TfL - as slippery as sin

A congestion charge PCN had a long (and unhappy) life. The issue date of 2 December 2023 was a Saturday and that is enough to invalidate it, a Congestion Charge PCN must be posted on the date of issue as otherwise motorists lose some of their statutory time to respond and it is a straightforward breach of the law. Here is the PCN history in backwards date order:

The PCN went wrong the month after Mr Mustard had made the fornal representations which were to the effect that the motorist had been short changed as to time to respond. TfL decided that what he had written didn't amount to a representation (they aren't the first enforcement authority to try this silliness but none so far has prevailed in their attempt)

Mr Mustard knows the proper procedure to follow inside out and so he fired a warning shot across the bows of TfL clearly pointing out why they were wrong:

That email to a named officer (employee), sent on 11 January, met with a response on 14 February in which TfL said they would send a full response and the penalty would remain on hold.

(The named officer is known to a friend of Mr Mustard's who describes him as usually looking like he is chewing a wasp).

Not on hold for long: on 16 February, a charge certificate was issued which increased the penalty to £270. Ouch.

The issue of a charge certificate made it look to the motorist as if Mr Mustard didn't know what he was doing. He usually does (if he drops a clanger he makes good financially & does not have to put his hand in his pocket very much at all).

On 20 February Mr Mustard emailed the group inbox of TfL (cccorrespondence@tfl.gov.uk) pointing out the error of sending a charge certificate at a time when the file was on hold due to a representation and suggesting that out of fairness TfL would now want to cancel the PCN.

That email didn't do any good either. The penalty was registered by TfL as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, part of the Northampton County Court (but mostly just a register of supposedly overdue PCNs).

The motorist had to visit a Solicitor and swear a Statutory Declaration that he had made in time representations, which was never in doubt as they were on TfL's files.

It took less than a week for the TEC to cancel the Charge Certificate, the PCN still staying alive in such a situation.

Another fortnight passed and TfL finally cancelled the PCN. If they sent an apology it didn't reach Mr Mustard, via his client, but the case history doesn't show one. Good manners are rather missing in the world of PCNs, they shouldn't be.

The end.

October 2022 PCN finally resolved

 

Dennis, not his real name, has a permit to park in bays in Havering in order to carry out social care tasks. He didn't realise he was in a car park, it just looks like a wide High Street. He received a PCN in October 2022.

He made another error in not telling Mr Mustard when he moved, twice.

Mr Mustard kept a constant eye on the PCN, and made a subject access request so that he had the complete file, which culminated in this email being sent in as a complaint.

Mr Mustard knows that councils don't much like criticism but fair play to Havering, they took this one on the chin. 

Of course, they may simply have realised the futility of trying to recover a PCN which Mr Mustard has completely under control and gone off to look for easier pickings.

The end.

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

No NtO

vital steps to reach the top

The Notice to Owner (NtO) is a vital document for a vehicle owner as it tells them a PCN has been issued which they may not know about because:

• the traffic warden photographed it on the windscreen and then removed it so you can't get the 50% discount
• someone else was driving and didn't tell you they got a PCN
• it was dark and raining and the PCN was slipped under the wipers and went flying when you used the wipers
• a schoolkid took the PCN for a laugh or a dare

If you don't respond to the PCN by paying it or contesting it, the cost of the PCN rises by 50% and you then have to wait somewhat nervously for the next document to arrive, the Order for Recovery so that you can file a witness statement at Court and go back to the beginning. You could be on a holiday of a lifetime whilst this happens and your car ends up seized by a bailiff.

The minutes of a meeting between NSL and Barnet Council "thin client" representatives has the following "Issue" (how Mr Mustard hates that word, this "issue" is a blunder, an error, a problem or some such other more accurate word) recorded at 16 January 2013

Issue: Failure of NtO issue.

Description: Audit screen in CE (the parking enforcement software) states NtO printed & posted on 17/08/2012, however correspondence screen states NtO failed to process. Customer states NtO not received, only CC (Charge Certificate) received in the post. Conflicting information within CE system. Example case AG########.

Action: Logged with Civica 16/01/2013 under support call ######. Awaiting update.

So there you have it. There has been a problem with a document that is vital to the legal processing of PCNs, not being issued, which should lead an honest council to stop what they are doing and undertake an audit of the system to see how many PCN were affected and cancel those PCN. Did they? Mr Mustard very much doubts it.

Mr Mustard turned to the minutes of 8 February 13. He couldn't find a mention of the NtO problem.

At the next meeting on 10 April 13 there is an item about "Civica issues" but no detail as to whether this includes the NtO printing problem. The action was to arrange a meeting so the problem certainly wasn't solved if it was included.

The meeting of 20 May 13 did note various failures to issue statutory notices (like the NtO) which had been going on since June 12 and were still ongoing at April 13 but didn't specifically mention this problem.

At the next meeting on 10 July 13 and the one after that of 10 September 13 (which was only about Key Performance Indicators) and the one of 8 October 13 and of 29 November 13 there was no mention of this NtO printing problem. PATAS accept a council report which says that a Notice has been printed and posted at face value so the independent adjudicator may have made some decisions on a false premise.

Maybe the problem was confined to just 2 or 3 PCN or maybe it affected 10,000 but given the poor minutes of meetings (which internal Audit have commented upon when they audited contract management as opposed to processing) we don't know. Mr Mustard will be sure to ask the parking manager next time he sees him.

Mr Mustard's experience of parking departments generally (and he has dealt with a few in London) is that they lack decency, good manners and honesty (excluding the two Barnet parking managers he deals with most weeks). They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a moral and legal position.

Until revenue raising is not at the heart of the local authority parking operation, this situation is unlikely to change.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

p.s. The software has now been changed from Civica CE to ICES so this problem will have gone away. Some other problem will have replaced it, most probably.