise the main roads of Barnet. If you were to look in the right hand column you would find Essex Park N3.

Is it a bus route?; not according to google maps or TFL.

Is Essex Park a main commuter route? no, it is a little side road.

Does the Cabinet Member for the Environment live in this road? Yes he does!

His environment will be OK then. Taxis will be able to get in and out OK.

Of course, this is just a mistake, an unfortunate co-incidence, a typing error on the list. Right.

First stop, Essex Park ?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard