The Truth, not the whole truth & nothing but the truth

Mr Mustard was approached by a motorist (let us call him Mr R) who had paid £2.56 at the parking meter but didn't receive a receipt to put in their dashboard. They phoned the number on the meter which is there to report such problems but it wasn't answered by a person, it merely offered Mr R the option to PayByPhone but he had already paid (the transaction showing on his bank account online) so he wasn't going to do it again.

Once Mr R returned to his car it was adorned with a PCN for not paying to park. He challenged the PCN on line on the grounds that he had paid to park and provided the relevant part of his bank statement. His informal challenge (the name given to the first objection to an on street PCN) was rejected and contained the following statement, which Mr Mustard found to be rather curious:

Mr Mustard took a look at the machine. It is a Flowbird machine. Mr Mustard did some research into the company and found they have a marvellous all singing all dancing piece of back office software called Cale Web Office, or CWO, that tells you all you need to know. Here is a little flavour of the functionality.

Mr Mustard emailed one of the parking managers and queried whether the highlighted paragraph was, in effect, the whole truth and the answer, after a bit of nudging, was that it wasn't and that 

The matter you have highlighted regarding the comment in the letter of refusal 09/07/2021, has been raised with the officers supervisor as you aware that certain information is retained by the council for payment and audit purposes. They may mean that the actual P&D machine does not retain information (which would be correct), but would like to establish exactly what they were referring too and ensure that this officer is assessed for any additional training requirements that may be required.

which tells Mr Mustard, between the lines, that the manager wasn't really happy either. As it happens the PCN isn't being cancelled as the other wrong, which the motorist didn't tell Mr Mustard at the start, was that he over-stayed the time he had paid for on the rather weak grounds that he didn't know when the time expired. He had the time he phoned up about the meter and knew that he had paid for one hour so Mr Mustard isn't happy with his client either. As it happens the PCN isn't for over-staying and the manager & Mr Mustard don't agree if the alleged contravention stated on the PCN is applicable or not. An adjudicator will end up deciding this one. Mr Mustard doesn't think the adjudicator will warm to the council based upon what they have written.

Mr Mustard didn't query this paragraph but it is equally dubious.

On what day are the machines at the location in good working order, the day of writing or the day of the problem. Why is the writer referring to machines when the only matter of importance is the one at which payment was made. Has the writer produced the fault log? No, of course not. These machines can probably tell the council if a receipt was actually printed or not, it warns them when the paper roll will run out soon.

According to the council Mr R must stand at the machine until a 'ticket' (receipt) is dispensed. That would now be 37 days, doesn't seem like very sound advice. Wait a minute which would seem like an eternity and then phone the help line which the council didn't bother to answer is what happened, that is reasonable behaviour. If referring to guidelines the council should produce them.

Well this is outsourcing for you, management, who are not criticised as they always reply civilly to Mr Mustard, are completely in the dark about what gets written in their name some 550 miles away in another country. Not likely to be able to drop in and do a spot check of back office processing without a 3 day trip.

Mr Mustard did think about popping in, with permission, to see the folk who write so often to him when he was cycling from Land's End to John O'Groats but it was a tough day, 60 miles in the rain that day & it is really steep climbing out of Dingwall. Mr Mustard was fortified by a new comestible for lunch in Deas tearoom in Dingwall, a macaroni pie which is macaroni cheese in a hot water crust pastry, perfect for that day's cycling and it got him up the huge hill without pushing.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Mr Mustard made a mistake - so did others!

Mr Mustard's client parked in The Grove near Finchley Central tube station, on a Saturday. She told him she had parked this way for years. Mr Mustard looked at the council's evidence on line and the sign which the traffic warden photographed, thus:

Mr Mustard thought the reason that this sign had been missed was because it was around the corner in Nether Street and therefore not driven past by the motorist who had driven up from Mill Hill. There are Regulations which a council must follow about installing and maintaining signage

Is the sign which was photographed 'on or near the road'? Mr Mustard would say not as it is on a different road around the corner but an adjudicator might find it to be adequate. However, for 'persons' using the road probably kills it in favour of the motorist as you must have been able to see the sign when driving in the road in question and you cannot. 

Mr Mustard looked back through google street view history and there hasn't been a sign since street view started on that section of yellow line in Nether Street.

Here from google is a photograph of the sign in Nether Street, the cable tie in the traffic warden's photo still being in place after the removal of the sign it was previously securing and there is a strap across the 'H'.

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge (against the PCN). He kept it simple as ever and the 'y' is next to the 't' on the keyboard which turned his 'not' into 'noy' a word he quite likes

Needless to say, the informal challenge was rejected 10 days later

They rarely consider any informal challenge carefully, as will be proved.

Was the sign located on The Grove? If you look for yourselves on google street map, turning in from Nether Street at the tube station end, you will see the sign the traffic warden photographed on the right and then no sign at all on the single yellow line within The Grove. The council have lied, again, in order to try and persuade the motorist to cough up £55.

Here is the council's map of traffic restrictions and signs in The Grove. There is no icon to show a sign within The Grove on the black and orange line. You can see a sign icon in Nether Street but none on the black & orange line, where the car was parked, only on the differently restricted green line in Nether Street. The council, or their sub-contractors NSL, are terrible at lying.

There is guidance on signs and lines, known as Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. It isn't law but the council must have due regard to its contents. It says this

 

No-one can argue with the fairness of para 13.1.12 - the driver could not readily establish the precise restriction.

 

There was not a sign within 15m of the northern end of the single yellow line in The Grove as there wasn't a sign within The Grove at all.

Ignore the kerb marks about loading as that was not prohibited. These are stock images. What you can see is a little transverse mark which shows where the restrictions change, as they do between The Grove and Nether St, the change is not marked by a line on the ground nor signs at the changeover point.

When Mr Mustard received the council's letter rejecting the challenge, he went back over the facts to check them. He decided to start with the council's own map based traffic order. At that moment he realised his error when he clicked on the point where the car was parked and the rules popped up on the page.

This shows that the times when you cannot park where the black and orange line is located at 2-3pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive. Mr Mustard smiled as immediately he knew he would beat the PCN (previously he just expected to beat it). He was annoyed though as the council had told him something which he knew not to be true with the sole purpose of trying to extract revenue from his client (who turned out to know the situation better than he did!).

What are the rules if a yellow line is not signed on the spot? (and let's take it that a sign around the corner in the next street does not, in all fairness, apply) It is the cpz entry sign that sets the times.

Down at the lower part of Dollis Road, towards Mill Hill, the place the driver came from, is this sign

which sign confirms the Monday-Friday 2-3pm times when you cannot park on an otherwise unsigned single yellow line (bays may have different times).

Who got what wrong?

The traffic warden got wrong that the sign around the corner applies. 

They should have thought that the absence of a sign meant CPZ hours apply.

Mr Mustard got wrong not checking the TMO map for the rules.

He was wrong to rely on the traffic warden's photo of the sign.

He should have wondered why his client had parked there on so many previous Saturdays without being ticketed.

The Barnet Council back office (probably NSL in Dingwall) got wrong the fact of the existence of a sign in The Grove. They refer to 'the sign' which must be a reference to the one photographed within Nether Street.

They got wrong not looking at The Grove on google street view, if they had looked back through 10 year's worth of google street view images they would not have found a sign in The Grove.

They got wrong not checking the rules for the location in question in the council's own map of the parking rules.

They got wrong that if there was a sign in the Grove it would say: Mon-Fri, 2-3pm.

Next steps

Mr Mustard's assistance was not disclosed in the informal challenge. It will be now as he will make a second informal challenge. Councils always tell you that you cannot do that but Mr Mustard disagrees as the PCN says

'If we receive representations before a Notice to Owner is served, from any recipient of a Penalty Charge Notice, those representations will be considered'.

The motorist does not yet have a Notice to Owner so is entitled to expect the council to do what they promise.

Besides, a factual error has occurred and it is in everyone's interest to correct this error as soon as possible. The motorist should not have the PCN hanging over them for a moment longer than necessary.

Mr Mustard is sure the second informal representations will be considered more carefully, as they will be accompanied by a complaint to parking management, who are all far to wise as to tell an untruth to Mr Mustard.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 17 December: Mr Mustard complained on 10 December to parking management and provided his analysis of what was wrong. Clearly management agreed as the PCN has now been cancelled today. There was not a word of apology in the cancellation letter but there was a warning that the outcome didn't set a precedent at that location, it is panto season, oh yes it does.

An abysmal rejection

It was dark and wet in the Golders Green Road, the motorist missed the wide yellow line which is a clue that you might be in a bus stop. An understandable error rewarded with a PCN for £110. A copy of the PCN was sent to Mr Mustard. Hold on he said, the PCN says you were stopped in Russell Gardens, so the PCN is a nullity for want of an accurate location. Make the challenge on line and tell the council you were not in Russell Gardens and when they see you are correct they must cancel (a fine theory). 

Here is the representation, as made:

Kindly note that the alleged parking contravention did not take place as the road stated on the ticket does not have any bus stops. 

You have already guessed what happened next, yes the council rejected the representation. Here it is.

The letter starts with an untruth 'we have considered carefully'.

Firstly many Barnet residents will already have said to themselves that there isn't a bus stop in Russell Gardens because buses do not go down that road.

The council (and most probably NSL staff in Dingwall who are the processing back office) could have looked at the longitude and latitude of the camera at the time that the pictures were taken. That would have provided the location very precisely. Clearly they didn't do so.

The member of staff could also have looked at their own publicly reviewable records which now most helpfully provide a dropped pin of the approximate location. Clearly they didn't do that either.

 They could also have looked at google maps for Russell Gardens

where the red pin is and noted the absence of bus stops (the blue bus symbol). Clearly that third opportunity to verify the accuracy of the challenge was not taken.

What did the council do?

They issued a rejection letter with a standard templated wording.

What didn't they do?

Actually consider whether there was a bus stop in Russell Gardens or not.

Luckily the motorist has Mr Mustard's knowledge, experience and determination to see the PCN out.

They will though now have to wait and worry for the Notice to Owner to arrive and then go through the challenge process for a second time with no guarantee that the council will look at the second challenge any more seriously than the first one.

They may also have to make an Appeal to London Tribunals to get this matter put to rest.

It is a shockingly abysmal state of affairs that the council, whether via their agents NSL or not, rejected a perfectly valid challenge.

It can't be their addiction to revenue can it that has blinded them to reason?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 6 November 2019: Mr Mustard told parking senior management of the error and logic and common sense have now prevailed and the PCn has been cancelled.

Double trouble

The sometime loading bay, sometime short term fee parking bay

This story has been in the Barnet Times who Mr Mustard helps with technical PCN matters. A traffic warden will make a mistake from time to time, that is fine, it is how you deal with it that matters.

Quick story:

1. PCN issued (in error as it happens)

2. Motorist writes in expecting immediate cancellation & you never know, an apology, a bottle of wine, flowers, a box of chocolates ...something.

3. Council write back and say he should have paid to park.

4. Motorist writes back as he can't believe the second error.

5. Council write again and tell him to go away and wait until the Notice to Owner is issued, which will not be for a month.

6. Motorist contacts local newspaper which checks with Mr Mustard & then asks the council to comment.

7. PCN gets cancelled very soon thereafter.

Firstly what clues did the traffic warden (who only issued their first PCN on 6 August 2018 so is inexperienced and probably under-trained and/or not up to the job) miss? The obvious one is the sign on the pole, the one that is at a jaunty angle at the back of the car. The second one is that the bay is wide enough for a lorry as this is a part time loading bay so probably not a bay in which you have to pay. The third one is the transverse line at the end of the bay marking where the pay bay starts (although for clarity the two bays should be separated by a short stretch of yellow line). 

Why did it go wrong at the informal challenge stage? (informal just means a challenge in response to a PCN issued on street). This Freedom of Information response holds the answers.

Informal challenges are responded to by NSL Ltd. Their office deal with these is in Dingwall. Where the heck is Dingwall, Mr Mustard hears you cry. Dingwall is where the red pin is.

Dingwall is nearer to the Faroe Islands than it is to Finchley. Scots are great travellers but Mr Mustard doesn't suppose that any of the NSL employees in that office have been on familiarisation trips to Finchley. What tools do the employees have at their disposal? They have the photographs taken by the traffic wardens, eight of them in this case including the recommended one of the car and sign in the same shot but sadly the standard close up shot of the sign was of the wrong sign. The clues were still in the photos as the sign at the back of the car was on a thin grey pole and the pay by phone sign was mounted on a thick black pole.

Google street view would have answered the layout question.

The council's map based Traffic Management Order would also have been indicative of there being two types of bay.

The pink bay is the loading & free parking bay. The green dotted line marks the pay bay.

The suspicion is that NSL reject, on behalf of the council, pretty much all informal challenges without really troubling to read them (another blog is coming with an example) and it is only at the next stage when representations are made in response to the Notice to Owner that a council officer, who works within the borough and so is more likely to live in and travel about the borough, can then apply any local knowledge he/she has to the situation. In this case when the motorist wrote back to point out rejection was wrong instead of a different NSL person looking to see if the motorist might just be right, as he lives nearby, the contact was rejected out of hand. That was unhelpful & dim. It also doesn't help that the council have apparently not given NSL any guidance or policies.

Let's look at Mr Mustard's statistics for 2018. So far in 2018 he has fought 103 Barnet PCNs (+ 80 outside the borough).

He has lost 17 times so that is how many times the council were correct to fight to the end. (These include cases where people came to Mr Mustard with no available argument but were already at the stage of having missed the discount period so they may as well fight to the end as sometimes the council give up anyway).

On just 12 occasions the council, probably decided by NSL, have accepted informal challenges.

On 15 occasions the council, probably itself, have accepted formal representations. Mr Mustard usually puts in the same arguments at both stages so that means informal challenges were wrongly rejected 15 times.

On 3 occasions the council decided not to bother once a referral had been made by witness statement to the county court after a document was lost.

On 23 occasions Mr Mustard took his rejected arguments to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals and the council threw in the towel rather than produce the evidence and have the matter decided upon it. That means good representations were rejected 23 times as otherwise surely the council would have wanted the matter argued out?

On 36 occasions an adjudicator agreed with Mr Mustard's arguments, or the council made procedural errors. Those are another 36 cases that should have seen the PCN cancelled at an earlier stage. It is also 36 fees of £30 paid to the tribunal by Barnet Council that they could have avoided.

The reason that so many informal challenges are rejected is because experience has shown councils, not just Barnet, that most people don't realise you can use the same argument at all three rounds of the process and they give up the fight. That, combined with apathy, a shortage of time & a lack of knowledge of parking law and PCN processes tilts the playing field towards the council. Mr Mustard grabs it and pushes it firmly back the other way and is always ready to trust his judgment and fight to the very end & in 2018 he has been shown to be right 83% of the time or to put it another way, 5 times out of 6.

Whatever you do, if you are sure of your ground, don't give in. Stick to the timetable and make firm but polite challenges at the relevant times. If your situation is patently absurd then do email the local paper and/or go to your local councillor. The council hate bad publicity and it is in their interests to cancel your PCN at the earliest possible stage if they aren't going to make any money from it. It can though be hard sometimes to get them to see the error of their ways.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Dropped kerb - woeful rejection

A lovely dropped kerb serving just the one property (you can't park across a shared one)

One of the residents of this property received a PCN for being parked adjacent to a verge lowered to meet the carriageway. She was upset by it and accordingly she wrote to the council pointing out the lack of PCNs despite 30 years of parking this way and that she was the resident and did not request any enforcement. She expected there would be a rapid cancellation. No such luck. Here was the response she received.

Rule 243 of the Highway Code isn't a statement of the law, just some not very exact guidance. What the council forgot to say was that the 2003 Act which they quoted has a caveat, that an occupier of the premises must request enforcement, which had not been requested. The CEO (traffic warden) had gone native. (A white line across the drop means nothing legally, it is just a hint there is a dropped kerb. A double yellow means you can't park across your own drive & a single yellow that you can't park on the line when it is in operation which may be the cpz hours if you live within one - be careful).

Luckily at this juncture a friend suggested she contact Mr Mustard and once the Notice to owner was received it was Mr Mustard who made the formal representations. They were the same as the lady in question had made some weeks previously. This time the response was exactly opposite to the previous one, a no had magically become yes.

The lady in question correctly pointed out to Mr Mustard how she could have been out of pocket in this case, if she had believed what the council said first of all.

You are right - they have cancelled the parking ticket.

I cannot thank you enough.

The fact I said all the same in my original response except I did not know the specific Act and legislation yet they declined my appeal makes me really mad.

If I hadn’t been recommended to you - I would have ended up paying £110 or more if it went to court I am outraged and relieved at the same time.

Thank you so so much.

I am going to make a donation to North London Hospice today as agreed for my appreciation for all your help.

Mr Mustard has noticed a fall in the quality standard of written correspondence this year and a complete lack of understanding of parking law. This seems to have happened at the same time as NSL moved the back office work, undertaken under contract for Barnet Council, to their office in Dingwall, presumably because the staff are cheaper up there. Cheaper isn't better.

If you think the council are wrong, research on the Internet, and if you are sure of your ground, fight them to the end. Barnet Council write a lot of words which are utter nonsense.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard