Barnet Council double lash up

 

Mr R was a bit surprised to receive the above PCN when he parked in a location he knew well, on a single yellow line but outside the restricted times, and thought he could sort it out himself given that it was an obvious error.

Mr R made his own informal challenge and was, to his even greater surprise, rejected. At that point he came to Mr Mustard. Here is the absolute load of tosh which was the rejection letter and the usual generous offer to accept £80 for a penalty that is not due (why would you pay that?):

 Here is the car in question and the bay sign.

You can just see a hint of a single yellow line in front of the car.

Next is an image from google street view which clearly shows the vehicle was to the left of the sign and the disabled bay is to the right. The photos taken by the CEO ('traffic warden'), whether by accident or design, didn't include any which showed the painted legend 'DISABLED' on the carriageway.

Here is an older google image which also makes the situation clear. These images can of course be looked at by back office staff of the council (or its contractor APCOA).

All of the parking restrictions in the borough of Barnet are recorded on a map based system which is freely available to the public here and this shows exactly where the disabled bay is located. A traffic warden in doubt could equally look at that and it ought to be on his hand held equipment based upon the co-ordinates of where he is standing at that time.

Note that the rejection letter states that the car was parked outside no. 10 and clearly the disabled bay is outside no. 12

The problem was quickly fixed by Mr Mustard logging the formal representations and sending two complaints to the parking manager who, to his credit, always responds pretty quickly and usually agrees with Mr Mustard. What other choice did he have here? The two complaints were about the actions of both the CEO and the back office and the PCN was cancelled a week later. For a nervous type this could all have been too much and Mr Mustard knows that completely wrong PCNs do get paid by people who can't afford to pay 100% if they are wrong, who think the council must be correct despite the evidence of their own eyes, or whose knees buckle at the slightest hint of trouble. Mr Mustard isn't one of those types.

The two big questions about this PCN are:

1. How the heck did the CEO get this wrong ? 

2. Does the back office reject all informal challenges without looking at the facts as they know many people will give up at that stage ?

Is there cynical behaviour inside the council PCN factories ? You decide.

The end. 

 

 

 

Mind the gap

 

Residents get very precious about 'their' dropped kerb even if they don't have a car, aren't expecting any visitors or planning to go out. They call the council, Barnet in this case, and say they want enforcement and a Civil Enforcement Officer ('traffic warden') duly trots, cycles or scoots round. Inevitably they issue a PCN to appease the resident even if no contravention has occurred.

So it was on 31 March 2026 in Kingsmead, a location Mr Mustard had never heard of even though it is near High Barnet tube and Mr Mustard has lived in New or High Barnet since 1993.

This is what the traffic warden found:

That looks bad but there should always be a photo taken at 90 degrees to the drop so we can be sure as to the position.

The car must be clear of a line drawn across the road from the weed you can see, that is where the taper kerb, which slopes down to meet the carriageway, ends and only if you pass that point are you in contravention.

It would be courteous to leave a larger gap but that isn't a contravention plus the road is wide and quiet, being a cul-de-sac so not dangerous to join. The CEO should not have issued a PCN to this car. If they didn't meekly issue PCNs every time, residents might phone less often.

Miss T made her own informal challenge. It was rejected. She had read Mr Mustard's earlier blog on the subject. Mr Mustard reviewed the rejection, which included this:

Mr Mustard didn't like it. It isn't any (as in all) footway that can be enforced, only in 3 circumstances: vehicle access, for pedestrians to cross the road or access to a cycle lane.

The writer was hallucinating, there is no tactile paving (aka dimpled paving) in the council's photos nor would there be as this is access to a private drive not a place where the blind are advised to cross the carriageway.

Sympathy, my foot.

Mr Mustard occasionally bothers a parking manager with his viewpoint on low standards of work and this was one such case. He pointed out the lack of a contravention and that the back office were just churning out made up rejections.  Three days later Miss T received another letter:

Amazing how, with a dollop of added mustard, the situation can change so quickly.

If you are being badly treated, in addition to following the process and challenging everything at the correct time, start making complaints.

The end. 

 

 

 

Love - an apology

A lady made the mistake of parking on the grass verge where a few other cars had done the same. It wasn't a place that had previously known for being enforced but things can change. She paid the PCN at 50% but came to Mr Mustard as she was unhappy with how she, and her female colleagues, had been spoken to by the traffic warden ('CEO').

The complaint set out what had transpired that day in the words of the lady concerned.

When I was told there was an Enforcement Officer outside I quickly went out to talk to him. He had already put a ticket on my car and was in the process of issuing another on a different car. I asked him why I had been given a ticket and he replied, “You can’t park here, love.” I asked why I couldn’t park there and he just repeated, “You can’t park here, love.” I asked him but to call me “love” and could he answer my question. He then replied with something along the lines of, “Sorry darling, you can’t park here,” with a patronising emphasis on “darling”. I asked him again to not call me that and said, “If we can’t park here then where are the signs to say we can’t?” He said, “There doesn’t need to be signs, love. You can’t park here.”

At this point he was obviously doing this on purpose as he could see it was winding me up. A couple of other women there were now also telling him to stop using sexist language. He asked how he was being sexist and was laughing. He was obviously antagonising us and, by now as more people were arriving for work, was enjoying the show he was putting on.

A colleague told him he was being rude and sexist and he just laughed. He said in an extremely patronising and condescending way, “Well, what would you like me to call you then?” She said that Madam and Sir would be a more appropriate way to address people and he replied, “Well, MADAM, you can’t park here.” He then waved to everyone and walked up the road laughing.

I have never met such an arrogant, condescending little man as this before. But, what I don’t quite understand, is that I was told there was an Audi parked amongst the cars in that area but he didn’t put a ticket on it. A colleague (who’s ticket is one of the ones sent) told me that he skipped it, ticketed the other cars and then let the Audi driver drive off.

Mr Mustard then added in the terms of the complaint, as follows:

In summary, the traffic warden was rude, patronising, sexist, arrogant, unhelpful, partial, condescending, antagonistic, unprofessional and behaved in a way that is detrimental to the council's image. He is completely unsuited to his job.

An apology has now been received, although it took two reminders to get one:

Your complaint has been forwarded to me for reply, as I am one of the officers responsible for monitoring the parking enforcement contractor, NSL Ltd. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

After reading your letter I requested a statement from CEO BT*** regarding his conversation with you.  In his statement he explained that he uses the word “love” daily and up until the incident nobody had been offended (as far as he was aware). He thought he was being polite. Since then, he has not used the word “love” whilst carrying out his duties, as he is now aware that it could be offensive or seen to be sexist. (Part of the problem is that the public don't complain enough so the council don't know what language is sued by traffic wardens. You rarely see a council officer shadowing a traffic warden as the provision of the service, and hence the supervision, is left to NSL)
He has apologised for his behaviour and explained he did not intend to be rude, patronising, sexist, arrogant, unhelpful, partial, condescending, antagonistic, or unprofessional.

I have spoken to the contract manager at NSL Ltd, as they employ the CEOs. I have advised him to remind all the CEOs that as front-line representatives of the Council we expect them to treat all motorists with courtesy whilst in pursuant of their duties.  We also expect motorists to treat them the same. BT*** has also been spoken to separately and reminded of his obligations. (The motorists involved were courteous despite the testing time and there is no need for this line in the apology as it is irrelevant. Having outsourced the service does not outsource the responsibility for council traffic wardens to NSL, the extra management layer does not excuse the council).

In relation to the Audi, BT*** explained that the vehicle “moved straight away” so he was not able to enforce it. (This is a pack of lies as the location was a cul-de-sac and the traffic warden had to walk past the Audi to ticket two other cars as a cursory inspection of the council's own evidence would have shown).

I’m sorry that you have found cause to complain. Please be rest assured that if a CEO has behaved inappropriately, we take it seriously and the CEO is dealt with accordingly.

Always good to get an apology. Any more complaints about that particular traffic warden, are not going to help him, he will simply have to be more polite in future. Please, if you are unhappy with how you are spoken to, send your complaint to parking.clientteam@barnet.gov.uk Make sure you also challenge the PCN which has to be to the email address on the PCN, or use the on line system, or write to the Sheffield PO Box (where the scanner sits).

It is easy for traffic wardens, just call people Sir or Madam.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Complaints must be repeated

Here is the story of how Barnet Parking failed, at the first attempt, to properly respond to a complaint.

A man, let's call him Oliver, rented a car to use as a mini-cab and a PCN was placed on the car in January 2017 which, for some reason, did not reach Oliver, the driver at the time (there has been talk of traffic wardens putting PCNs back in their pockets after issue in order to deprive drivers of the discount but that would work against the council's hunger for PCN income and they are happy with the 50% at the beginning, so would rather traffic wardens didn't do this, Mr Mustard surmises) . The Notice to Owner was quite properly sent to the registered keeper, the rental company. They made representations against the Notice to Owner that the car was hired out under a rental agreement which included a statement that Oliver was liable for any PCNs. The council then sent a fresh PCN to Oliver but unfortunately someone copied the address down incorrectly and sent the paperwork to #25 instead of #27. Oliver lives in a large block of flats and documents sent to #25 were simply retained by the occupier and not handed on.

The PCN progressed through the usual stages of Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery, Warrant of Control, Notice of Enforcement and the bailiff tracked down Oliver and upon request sent him a copy of the warrant. Oliver immediately saw the problem and a friend helped him to submit a complaint, of which this is the gist:

I am writing to make a formal complaint in connection to the above PCN.

First of all I did not receive any PCN at all, nor did I receive any statutory documents.

The bailiff has contacted me regarding the above PCN and he sent me the attached Warrant of control. However having reviewed information provided by the bailiff, it appears that the warrant was issued for the wrong address and also the local authority have sent all the statutory notices to the wrong address.

If I had received the PCN and the statutory documents I would have made a formal appeal straight away and I would  not have let the case progress to the bailiff at all.

My address is 25 Redacted House, Redacted Road, London NW? ??? and I have never lived at 27 Redacted House.

In addition I would like to inform you that I do not own and have never owned this vehicle and it is not registered under my name with DVLA.

I do recall that I have hired the vehicle  however, having reviewed the hire agreement I strongly believe that it does not comply with The particulars of hiring agreements set out in the relevant Regulations (which quoted Regulations were the superseded ones but the requirements were the same)

In order for the hire agreement to comply and for the liability to be transferred it must comply with the relevant Regulations.

I therefore request you to review the hire agreement submitted by the hire company and you will clearly see that it does not meet the requirements.

Please kindly cancel the warrant and  this PCN and remove my details from your system.

Now at this point you would expect the council to check two things, firstly the address on the hire agreement and secondly whether they had allowed liability to be transferred in accordance with the relevant Regulations.

Instead, Mr Mustard thinks they hit the defensive button and set about justifying their actions:

Mr Mustard sees the first paragraph all the time. It is a load of nonsense designed to try and deflect complaints. The complaint is about the process having gone wrong so it must be considered as such. The council should consider complaints made at any time, in case they have done something wrong.

The 'understanding', or rather lack of, of the writer is irrelevant padding, designed to obfuscate.

Just because a PCN was affixed to the car does not mean that it reached the driver.

 

OK, so a signed hire agreement was received by the council and based on that, they transferred liability to the person hiring the car.

Then the council claim, in terms, to have sent the fresh Notice to Owner to 27 Redacted House but the records show that they sent everything to 25. As that was a substantive point of the complaint, it is pretty poor work, or wilful blindness, to have missed that fundamental fact.

Mr Mustard has yet to see a copy of the hire agreement but he knows the friend will have correctly analysed it and it will not meet the requirements of The Road Traffic Owner Liability Regulations 2000 which is the correct set of Regulations, not the Traffic Management Act 2004 at all.

Answers on a postcard please as to how you can respond to a Notice to Owner which was not delivered to you?

It is never too late for representations to be considered. It is the council's PCN, if they discover they have done something wrong, they can cancel a PCN at any time for any reason, even if the PCN is actually correct. It isn't ever the case that the council are unable to cancel a PCN, it is that they are unwilling to do so.

It isn't the job of Marston to mop up the council's mess.

The information wasn't helpful at all but that isn't unusual.

Needless to say a second complaint was sent to the council that their handling of the first complaint was inept and that parking had lied about the address to which documents were sent. Cue a rapid change of direction and the following email being received:

I have asked the Parking Team to further investigate and they have confirmed the following:

I have just compared the original signed hire agreement with the address NSL recorded on the system and Oliver is correct, they mistakenly put down his house number as 25 rather than 27 – accordingly, I have asked NSL Services to arrange for the bailiffs to return the Warrant as it is not enforceable. Once this is done, I will have the PCN cancelled accordingly and will write to Oliver to confirm this.

Good news but the enforcement contract isn't with NSL Services Ltd, it is with NSL Ltd. Note that NSL get given the blame and although they are to blame for the initial error the handling of the complaint should have been dealt with in-house by the council itself. Delegating complaints to whoever made the error in the first place is not wise as they will not be sufficiently critical or analytical.

What worries Mr Mustard is that less able motorists than Oliver would have paid the bailiff, especially if their car had been clamped and they needed it to go to work that day or on holiday. Monies paid to a bailiff are a nightmare to recover.

Making a mistake does happen but you are measured by how you deal with it, very badly in this case. More reputational damage has ensued for the council. Will Oliver ever trust anything the council says in the future?

There is too much automation in the world of PCN. In nil response cases sending the PCN to the bailiff is a bad idea, the case should be checked for obvious errors before a warrant is applied for, as the chances are if no response was received that the statutory documents have not been served.

Liability in rental agreement cases is transferred without proper checking in Mr Mustard's experience.

Mr Mustard thinks that complaints should not be handled by the parking department but by a dedicated complaints person, or even better, by a person independent of the council. Mr Mustard could provide that for other councils in London should they wish to improve their procedures. He can't do it for Barnet as he would be too conflicted by all the Barnet PCNs he challenges, he could decline to handle the small number he does in any other borough.

So now we await seeing the apology which Mr Mustard presumes that Barnet Council are going to send. How fulsome will it be? Will there be an offer of compensation for getting the address wrong in the first place and secondly for rejecting the valid complaint which could have caused a weaker person to pay up, that surely is maladministration?

Put your answer on the same postcard as Barnet Council never seem to regard their wrongdoing as cause for payment, it is only residents who must pay them for their misdeeds, not vice versa.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard
 

Traffic warden failure - more reputational damage

Temple Fortune (so named after the one the council makes out of parking PCN?)

The only way that you can tell, as you approach by car, that parking bays are painted on the pavement at this location is because there is a sign to the right of the picture.

That of itself is sufficient to explain why a motorist, the one that Mr Mustard is representing, managed to put a wheel outside of the bay, because they weren't expecting any individual spaces to be there. Would you?

A PCN was issued for contravention 24 'Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space'.

Mr Mustard has lodged a complaint about the issue of this PCN as the contract with NSL to 'firmly and fairly' (please Barnet Council, stop with the jokes now) enforce parking restrictions includes the following requirement:

and that clearly wasn't done in this case.

Mr Mustard's client wrote the following to him:

'I don't mind paying fair tickets but this is just money making and destroying local shops.'

You need to mend your ways Barnet Council and get traffic wardens under tighter control. Currently they just do as they please, it seems, but that is of course one of the problems of contracting out, the loss of control.

It is no consolation that the PCN can be challenged as time is precious, both that of Mr Mustard and his client. Mr Mustard loves an easy adjudication, this one will be a cakewalk.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Issue forth to a Residents' Forum - Wednesday 26 March 14

Mr Mustard takes issue with use of the vague word "issue" that you are meant to submit by Monday morning at 10am. He thinks you should probably be submitting questions, comments or complaints (and suggests that asking questions is the best way of eliciting information) rather than submitting an issue which, in his dictionary, is:

- a point in question

- an important subject of debate or litigation

- a result

- an outcome

- a decision

and then Mr Mustard thought he would check the Constitution. As seems to often be the case the council website wasn't working properly so he went back to his paper copy from April 13 (which might be out of date) and it says that residents can raise "local matters" which leads to comments made at the meeting and then the decision maker has to respond within 20 days so you aren't going to submit an issue at all, but a matter, but no matter!

If you get the thirst for more knowledge you could also start attending Council meetings and you will find the calendar here and/or meet one of your local ward councillors whose details you will find here.

Given the upcoming elections on 22 May they will be falling over themselves to help you and will be delighted to hear from you.

If you seriously want accurate information then you can also send in a Freedom of information request, using this link.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard