Helping the mentally or physically ill, the elderly & the poor to fight Council PCNs.
Writing about blunders, democracy and profligacy at Barnet Council.
So Barnet Council issue a PCN for being double parked (Mr Mustard's client was alighting his sleeping son, observation time was a mere minute) whilst the car used to transport the traffic wardens, the white one with its headlights ablaze, is itself double parked.
They daren't go out on their own after dark. One takes photos, the other issues the PCN.
There is no exemption for the car which the traffic wardens drive to be double parked; the law is above. Is Mr Mustard the only person who thinks it is unattractive, a bad example, hypocritical & perverse for a traffic warden to commit the very contravention that he/she is issuing a PCN for?
There needs to be someone with the authority to force councils to behave rather than continue on their pillaging ways. Clearly the black car was not doing any harm. Move it forward a metre so the bumper is above the date stamp and it would not be in contravention.
Mr Mustard is not going to retire until the council start to behave in a decent manner. Don't hold your breath.
Update 21 March 2016 Having chased the MD of TfL on 12 February and then again on 16 March, Mr Mustard finally received a response from an employee of TfL today. It tells him that they did add a name to the address on file on 13 August after receiveing Mr Mustard's letter but they didn't tell him that at the time. It also re-issued the PCN to his client on that day. TfL maintained that sending two PCN for the same contravention was fair enough. The matter will not now be tested in front of an adjudicator as TfL have wisely decided to cancel the PCN as a 'gesture of goodwill' which rarely means what it says in Mr Mustard's experience. TfL also state that they will be accepting online queries and representations 'in due course' (this in a letter which doesn't give Mr Mustard an email address or a phone number! Anyone would think that TfL don't like hearing from him).
Is it incompetence or ignorance, is it arrogance, is it stupidity or is it intransigence? but what it isn't is equitable.
TfL, acting through their agents, (not quite sure whom) sent a PCN for the alleged contravention of 'performing a prohibited no left turn' in Battersea, to the building in which Mr Mustard's client resided. Yes, that is correct they sent a PCN to a building. Let us call it "Stable Cottage Barnet". It is a requirement of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (which governs moving traffic offences) that a PCN is served on a 'person' which isn't defined but would logically include any body that could register a car and thus does not include a building. The PCN was issued on 10 July. The contravention had occurred on 3 June and presumably a PCN was originally sent to the vehicle hire company who will have provided a copy of the hire agreement and then a new in time PCN has been issued.
Mr Mustard helpfully wrote to TfL in Darlington (as they don't have a working email system!) on 13 August to point out the error. He expected the PCN to be cancelled and that would be that.
Mr Mustard kept an eye on the balance on the TfL website and up until 30 October it was £130 with the note " Representations under review".
Then on 14 November it was £195 "Charge Certificate issued" which was rather sudden as neither Mr Mustard nor his client, an occupier of Stable Cottage, had been extended the courtesy of a reply to the August (in both senses) letter.
Mr Mustard decided the time had come to phone up and stop the rot. He spoke to a man, let's call him Keith, who put Mr Mustard on hold (the on hold musak at TfL 0343 222 3333 is the sort of sound that a suspect would be played whilst in solitary confinement to break you down before questioning) whilst he spoke to the representations team. This is inefficient. Just let Mr Mustard speak to the representations officers directly as we talk the same language. The response was that the PCN would be cancelled and a new one issued to Charlie Cook (his client, not his real name). Mr Mustard pointed out that in his letter of 13 August he had pointed out that TfL were out of time to re-issue. Keith said TfL had 6 months. He also said the contravention had occurred and Charlie could always make representations. Oh dear, now Mr Mustard was peeved about 2 things. He pointed out that TfL were about to break the law in order to enforce it which just isn't right. He also pointed out that a PCN was a document which set out a contravention which TfL believed had occurred and that the contravention was only proven at the end of the process when an independent adjudicator had ruled on any Appeal. He also said his client shouldn't have to defend himself from a PCN which TfL had no right to send. Mr Mustard's gander was up by now.
He couldn't find the section of the Act about time limits for issuing PCN so said he would call back, suffer another 5 minutes wait, and then tell TfL what the rules were.
Mr Mustard phoned back 5 minutes later, waited another 5 minutes and then was put through the ridiculous security questions for the second time. He was unlucky and didn't get Keith again, even though not many of them were in the call centre he said (hence why Mr Mustard had to wait 5 minutes twice) but got Katrina (not her real name).
Mr Mustard explained the rules about service of a moving traffic PCN:
Paragraphs 6(2) a,b & c did not apply and more than 28 days had gone since the alleged contravention had occurred on 3 June so TfL have no power to issue a PCN, they would be acting outside of their powers (ultra vires). Katrina said they had the right to re-issue "at any time" (not likely as otherwise you could be sent a PCN in 2015 which related to your driving in 2010). Katrina said she had discussed para 6 with the Representations team and they would send a new PCN. Mr Mustard felt it unreasonable that his client should have to defend himself from an invalid PCN and so asked to be put through to complaints. Katrina took the details.
The complaint has 3 strands:
1. TfL claim to have a year in which to issue a PCN, please provide the evidence for that statement which Mr Mustard regards as incorrect.
2. TfL are about to issue a PCN in breach of para 6.
3. Operatives are making statements which might lead a less experienced caller (99.9% of them will know less than Mr Mustard) to give in and pay up. He did not complain about the operative themselves as they are doubtless working from a script and under the erroneous policy guidance of TfL.
It is clearly not equitable that TfL try and obtain monies from motorists in a situation where they don't have the right to issue a PCN. Mr Mustard wonders how many illegal PCN there are? Funny isn't it? A motorist goes wrong and TfL want £130. Tfl go wrong and they want £130. Something not quite right there?
Other things TfL really need to do are:
have an email address to which motorists and owners can write
put the photos and cctv footage up on their website so that motorists can make an informed decision about paying or making representations
train their staff and remove the inbuilt bias that a motorist is guilty because the operative, who has the advantage of looking at the cctv footage, says so when they should be neutral and tell you of your options.
Cut out the middleman when there is a technical question and let Mr Mustard talk to the engineer rather than the oily rag.
Had TfLbeen a bit sharper and less avaricious they would avoid the time and expense of another case going to adjudication at London Tribunals and a complaint to manage.
Mr Mustard will update this post with the outcome in due course.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
P.S. TfL must be given credit for having a telephone number that you can contact them on. Not having one is pretty stupid as it makes sorting some things out much more difficult, as it would have in this case, although the calls were 'difficult' ones, probably at least as far as TfL were concerned because Mr Mustard brooks no nonsense from anybody. Many London boroughs do not have a telephone number you can contact them on and this ignores the fact that in order to comply with the Equality Act a facility should be provided for those people who own a vehicle (they may not drive it) but are disabled and cannot write or are not literate. The borough are meant to listen to their verbal representations, write them down and send a copy to the person making them. This is known as making due adjustment. It is mostly out of London that Mr Mustard has seen council's take their responsibilities towards the disabled more seriously.
This possibility is rarely mentioned on the London PCN that Mr Mustard sees and should be.
This vehicle was not obviously engaged in parking enforcement or on highways business which would, if it was necessary to park in such a way (i.e. the driver could not easily park elsewhere such as the Lodge Lane Car Park which always seems to have an empty bay), exempt the vehicle owner from the parking restrictions.
The driver did get out and wander off down the High Road to pop to the shops, it appeared to Helen Michael of Cafe Buzz in the High Rd, N12.
Helen's view is that if you are going to ticket her customers with gay abandon for the merest infringement then the council need to show leadership and set a good example by themselves parking in accordance with the law at all times.
Mr Mustard's view is that council drivers should obey all parking rules all over the borough and if the driver is going to take a chance and park illegally, not do it in Percy Rd N12 as Helen misses nothing.
Maybe the driver didn't have a mobile phone or credit card with them and so couldn't pay? In which case, as the council are fond of saying, they should park elsewhere. Enfield or Haringey maybe, where cash is still wisely accepted.
Yours frugally Mr Mustard (Mr Mustard has seen council vehicles given a PCN before now and all that does is cause administration and move money from one budget to a different one.)
If you are a security guarding company and decide to dress your vehicles up to make them look like police cars and thus highly visible then Mr Mustard's advice is to follow the rule of the law and not park for 7 minutes on a double yellow line whilst you buy your lunch in the Victoria Bakery, because, quite simply, you are being hypocritical in breaking the law whilst supposedly being in business to uphold it.
During those 7 minutes a traffic warden had patrolled the next road along, Salisbury Rd, and after that was 30 metres away in the High Street checking on people who had properly paid to park.
Never a traffic warden where you want, when you want, is there?
So here we are in Salisbury Rd, High Barnet where Mr Mustard had just walked past a traffic warden giving a PCN to a 4by4 that had it's front wheel on the double yellow and the rest of the car over the single yellow; however, the traffic warden must have ridden his scooter the wrong way up a one way street. You can't park against the flow of traffic in a one way street, even on a scooter. If councillors ever wonder why residents hate the venal and rapacious enforcement to which they are subjected then they should look at the hypocrisy of situations like this one and the fact that enforcement vehicles (not sure this is one, surely it is merely transport) park in contravention when they don't need to (scooters can be parked in almost any bay) is what annoys the public. Parking in contravention by traffic wardens has to be reasonably necessary, it clearly isn't when there are parking bays nearby. This sort of thing should stop.
Having to park properly, like the public have to, would slow the traffic wardens down so they don't issue sufficient PCN to please their bosses. Why they are so keen to issue PCN is one of life's mysteries. Someone somewhere has targets in mind even if the contract forbids them. The only pseudo target is that the council project a certain annual income from parking and if they see slippage they take action to correct it which usually means more PCN.
The traffic warden was also in breach of the NSL contract with Barnet Council as he was wearing his crash helmet whilst issuing the PCN. If traffic wardens are supposed to engage with the public then they need to be able to fully hear them which Mr Mustard knows you can't when you are sporting a crash helmet, even without ear plugs.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
p.s. Where was Mr Mustard going you ask yourself? To the post office to send two PATAS appeal forms and some representations to Enfield Council against a bus lane PCN. Enfield have sneakily placed their camera where the imminent end of the lane is not shown and so they dish out PCN to anyone who cuts the corner off the lane which is too trivial to merit a PCN.
Here is a shockingly interesting decision by a PATAS adjudicator whose hands are tied by having to apply the law, whatever they might think about the situation:
The case was listed for a personal hearing since the Appellant had not indicated whether he wanted a personal or postal decision. He did not attend at the appointed time and so I have considered the appeal on the papers.
The agreed facts are that the Appellant's vehicle was parked outside Sainsbury's at 21.56. Parking restrictions apply here at this time, as indicated on the timeplate. Mr B says he was not aware of this and he only noticed a white sign below the smaller yellow one. He also says that two Civil Enforcement Officers had seen him park there and he had not been advised to move. One of the officers had also gone into the shop and had parked where he had.
I am satisfied that the restriction is properly signed. There are two signs on this post but both must be read to establish the restrictions that apply. The size of the sign is compliant with the statutory regulations.
The Civil Enforcement Officer is not under any obligation to advise motorists about where they should and should not park. They should also follow the regulations themselves and not abuse their position by parking in contravention. However, that is not a matter that assists Mr B although it is hoped that the authority will investigate such conduct.
Unluckily for Mr B the PCN was issued just 4 minutes before the ban on parking at that location in Regents Park Road came to an end.
The adjudicator had no real choice in the matter although had Mr Mustard been representing there were other technical grounds on which the PCN could & most likely would have been cancelled.
It seems unlikely that NSL who run the parking enforcement under contract will investigate the conduct of a traffic warden whom they directly employ and trained but that might change tomorrow as the council parking management read this blog and may well take the matter up with their contractor. Mr Mustard hasn't checked but he is confident that the contract will not allow for employees of the contractor to go shopping in work time.
Photographs of traffic wardens doing things they shouldn't be doing especially things like parking on the pavement or coming out the the betting shop are always welcome at mrmustard@zoho.com
One of the interesting things about writing a blog is that you get challenged about your viewpoint. The Barnet Bugle are always poised on the sidelines to toot and question the blog or add some explanatory material. The Bugle has the patina of long use, far longer than Mr Mustard has been around and so Mr Mustard tries to be wise and stop, listen and think ( has Mr Mustard ever written that about a council meeting? - no. )
As readers of the previous post will know Mr Mustard was not amused to be sent a letter accusing him of leaving his recycling boxes or his wheelie bins ( the letter was most unclear ) continually on the pavement. What rot. Anyway The Bugle pointed out to Mr Mustard that on the council website there is a short video of Cllr Harper waxing lyrical about the extension of the recycling scheme to plastic bottles. The link is here. The video will also appear in the body of this post a little further down but there are one or two items on the webpage that Mr Mustard would like to mention first.
Residents have been provided with a black box and a blue box to fill with household materials and place out on the kerbside for collection. So the council's own website says to place the boxes out on the kerbside so why are letters being sent to residents telling them they are committing an offence under the Highways Act 1980. Could the answer be incompetence or ignorance? It is a deeply unimpressive piece of work by whoever wrote that page of the website. The page was last modified by redacted a waste and sustainability officer. Oh dear.
Why would you put your mobile phone in the black box for recycling when you can sell it or give it directly to charity. This page may help you; that gives you the address for Help the Aged for instance and there are other charities that take them ( other charities are welcome to advertise themselves in the comments box ).
The collection crew sort your black box items into compartments on one side of the recycling collection vehicle and the blue box materials are sorted into compartments on the other side. The person who wrote this sentence has never watched a collection of recycling. Each crew member works one side of the lorry, the side that is next to the pavement they have picked up from.
Don't get hung up on which item goes into which box. Mr Mustard used to fuss over this and then one day when he had two half full boxes the operative simply tipped one into the other and took it to the van.
Three quarters of the way down the page it says kerbsite not kerbside. Does anyone proofread the website?
And now to the main event, the YouTube video of Cllr Harper in October 2008 when he was Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport:
It would be a bit unfair of Mr Mustard to say "don't give up the day job" for two reasons.
1. Unlike other cabinet members & councillors he hasn't had training as an actor, and
2. He doesn't have a day job.
that assumes of course that his declaration here is correct.
How does the poor boy manage on his surely modest allowances as a councillor? Well take a look at answer 9 in the council's list of FOI answers that have been published. So currently he trousers £38,026 a year and in the year 2009/10 he was getting £36,090. Not bad for spending a few evenings in the town hall saying "aye" to everything that comes your way from a cabinet colleague.
Now let us look at the video again. It's continuity error time.
12s in. Pictures of recycling boxes on the pavement.
19s. A wheelie bin on the pavement and the lid is not closed as it should be. Foxes will be in there later. One would have thought the cabinet member would have told his neighbours about these failings.
44s. Harper says "collected at kerbside" Oh dear.
1.30s Those shoes should have been in a plastic bag to protect them Cllr Harper. You could probably have resoled them, the heels looked OK.
1.44s The commentator says "to save space on the kerbside"
Can we please recycle some of our councillors, senior officers and consultants?
Readers will be well aware that in June 2011 Barnet Council reported the Mr Mustard blog to the Information Commissioner for failure to comply with the Data Protection Act ( by not registering ) for which in the Magistrates Court the maximum fine is £5,000. Just like other bloggers, he had no need to register; it was just the council throwing their toys out of the pram.
Just look at the internal audit report which is going to the Audit Committee next week.
click to enlarge; back to return
So just to be clear, whilst busy trying to get Mr Mustard into hot water you were in the soup yourselves. That is deeply unimpressive behaviour.
Now Mr Mustard must go and prepare a question for the Audit Committee.
The stupid cashless system of Barnet, ill conceived and badly implemented, is based upon Westminster, a central London borough which is completely different to Barnet. Sorry, Curzon Mayfair but Mr Mustard and his arty film loving friend aren't coming anywhere near you, on a Sunday or of an evening, until they can again park for free. We will vote with our wheels and go elsewhere.
Mr Mustard has already blogged about how one can simply insert your credit or debit card into a machine in Westminster without registering with some faceless corporation. Not so in Barnet.
Barnet Cllr Brian Coleman is quoted as saying "We are going completely cashless. It's a common sense modern approach to parking. It works perfectly well in Westminster."
However, today's blog is about the councillor who is bringing in changes to parking in Westminster. In the Evening Standard of 10 November 2011 Cllr Lee Rowley of Westminster is reported on as follows:
He earns £19,000 a year as a cabinet member but handed back a permit letting him park free in any Westminster residents bay while on official business. He says he had no use for it and preferred to apy for his own parking.
So councillors & MPs of Barnet please do the same if you are to accurately follow the lead of Westminster.
The following hold a permit or two:
Cllr Brian Coleman ( as representative of the GLA ) Cllr Andrew Strongolou Cllr Helena Hart Cllr Joan Scannell Cllr Barry Evangeli Cllr Monroe Palmer Cllr Sury Khatri - 2 permits ! Cllr Graham Old Cllr John Hart Cllr Daniel Seal Cllr Richard Cornelius Cllr Stephen Sowerby Cllr Rowan Turner Cllr Brian Schama - 1 permit with 2 vehicle registrations ! Cllr Mark Shooter Cllr Sachin Rajput Cllr Brian Salinger Cllr Andrew Harper Cllr Joanna Tambourides Cllr Lisa Rutter Cllr Darrel Yawitch Cllr Brian Gordon
There are also MPs who hold a permit.
Theresa Villiers MP
Matthew Offord MP
Mike Freer MP holds two permits
So please form an orderly queue ladies and gentlemen and hand your permits back in to Barnet Council so that you can experience for yourself the hideous administrative hoops that the typical resident or visitor to Barnet has to go through in order to manage the simple task of parking their car.
Until you do this you will be out of touch with the man or woman in the street. Come on, don't dilly dally, if it is such a wonderful system, even a councillor or MP will be able to cope. What's keeping you?
