Brent Council - zero common sense

Mr B had the misfortune to have his car broken into and his blue badge taken. His car is over 20 years old so after having spoken to his insurers he decided to pay for his own repairs as it was, taking into account future premiums, the most economical solution. He reported this to the police who issued a crime reference number but said they don't send a written confirmation.

The day after the theft, Mr B received a PCN outside his home because he didn't (couldn't in fact) display a blue badge and the arrangements for such an instance aren't helpful as they involve a long wait for a replacement. Mr B ended up paying for a residents permit for 3 months. Mr Mustard has to make enquiries of Brent to see what policy and procedure they have for this kind of case, sadly all too common, which complies with their duty under the Equality Act. They seem only to have punishments and not much help.

Mr B (acting by a family member) made a challenge over the internet, which is beyond Mr B's capabilities, but got rejected, twice, and the miserable letter from Brent Council contains the following.

The challenges made prior to that letter included the following statements:

I did not claim the glass replacement via the insurance as I was advised that this would significantly increase my insurance premium

and

The Crime was reported and I was given a Crime reference number CAD****, I contacted the police and was informed no documents are provided, just a CAD should suffice.

What did the car look like when the CEO photographed it, the day after the theft? Like this:

Why do Brent Council need any paperwork at all, they have collected evidence of the car windows being smashed in for themselves?

Why also do they ask for proof in the way of documents that they have already been told are not available?

Why are they so unhelpful to a disabled person?

Why do they not make due adjustment under the Equality Act?

Why do they fail to serve the public? Could it be that they want to help themselves to money out of the wallet of a poor, disabled pensioner?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PCNs - due adjustment

LGO report 17 019 196 by MisterMustard on Scribd

Mr Mustard found the above decision on the LGO website which he takes a look at from time to time. He has previously been critical of the LGO for not having teeth but they have bared them to Southwark and the decision is of application to every PCN issuing enforcement authority within England.

The entire report is well worth reading in full but if you are short of time Mr Mustard draws your attention to the critical elements on page 11

Mr Mustard considers that the PCN should tell you that if you cannot write in for any reason that you can telephone in order to make your challenge. In Barnet he suggests that until such time as Barnet catch up with this decision you should telephone 0208 359 7446 explain your disability and say that you want to make a representation by telephone in line with the LGO's decision. If you get a refusal that may well ultimately be enough to get an adjudicator at London Tribunals to cancel the PCN although given the difficulties with challenging you may not get that far as you are unable to write, without help, within the deadlines.

Mr Mustard has previously tried to use a council's failure to offer due adjustment as a point of Appeal to an adjudicator but has been rebuffed on the grounds that written representations and the Appeal were done on time (which was only because Mr Mustard did them and he cannot help every single person) which is a Catch 22 response. If the person with the disability fails to write on time they get timed out of the process. If they get someone else to write for them (assuming they can get help) they have followed the system so all is well. The question of prejudice is irrelevant. The council must offer due adjustment to every motorist as they do not know when they issue a PCN if the motorist suffers from a disability or not.

You should add the failure to offer due adjustment to every challenge that you make regardless of whether or not you have one. This way the council may act sooner.

The LGO's decision is very pleasing. The government is forcing more of the population to do everything using the Internet which contradicts the Equality Act legislation hat they themselves made law. Perhaps this decision will tip the playing field back to a level status?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Exmouth Market, a cabbie, a disabled passenger & a £130 PCN.

Here is a tribunal report in which the adjudicator stretched his application of the law to breaking point to cancel the PCN & good on him.

Rather than just letting one PCN go by the board Islington Council wanted their pound of flesh from the cabbie, a Mr Stephen Bullock. Mr Mustard usually anonymises the names of the affected parties but they are public anyway in the register of the tribunal and he thinks Mr Bullock is such a kind man that his name should be known. You haven't made the world a better place Islington Council, you have written out an unhelpful Traffic Management Order and should consider the due adjustment required under the Equality Act for the disabled. How are they to get to destinations within Exmouth Market if they can't walk more than a short distance? The same goes for many pedestrian zones.

The decision was reviewed by a different adjudicator and had to be overturned. The adjudicator could have recommended to Islington Council that they didn't collect the penalty even having won but as they had asked for a review of the decision the fact of their cold heart was already evident.

The cost of being kind for the cabbie was £130.

Don't you want to sit down with the people who decide if a parking ticket should be cancelled or not with some people in wheelchairs and get them to justify their decision making sometimes?

There are standard exemptions that can be added to the sign for blue badge holders, taxis and for access. Islington Council need to look at this again but they appear to prefer the income.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PayPoint aka NoPayPoint

A perfect storm led to me getting today's PCN. I am lunching in Cafe Buzz whilst penning this tome. (This by a resident who comes to Mr Mustard for advice but is well able to handle his own PCN challenges).

I parked opposite Argos Tally Ho (my destination) in bay 79143 (yes, the one with 5 numbers) and walked to the nearby PayPoint, Tally Ho News where I waited a few minutes as Mr Patel served a customer and then entered on his terminal the location number, vehicle reg and parking time required (1 hour).

The terminal display.

Computer says no.

Mr Patel tried again, saying it would probably not work as it never does for that location and hasn't done for more than a year. Same message.

I requested a print-out but Mr Patel was unable to obtain one, apparently it only prints a successful transaction. I estimate I was in the store for 4 to 7 minutes.

Back on the street, intending to re-park in  a valid bay, I spotted a welcoming yellow envelope on the windscreen with the CEO nearby and alerted Mr Patel who kindly left his store and we recounted the circumstances to CEO486.  He politely explained that once issued (4 minutes observation) he was unable to rescind a PCN, that I should appeal and he would make a note of the circumstances.  He did make the wholly unnecessary observation that there are other ways to pay and opined that paybyphone is best but sweetened the situation by adding that I could now leave the car parked in the bay for the rest of the day without having to pay. Yippee!  We parted on good terms.

Mr Mustard had noticed that some locations have a 5 digit code and all the rest have only 4 digits. As he has never used PayPoint he was unaware this presented a problem. Mr Mustard has just checked his list of the old cash parking meters and the bay references which they became and there isn't a bay 79143 in that list of 462 locations nor is there 9143. Please tell Mr Mustard of any other 5 digit codes around the borough.

PayPoint used to use the 4 digit location code worldwide but having allocated them all they then switched to 5 digits. Clearly they weren't planning on expansion when they started.

Bay 79143 works with the paybyphone app, SMS text and from a mobile phone keypad. However it seems some of the terminals may have outdated software which will only work with 4 digits.

The 3 minute minimum observation time for being parked without payment is unrealistic as the shop might be a few hundred yards away and there could be a queue.

The signs need to include the name and location of the nearest PayPoint outlet(s) instead of just a telephone number to call.

Mr Mustard hears that Haringey Council are about to go down the cashless parking route which is yet another borough that those people who for whatever reason don't have a phone and/or a debit/credit card will not be able to visit unless they can find a private car park which still takes cash. Mr Mustard is all in favour of electronic payment but only as an option, not as the only option. The cashless policy surely discriminates under the Equality Act?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Outsourcing to snake oil salesmen

A council is obliged, under the Equality Act, to make due allowance for the disabled. It (well its contractor NSL probably) couldn't give a fig, based upon the following paragraphs from a letter sent to a motorist which is now the subject of a complaint to the Chief Executive. Parking also has to reflect real life.

It is nearly always the opinion of NSL / Barnet Council that a PCN is valid but that doesn't mean it will survive a close scrutiny by Mr Mustard. The blue badge clock does not have to be displayed in a residents bay, that is a howler as one can park for an unlimited time in such a bay.

If the driver is on their own in a car and visiting, say, a disabled relative who cannot walk as far as the car then there is no choice for the driver but to leave their car in order to obtain the blue badge before helping the disabled person to board the vehicle. There is nothing in the law which supports the council's letter (which many people would take as, and should be, 100% accurate).

Don't just take Mr Mustard's word for it. Take that of Mr Hugh Cooper, a lawyer, who sits as an adjudicator on PCNs. Mr Mustard always finds him to be logical and thorough (the last argument took the unusually long time of 1h 10m with both parties quite enjoying the battle - Mr Mustard did prevail on that occasion) and this is what Mr Cooper had to say in PATAS case 2140052218 which did concern Barnet Council back in December 2013 (they have a short memory).

Mrs V does not dispute that her car was parked in this parking bay without displaying a permit. However she has maintained from the outset that she came to visit a resident in the street, and only left the car without a permit for the time it took to go to her house, obtain and complete a visitor's voucher and return to the car, a process she estimates as taking about 3 minutes. She points out that the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after only one minute's observation, and suggests that he/she must have actually seen her leave the car. Mrs V has now produced a letter from the occupier which confirms her account.

The Enforcement Authority have insisted throughout that a permit or voucher must be displayed from the moment the car is parked in such a bay, and that no period of grace is allowed. Mrs V contends, by contrast, that it is not possible for a visitor to a resident to have a visitor's voucher already in her possession; it is necessary to go to the resident's house to obtain it, and so a short time must be allowed for this to be done.

I am perplexed by the Authority's stance in this case. It is self-evident that a reasonable period must be allowed for a visitor to obtain and complete a visitor's voucher from a resident, for the reasons Mrs V has clearly set out. Had the CEO observed the vehicle for, say, five or more minutes, then it would have been reasonable to assume that the owner was not obtaining a visitor's voucher, but by allowing only one minute that assumption could not be safely made. In this case I am satisfied that it was in fact wrongly made. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, and so I allow this appeal.

[I would respectfully suggest that the Authority give some thought to the instructions they give to their CEOs and to their decision-makers in relation to this issue.]

That final sentence is the usual under-stated way in which a lawyer slaps you round the face with a wet fish. Clearly the council (NSL?) have taken no notice of this decision and should Mr Mustard find himself, on the instant PCN, in front of an adjudicator with the identical argument he will be pointing out the earlier decision and suggesting that costs for wholly unreasonable behaviour are the order of the day. Something tells Mr Mustard that the case will not now get that far.

Will, though, NSL stop writing such misleading letters is his first question. His second question, now that dealing with representations is moving in-house is, will the in-house team be properly trained?

The other point is that an observation period should have been added for code 12 contraventions. It has not been. PCN are issued instantly and that is unfair.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

A new leisure facility opens in Brent - an obstacle course

The biggest obstacle to be found in Brent?

Mr Mustard has, for the last 4 months, been helping a lady who is suffering from a personality disorder and stress, to deal with her various PCN. He didn't find out about the one for Brent until he had been helping her for a month. Let us call her Miss O.

The first document Mr Mustard saw was a Charge Certificate so he was already up against the clock and the process.

The problem had been caused by Miss O having 12 residential addresses in 2013/14. No matter how quick you were to notify the DVLA each time you moved the system would not be able to keep up with you and a council tends not to check your address at the DVLA for each new document as it costs money. Before showing Mr Mustard the charge certificate Miss O emailed the council and asked the council to send her a copy of the PCN as she had not received it and advised them of a new address.

This is the reply that she received.

It is perturbing that Brent Council did not take into account the Code of Practice of London Councils who who run the joint committee which have statutory responsibility for certain parking matters in London. Sadly, a local authority can ignore the Code of Practice and there is nothing much one can do about it.

Fine words don't lead to buttered parsnips in Brent

What is much worse is that this letter was sent to the address which clearly Miss O had left. Luckily the letter did reach her. How stupid an act was it to write to an address you have been told is no longer the address of Miss O, following which you then escalate her PCN to bailiffs as Miss O has not responded to official documentation.

What Brent Council cannot do though is to make up their own rules as they did when demanding proof of the new address. At this point, 29 May, Mr Mustard sent one of his "too difficult" emails. Here are the contents of it:

---

I represent Miss O of redacted address as attached authority. The authority have refused to accept a notification of change address without documentary proof. There is no legislation that requires them to act in such a way. I draw to the attention of the authority that an independent adjudicator is quite happy to accept any address of which it is notified of, as 2(2)(c) of the Schedule to the Appeal Regulations as are the DVLA.

My client tells me she has had 12 addresses during 2013/14 one of which was in Brent.

My client is also unwell, as per the attached sick note, and struggles to remember things.

Given the lack of paperwork in this case, my client cannot locate the Charge Certificate about which she emailed you, I do need the assistance of the authority please.

A simple list of the dates of all communications in and out and the address to which the council sent each of its documents will enable me to decide what to advise my client about the PCN.

My client thinks that she must have stopped briefly to ask for directions (you have the advantage of a video recording which is not available to me on-line although you might be prepared to send me a copy on a dvd to my home?) but it does appear from the still photos that the lights of the vehicle are on which is consistent with what she says (no-one could reasonably be expected to remember exactly what they were doing exactly in an unknown corner of London on a date some 18 months ago) and you could not today issue a PCN by post based on cctv thanks to a change in the law.

Given the sickness of my client, the presumed briefness of the stop, the passage of time and the fact that only a CEO on foot could now issue a PCN for this contravention (and his/her time would be better used in giving out directions rather than a PCN) the authority might consider it more appropriate, and a sensible use of its discretionary powers, to simply cancel this PCN rather than put my client through the witness statement, representations & Appeals procedure for what can only have been a minor & fleeting contravention.

Thank you

---

The acknowledgement to this email contained the following statement:

In order for us to deal with your correspondence it is important that you provide the following information:
i) Full Name
ii) Postal Address, including post code
iii) Penalty Charge Notice Number
iv) Vehicle Registration Number

If you did not provide this, please resend your e-mail, and include any missing information.

When we have received all the required information your case will be put on hold. The case will not progress or increase in cost whilst it is on hold. 

All the required information was provided.

Was the case put on hold? Was it hell as like. An Order for Recovery was issued, to the old address by the looks of it. Mr Mustard got Miss O to sign a Witness Statement at the TEC which would have the effect of taking us right back to the beginning of this process i.e. a new postal PCN (in this case).

Mr Mustard sent "too difficult" email no. 2 on 12 July (the first one was clearly too difficult as it didn't get the courtesy of a reply, the council were on notice that the motorist was mentally ill and so they should make adjustments, none were made) in the form of a complaint:

Dear Sirs

Your acknowledgement of my below email included the following statement:

see the statement above.

and my email did indeed contain the 4 listed items of information so you should have put the case on hold. You have not done so (as the balance on your computer increased from £195 on 12 June to £202 on 28 June, two days on which I happened to check the balance) and it is procedurally unfair for a local authority to act contrary to how it says it will act and that is the basis of my complaint.

The second basis is that you have not responded to my email of 29 May, some 6 weeks later.

On 7 July a form TE9 was emailed to the TEC and doubtless it is now with you for processing.

You can check the registered keeper's address at the DVLA and please send documents to New Address Avenue so that they can be responded to.

Yours faithfully

Mr Mustard watched his inbox, nothing arrived. He checked his Royal Mail deliveries each day, nothing there either.

What did happen was Brent Council wrote the following to Miss O. on 17 July 15.

Thank you for your letter regarding the above-stated PCN. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

I write to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled. The case has been closed and no further correspondence or notices in relation to this case will be sent.

Yours sincerely

Funny, is it not, that as soon as Mr Mustard wrote, the PCN was cancelled!

Now Miss O had not written to the council so how could there have been delay in writing to her?

When they don't say which "letter" they are responding to (there were at least 3 emails they could have been referring to) how do we know if there has been a delay?

A very sensible decision to cancel the PCN. A 2013 PCN at the adjudicators in late 2015 would not have played well for the council.

What worries Mr Mustard is which other less robust individuals, than Mr Mustard, are being bullied into paying up £165 when Brent Council have refused to accept a perfectly proper notification of an address change.

Don't let it be you. If any other council in London has acted the same, do please let Mr Mustard know by email to mrmustard@zoho.com

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard