What is empathy?

Mr Mustard found the question harder to answer than he at first supposed. He has seen many letters from Barnet Council in which they say they empathise and then they mercilessly stick the boot in so he thought that the words were hollow.

He looked up 'empathy' in his Concise Oxford and the definition there means that the writer identified mentally with the motorist (and so fully comprehended their situation). Having so identified they then refuse the plea for mercy although Mr Mustard thought that having shown empathy they would have to be kind, it seems he is wrong about that.

Mr Mustard can't see the point of it anyway. The law says the council has to consider the representations (challenge) which was made and then say if they agree with it or not. There is no requirement to empathise, sympathise or show any feeling whatsoever.

Here is the challenge which was made.

Clearly difficult circumstances which could be verified if there was any doubt by a doctor at the surgery in question.

Here is Barnet Council's response.

There is needless repetition here. The motorist told the council that payment was made for the wrong vehicle so why do they tell him that? The council are correct that if the PCN goes missing from the windscreen it has been validly served. Years ago PCNs went missing a lot (Mr Mustard suspected traffic wardens were serving then removing the PCNs in order to prevent the discount being taken, then missing PCNs stopped and now it seems they have started again).

Barnet Council state that the PCN is valid. That wasn't doubted by the motorist. What was being requested was a goodwill cancellation. That has not been granted and the reasoning is because a contravention occurred, one which the motorist agreed had occurred, the PCN won't be cancelled, so this is something of a Kafkaesque refusal.

Mr Mustard found this explanation of Empathy.

If the council (and a body corporate doesn't have feelings so it must be the writer who we take to be a human being and not AI, although doubtless that is the future) have cognitive empathy they aren't distressed by what the motorist suffered and can reject the representations without feeling anything. That appears to be the only type of empathy that fits the refusal letter.

 

Mr Mustard doesn't think the council have emotional empathy because the motorist is regarded simply as a PCN reference, they aren't a real person, the writer and the recipient will never meet. All letters from Barnet Council are sent out in the name of a manager but he can't possibly write or even see them all so there is a distance between the writer and the letter in any event.

 

There clearly isn't compassionate empathy as that would probably lead the writer to cancel the PCN.

 

Having decided that, by definition, a type of empathy has been shown, but not the type that most readers of this type of letter would think, they would most probably think of sympathy, kindness and understanding which would lead to a favourable outcome, Mr Mustard thinks it would perhaps be better if this often seen standard phrase in Notices of Rejection was deleted from the library of standard responses. It is a word that clearly doesn't have a plain meaning.

 

Mr Mustard does have simple, easily understood words for what he thinks of the attitude of Barnet Council in this case, a council that has not had any revenue loss by the understandable error which was made.

The council is:

Vile

Mean

Heartless

Mercenary

Miserable

Tactless

Feel free to add your own epithets.

Even though the motorist did make an error Mr Mustard has taken up the Appeal to an independent adjudicator at the tribunal. An adjudicator is not allowed by law to cancel a PCN due to mitigating circumstances, a fact of which enforcement authorities often remind motorists who are contemplating an Appeal, but they can for procedural impropriety. Mr Mustard is good at finding those, if they exist, and one does in this case. An Appeal has been started.

End.

The Royal Borough of Kingston exhibit poor judgment

The Kingston Honeypot aka Surbiton Crescent

Although Mr Mustard thinks that the above location is poorly signed the adjudicator who, to date, has heard most of the cases at that location, does not agree. Thousands, absolutely thousands, of motorists have missed the signage and The Royal Borough of Kingston are laughing all the way to the bank and coincidentally not changing the layout (unless you know otherwise). The 'flying motorbike' sign, correctly the 'no motor vehicles' sign is, according to some research, understood by 88% of motorists.

Mr Mustard has conducted his own on site research at locations where the flying motorbike sign is to be found and his findings are that only about 10% of motorists know what the sign means.

That is all well and good but this blog post is about the miserableness to be found within the PCN section at the Royal Borough of Kingston.

His client, Mr B, had a brain tumour surgically removed in 2013. He had experienced some seizures in 2016 and following further investigations he had to be operated on again in 2017 for the same serious medical condition. On the day of his operation his wife, Mrs B, drove the car registered in the name of Mr B, through the above restriction in breach of the flying motorbike signs but in accordance with the blue arrows (that tell motorists where to drive) and politely giving way to oncoming traffic, again as directed. A PCN duly arrived in the post for contravening the restriction signed by the flying motorbike sign.

Mrs B wrote to Kingston, saying that the signs were not adequate, and explaining that she was on her way to see her husband, the registered keeper of the vehicle, in intensive care. Documentary evidence of his medical condition was supplied.

The council's rejection of the representations included the following:

- 'have decided that grounds or a suitable reason to cancel the PCN have not been established'

- Whilst I empathise with the situation you described we are unable to withdraw the PCN as this does not fall under the mitigation of a medical emergency'

Mr Mustard's carefully considered view is that the Royal Borough of Kingston don't have even the tiniest scintilla of empathy for Mr & Mrs B as if they did they would surely have instantly cancelled the PCN to reduce the burden of life for this couple at the moment.

Kingston are able to cancel the PCN, to say otherwise is a terminological inexactitude. This is what an adjudicator has had to say on the question of being 'unable to cancel'

The local authority's response that it is unable to cancel the PCN is incorrect. The local authority is always able to decide not to enforce a Penalty Charge Notice. It is under a duty to consider all the representations made by a motorist.

An Appeal at London Tribunals was duly lodged and at that point Mr Mustard was instructed and took over. He duly attended the hearing and he discussed the mitigation with the Adjudicator, who cannot allow on grounds of mitigation as his role is to decide if the contravention occurred or not, which it did. The Adjudicator was however, distinctly unimpressed with the attitude of Kingston and so adjourned the hearing, which Kingston had opted not to attend, as per usual, and wrote to them and asked them two questions:

1. How did they not notice that Mrs B made the representations when the car is registered to Mr B, so he is the only person legally entitled to make representations?

2. Given the medical history, did Kingston really want to pursue the PCN?

At that point someone at Kingston realised either that they had made a procedural blunder or that they looked terrible from a PR perspective and wrote to the tribunal to say that they had considered the comments of the adjudicator and decided not to pursue the PCN on this occasion.

That is belatedly wise of them but what sort of world do we live in where chasing a PCN is seen by the Royal Borough of Kingston as being more important than a recurrent brain tumour? Many motorists, faced with difficult medical circumstances, would have been too weak to fight and just paid up, the desired outcome of Kingston. Those are the very motorists whom Mr Mustard particularly wishes to help.

The need for Mr Mustard never seems to diminish.

Councils everywhere, you need to accept more representations where the motorist has some other burden of life to carry, whether or not the contravention occurred. Just try to be nicer.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard