DVLA compensate for their incompetence

Here is an email which Mr Mustard received at the beginning of January from a lady who we will call Ms B.

I hope you’re well!

You’ve been recommended to me by lots of people who have found themselves battling PCNs in Barnet, thank you for all you do! My situation isn’t council but rather DVLA and debt recovery related, I’m a Barnet resident though so I’m hoping you’ll be able and willing to help me too.

So, we’ve just scraped together £426.50 of a £618 fine so that Marston Recovery would remove their clamp from my car. We’re not well off so that’s completely cleaned us out and has made the next few months really precarious for our family. It’s also pretty scary to be bullied out of a large sum of money in the street like that, especially at the moment when work is so unreliable.

We must now appeal via court so that we will hopefully be refunded some of that sum, or at the very least not have to pay the remaining £191.50.

The original fine was for a Dartford crossing toll charge back in August 2021 - my partner and I had a miscommunication as to who had paid, and in the end neither of us did. We would have received a penalty notice a few days later for this error, discovered the miscommunication and paid the fine, but we received no letter and had no idea there was any fine to pay. Now it has snowballed and is about 3 times as much as the original fine.

The penalty notice letters were going to our old address because when we moved house in May earlier that year, the DVLA had lost my V5 form with the updated address. All of the letters regarding the fine, and presumably subsequent court summonses were sent to the old address. The DVLA only finally admitted they lost my V5 form in November and updated my details in December!

I believe I am accountable solely for the fine of failing to pay the toll charge. So far no one has supplied me with any information of the breakdown of fines, or what to do next. Informally, over the phone, the bailiff said I had until February to appeal, but supplied no information as to who to contact. I’ve tried to get through to the DVLA, Marston Recovery office, and the Citizens Advice Bureau by phone but I’ve just been on hold for hours & the bailiff told me not to bother with email as it could take weeks to respond! Obviously I don’t have any of the letters with contact info which were meant to reach me, I really have no idea what to do.

I do have the Royal Mail certificate of posting with the Special Delivery tracking number from when I posted my V5 form with the updated address to DVLA, and the confirmation of delivery back in May. Additionally, there is an email response to me chasing up my V5 form in July - here they tell me the application may take longer than usual. They didn’t respond at all to a subsequent message I sent them through their contact centre, and I finally got through to someone via phone in November who confirmed they’d lost my details and then arranged for a “no fee V62” to be emailed to me so I could start the whole process again at no extra charge. I have a case number for these communications, if that helps to prove I did everything necessary to be contactable.

I’d really appreciate any guidance you could offer as to who to contact, if I need a solicitor, how to get hold of a copy of these letters or any information about the amounts I am being charged, and if you think I will be able to contest this at all.

Thanks in advance!

Mr Mustard worked out a strategy which he emailed to Ms B.

I plan three different approaches:

1 - file two lots of form TE7/9 to the TEC. This freezes the bailiff action whilst the application is thought about, for at least 2 weeks. Dart Charge can object to your application.

2 - make a subject access request to see what happened to the documents sent to your old address. Do you know who lives there now and can you ask them if they sent post for you back? Did you pay for mail forwarding and if so please provide a copy of it? I will need a recent utility bill and a copy of your driving licence or passport to do that.

3 - make out of time representations to Dart Charge. They like to reject them but should consider them out of time if there is a good reason why you are late, which there is.

Having decided on a strategy Mr Mustard was about to go cycling for a week (in February, it was great) and so he passed the problem on to a retired lawyer (Mr L) who now works pro bono and who is hoovering up every bit of knowledge that Mr Mustard has spent 12 years acquiring. Time is of the essence in this sort of case so having someone at their desk and not on a bicycle was advantageous.

78 emails later, the problem was resolved.

After lots of digging it was established that the warrant, which the bailiff refused to produce until after they were paid, was defective as it still showed the old address, typically bad bailiff behaviour. Dart Charge agreed to accept £3.50 for each crossing and cancel everything else. The bailiff had to refund the £426.50 - crime doesn't pay!

Mr L concluded that the real villain was DVLA so he went after them. Here is just one devastating paragraph from his complaint:

The letter clearly hit the mark as after investigating and seeing that they were completely at fault the DVLA came up with a reasonable offer of compensation.

As you can imagine, Ms B was delighted, was able to pay off the loan she had to take out in order to get the bailiff off her back and donate to charity.

End.

Sign your rights away

Here is the side of view of some recent parking, the most left hand end is where the car which was given a PCN was parked. This is Golders Green Crescent.

From the end of the bay, this is the view of the sign; what sign? It has been engulfed by foliage. You can see how a motorist might have parked thinking there wasn't a restriction.

Now, from google street view, the scene, and you can see another bay to the right with a clear sign.

The hedge hadn't swallowed the sign at that point.

How can a traffic warden give out a PCN in such a situation? Sometimes by bending back the foliage and then taking a photograph. Not this time though, the sign is clear as a bell.

How can that be? Simple, the traffic warden photographed the sign from the next bay along and the white house is the clue in the background. Mr Mustard can hear you thinking; you are thinking that the sign for each bay can be different and you are correct, the sign within a bay applies to that bay alone.

Thus the traffic warden has been either a cheat or indiligent. It is helpful though as the traffic warden had to walk past the sign for the bay in which the car was parked to get to the one they photographed, well that excuses the motorist not seeing the proper, but hidden, sign.

Mr Mustard doesn't like injustice so he has filed a complaint. Let's see how long this PCN lives for. It would be fair to give the motorist £55 for this mistake, the same sum as they would have had to pay if the sign had been visible and they missed it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update: 24 September 2019. The motorist has received a letter cancelling the PCN.

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
 

The apology of the year - by Dart Charge

Regular readers, both of you, lol, will remember the story about the bailiff who put his own self interest before justice and Mr Mustard finished the blog post by saying the payment would turn out to be a loan and so it came to pass.

Mr Mustard's alter ego has made a few lash ups in his time and crafts, even though he says so himself, a fine apology. Well Dart Charge have been superb, they have studied Mr Mustard's complaint and taken it to heart, made a handsome apology, resolved to do better in the future and made a generous compensation payment. There is nothing else you could ask for except the impossible of not making the error in the first place. This is why often Mr Mustard goes to the top of an organisation when there are process errors which management need to fix. Are you reading this Westminster Council, as you received a 3 page missive yesterday, did you not, also about your importunate & unfortunate use of a bailiff.

Marvellous, a technical solution which should be foolproof. A recognition that any recent crossing might slip through but will be swiftly dealt with and direct contact details to assist - the inability to talk to people is one of the problems when automated systems go rogue.

Mr Mustard hopes that the disappointment is about the bailiff's actions as once your car has been clamped and you have to drive your kids to school some distance away you really don't have many options except paying up. Hopefully the bailiff will have to pay something towards the problem he created.

Another heartfelt apology here and a generous payment in compensation. The single mum had to go into overdraft to get the clamp removed so will have incurred some bank charges. Mr Mustard happened to open this apology when he was sat in the waiting area at London Tribunals, it warmed the cockles (he had just won 1 lost 2) of his heart as this was the first time in 5 years of asking that an enforcement authority has realised the damage that their blunders do and has realised it is right and proper to make amends by paying more than a token amount of financial compensation. Most authorities think is enough to cancel a PCN, which just isn't enough. The stress of a wrongful situation is enormous.

The lady in question was rather pleased with the outcome

Even though she lives on a very tight budget the lady in question offered Mr Mustard some money. He declined as he works pro bono (for free), and is fortunate to be comfortable, and he derives the most enormous pleasure from sorting out difficult problems. He merely asked that when she was clearing out clothes and toys which her children have grown out of that she donates them to a North London Hospice shop. Enfield or Winchmore Hill can expect a large delivery soon.

Gosh, the third good news story that Mr Mustard has written in the last month. His readers will both disappear if he carries on like that.

Seriously, Mr Mustard thinks that his years of bashing away at wrongdoing are starting to bear some fruit. Some parking managers go to the trouble of replying to him in minutes and out of hours and that is appreciated.

Only a fool ignores Mr Mustard.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Six of the worst

Barnet Council are concerned at their poor perception in resident surveys, the above figures being from Autumn 2016 show that 47% of residents think that the parking 'service' is poor or extremely poor. Quite simply, Barnet Council don't help themselves as when they get it wrong they don't put the community first, they just worry about the money.

Usually when Barnet Council get a PCN wrong Mr Mustard asks the council to apologise and to compensate the motorist for their time, trouble, stress and inconvenience (do bear in mind that if you do not contest a PCN which is blatantly 100% wrongly issued you will, if you do nothing, end up with a bailiff clamping your car). Every time the council refuse to compensate (they usually do apologise).

So here are 6 examples of the council getting it wrong recently and thinking that the mere fact they have cancelled is adequate recompense.

Error #1 on 9th & 14th December 2016

Amber had to give way twice to oncoming traffic outside East Barnet school and there is nowhere else to stop except on top of the yellow zig zag markings for a few seconds. As blogged here. Both PCN were cancelled. No compensation was offered.

Error #2 on 9 February 2017

Bill stopped on the school zig zags at 11:09, the restricted times being 8.00 - 9.30am and 2.45 to 5.15 pm so Bill was not in contravention.He got a PCN through the post. He received an apology, via Mr Mustard and this in response to the perfectly reasonable request for compensation.

Error #3 on 17 March 2017

Claire stopped in a box junction when she shouldn't. She received two PCN, just 3 PCN numbers apart, on the same day. One was issued by camera A and the other by camera B. A classic case of joined up government not being in operation. Clearly, inadequate checks are made before PCN are issued. Claire paid the first PCN and Mr Mustard got the second one cancelled. An apology was offered although the question of compensation was ignored.

Error #4 on 3 May 2017

A PCN was issued to David for parking across a dropped kerb which led nowhere. The council agreed that it did not meet the criteria for enforcement. They did not apologise and that may be because Mr Mustard did not ask one, nor for compensation in this case, about which he will write a specific blog shortly.

Error #5 on 9 May 17

Eric was parked on a single yellow line restricted, within a cpz, for 1 hour only. Eric knew the rules but his traffic warden didn't and the traffic warden photographed the sign within a bay which only ever applies to that bay. Everybody knows that except the traffic warden who when requested refused to phone his office to check which was unwise and unhelpful. Mr Mustard asked for the new traffic warden to receive further training. He did not request an apology nor compensation and neither arrived.

Error #6 on 16 May 17

Fiona was parked legally within a 9.30 - 10.30am bay at 14:52 and another new traffic warden issued a PCN.  Mr Mustard asked for an apology and compensation and got the former but not the latter, to which the response was:

The council are not being straight in their response. If there is maladministration they can pay compensation. Every client of Mr Mustard ends up £25 out of pocket as that is the amount which he requests be paid to the North London Hospice or directly to his fighting fund to help others.

It is not the case that the council is unable to pay compensation it is that they are unwilling to which is an entirely different mindset. Whilst they have that mindset and keep making mistakes in penalising entirely innocent people the ranking of parking in the eyes of residents will not improve (unless the survey is rigged in some way).

It is a funny old world. You make a parking or driving mistake and you have to pay £60, £110 or £130 as a penalty to the council. If they may a mistake the council don't think there should be a penalty. This is not an equitable situation. There is nothing to make a council more careful. Mr Mustard will keep looking over their shoulder.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard