Lost in Haringey

 

Mr Mustard is often called upon to help other volunteers who, whilst giving up their free time, try to help others who need to be helped and find themselves in strange places and whilst simply trying to find their way, manage to miss a sign and incur a PCN.

So it was that the PCN from which the above is an extract was sent to James (not his real name) who was trying to deliver a consignment of food in his car to the Broadwater Farm Estate food bank. 

Although Mr Mustard purchased his first flat in a quiet turning off St Ann's Road back in about 1980 he then moved up to the delights of Potter Bar for a decade before settling in Barnet. Thus he couldn't recall The Avenue N17 or Broadwater Road.

Mr Mustard usually starts by having a look at the council's cctv record and he usually extracts a still image from it. Here is one.

From  this we can see that the car is proceeding down the stem of a T-junction. Mr Mustard then consulted a map.

From the map we can see that if the camera is placed at the junction of the two named locations, the vehicle must be in Broadwater Road.

Mr Mustard visited the location and took photographs and realised that the belief stated on the PCN could not be true. Whilst the car had entered Avenue Road for a short distance it did not commit a contravention within it, that occurring at the moment at which the car entered Broadwater Road.

 

Whenever possible, Mr Mustard writes short but undeniable representations, and he could do so in this case.

It took a couple of months whilst Haringey Council scratched their head perhaps looking for a way out but there wasn't one. Quite simply they were 100% in the wrong and so they cancelled the PCN.

 

You might wonder how the council got this wrong, not knowing the name of a location in their own borough?

 

The Traffic Order which was made was correct, it was the change of the order of the roads when creating this location in the PCN software where it all went wrong.

The creation of many traffic orders was contracted out and PCN processing is contracted out. Between the two teams somewhere was, most likely, a communication error.

 

Now, having brought to the council's attention a thumping great error which rendered unlawful every PCN issued at the stated location you would expect that the reaction of an honest council would firstly be to correct the error. Next they should have gone back through all PCNs issued at that location, cancelled them and refunded everyone.

 

If you are an affected motorist, demand a refund as the council's actions were illegal. They may not have known it at the time but they do now.

Naturally automatic refunds didn't happen. Why councils don't think they have to be honest when it comes to PCNs is a question of our age.

 

Fortunately Mr Mustard has a process by which he can try to force some honesty. Once a year any person can inspect the detailed accounts of the council, usually in July but sometimes later. Residents, as in those who are listed to vote, are also entitled to ask questions of the external auditor and ask them to go to Court to have certain items of income declared illegal. Mr Mustard is assisting one such voter but not in respect of this location alone, there was an unlawful wording in all moving traffic PCNs issued by Haringey which they only corrected in September 2023 so that is what has been attacked. It is too late for him to use this route for this location description as there are strict time limits. Nothing prevents Haringey Council from being honest, though.

 

Mr Mustard did the same in Hackney 2 years ago and whilst the auditor only suggested refunding on request Hackney Council decided it was administratively easier to simply refund everyone and did so to the tune of £268,000 and bailiff fees, which the bailiff received rather than the council, of about the same amount were also refunded.

Here's hoping for a similar outcome.

The end, for now.

Brent Council - a deliberate lie?

If you look at Mr Mustard's immediately prior post about battery failure you will be up with the story.

Mr Mustard wanted to establish the factual basis on which an indivdual made the decision to accuse the motorist of failing to maintain their maintenance free battery. The obvious way to do that was to make a Subject Access Request for the motorist's data, on which the letter of rejection was founded (relevant extract below).

Here is the request:

and here is the response:

Now you might yhink that the response was a standard one and that the writer simply picked the wrong paragraph to insert into the letter but that doesn't excuse the writer as they should carefully check any letter with financial implications.

Look, bold and CAPITALS, thus the most important part of the letter as far as Brent Council are concerned; show us the money!

Mr Mustard has suggested to the motorist that a complaint is lodged, there has been a failure to adhere to the Nolan principles, in particular 'honesty'.

Have you had a similar letter from Brent Council about your battery? don't pay up, make them prove their case.

The end.

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.