Newham Council are Cheats - #4

 

Towing a car from a road in which there wasn't a restriction might not be cheating but simply rank incompetence.

Either way an innocent Mr Flacco had to go to the car pound, lend, as it happens, Newham Council £265 for 3 months, fight the PCN and generally be put through the wringer and have hours of his time wasted all whilst worrying he could be innocently out of pocket..

Removal of a vehicle is a serious step which is clearly not taken seriously enough in Newham. 

Redbridge Council - they care more about a PCN than a pedestrian

 

Another tribunal decision which Mr Mustard happened upon by chance.

 

What the adjudicator didn't point out was that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 include an exemption for stopping on a bus stop, as follows:

That is because the Adjudicator was applying obvious logic as otherwise a motorist at risk of getting a PCN might simply keep going and charge down or run over a pedestrian which is clearly stupid and dangerous. The person who refused the representation and the one who contested the Appeal (which may be one and the same person) need to take a long hard look at themselves and at the rules which are available free on line.

The trouble is that there is no real mechanism for dealing with councils who reject perfect representations. Most motorists when faced with a council rejection will pay up. Only 1% of motorists take their PCN as far as the tribunal. Thus an incentive is built into the systems for councils to lie, cheat and scheme.

Change is necessary.

The end.

Redbridge Council - don't pay 15p to park for free

 

Parking meters have been bagged over since January. One would think that removing them would be quicker than this.

The lack of a quick and easy way for drivers to obtain proof that they are within the free hour led a Mr Conlan to the tribunal. Well done, sir.

You don't have to give RingGo anything to pay nothing at all. Go into settings on the App and turn off optional SMS reminders or anything else that they charge for. The session has a countdown clock if you click through to it.

Redbridge Council have compounded their incompetence by not amending the signs. A sign which incorrectly advises you might be found to be a procedural impropriety by an independent adjudicator. The council have had 8 months to change the signs and should have planned for them in advance.

There is further hopelessness as the council plan (although not very well) to bring in the ability to use PayPoint in certain local shops but a driver wouldn't know that if he/she isn't informed by signage. It would of course be necessary to leave your vehicle in order to pay by that method, which the council will then criticise you for.

Redbridge make a bundle out of issuing PCNs to people during the 'free' hour.

The end.

Redbridge - not clear, intra vires and communicated.

The three pavement parking PCNs which were given out one after the other to three cars parked like the above one, in a road which had these signs everywhere:

have now been cancelled after the formal representations were made, the almost identical informal challenges having all been rejected based upon a misreading of the law by Redbridge Council (see previous blog). Redbridge probably finally worked out, thanks to other emails by Mr Mustard which contained complaints and his explanation of the law on signs, that if they rejected him again they would be facing him at the tribunal and as well as not being paid for the PCNs, if and when they lost, they would be out of pocket for three tribunal fees of £30 each.

Mr Mustard has been in front of a particular adjudicator who sometimes sums up the situation about PCNs as being that the contravention must be 'clear, intra vires and communicated' (intra vires = lawful by dint of having the legal power to issue the PCN). Mr Mustard tries to learn from what adjudicators have to say.

Here is what Redbridge had to say after having right royally messed up.

The first sentence should read 'that was affixed'.

No information as to when the consultation was carried out, how and when the residents of this particular road were consulted, if and when they were notified of the outcome, whether cyclists were consulted as cars are allowed to park in the cycle lane, and how drivers were told that the tarmac area was the extent of the section to park (in). An entire paragraph saying nothing of real use or relevance. What Redbridge haven't explained is how a driver knew, by signs, that he/she had to confine their wheels to the tarmac. Drivers from other boroughs would have no idea this was the council policy and only the most observant residents of Redbridge might work it out.

Mr Mustard had already explained to Redbridge Council that the sign means that all of a vehicle except for two wheels are allowed to be over the pavement. If a pavement is too narrow to allow for most of a car to be parked on the pavement then, following the council's own policy about free space for pedestrians, they shouldn't have allowed pavement parking at that location. Not everyone will know that RTA stands for Road Traffic Accident. Mr Mustard feels sure the council would disclaim liability for any accident regardless of how far a car was on the pavement.

The decision to cancel was really forced upon Redbridge as they were wrong. Note the complete lack of contrition or apology for having wrongly trained their traffic wardens and for wrongly having rejected perfectly valid informal challenges and for having put three law abiding residents through three months of worry.

Note also the defiance and the pre-judging of future PCNs 'which will not be cancelled' - that all depends upon Redbridge painting legally valid lines and erecting matching signs (don't hold your breath). In addition, enforcement authorities such as Redbridge aren't meant to pre-judge the outcome of a representation against a PCN, they are meant to judge it on its merits and without any thought to the income which derives from it. Redbridge Council don't appear to hold the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State in high regard in this respect.

Drivers everywhere, the ones who have to visit Redbridge, Mr Mustard should have made your life simpler as Redbridge will now make it crystal clear where pavement parking is to be allowed.

Mr Mustard thinks Redbridge Council may well feature in the blog again in the future if pavement parking is a measure of their (in)competence.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Capita - not at all helpful

A minor gripe is that Capita left part of the postcode off their address.

The rest of the letter isn't of much use either.

The 2018 statement was wrong so must be chucked away.

The 2019 statement didn't arrive.

What is the recipient to decide upon receipt of this letter? nothing, as there aren't any figures with it.

What should it have contained?

A statement as at the date of normal pension age (NPA).

A list of the possible options.

A request for your bank details so that the arrears can be paid asap.

A calculation of the compensation which will be paid to the pensioner for not paying them for up to 2 years.

The letter as it stands merely tells you they messed up and then wants the pensioner to make the running.

Mr Mustard's advice.

Don't phone them and don't write (unless you don't do email) you'll need to complete the post code, it is DL98 1AJ

Mr Mustard would email and ask for the information that you should have been given on the NPA (normal pension age) and for the relevant facts and figures and options. You want everything in writing, phone calls can lead to disputes.

Having right royally messed up Capita should be going the extra mile to provide information & compensation to the adversely affected parties, not putting the onus on them to phone up Capita. They should be offering the affected parties individual appointments at which Capita can demonstrate that they have now got the pension records correct and explain the options available in each case.

Mr Mustard really doesn't understand why councillors don't kick out Capita given that this is just one more example in a long list of administrative incompetence. They are truly awful and yet on we trot lurching from one dreadful story to the next.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Dropped kerb - woeful rejection

A lovely dropped kerb serving just the one property (you can't park across a shared one)

One of the residents of this property received a PCN for being parked adjacent to a verge lowered to meet the carriageway. She was upset by it and accordingly she wrote to the council pointing out the lack of PCNs despite 30 years of parking this way and that she was the resident and did not request any enforcement. She expected there would be a rapid cancellation. No such luck. Here was the response she received.

Rule 243 of the Highway Code isn't a statement of the law, just some not very exact guidance. What the council forgot to say was that the 2003 Act which they quoted has a caveat, that an occupier of the premises must request enforcement, which had not been requested. The CEO (traffic warden) had gone native. (A white line across the drop means nothing legally, it is just a hint there is a dropped kerb. A double yellow means you can't park across your own drive & a single yellow that you can't park on the line when it is in operation which may be the cpz hours if you live within one - be careful).

Luckily at this juncture a friend suggested she contact Mr Mustard and once the Notice to owner was received it was Mr Mustard who made the formal representations. They were the same as the lady in question had made some weeks previously. This time the response was exactly opposite to the previous one, a no had magically become yes.

The lady in question correctly pointed out to Mr Mustard how she could have been out of pocket in this case, if she had believed what the council said first of all.

You are right - they have cancelled the parking ticket.

I cannot thank you enough.

The fact I said all the same in my original response except I did not know the specific Act and legislation yet they declined my appeal makes me really mad.

If I hadn’t been recommended to you - I would have ended up paying £110 or more if it went to court I am outraged and relieved at the same time.

Thank you so so much.

I am going to make a donation to North London Hospice today as agreed for my appreciation for all your help.

Mr Mustard has noticed a fall in the quality standard of written correspondence this year and a complete lack of understanding of parking law. This seems to have happened at the same time as NSL moved the back office work, undertaken under contract for Barnet Council, to their office in Dingwall, presumably because the staff are cheaper up there. Cheaper isn't better.

If you think the council are wrong, research on the Internet, and if you are sure of your ground, fight them to the end. Barnet Council write a lot of words which are utter nonsense.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Pay but get PCN; valid challenge gets refused!

What, you are wondering, has Ski Sunday got to do with a PCN? 

It is that service is going downhill fast.

Mr Mustard's client, let us call her Miss R, parked her car near to her place of work and immediately paid for her parking at the correct location, which she knows well, and for the correct car (she may in fact only have the one). The payment was made at 08:34. The location being North Finchley, where the traffic wardens hunt in packs as their base is just up the road, a traffic warden clocked her car the moment she arrived. He/she checked for payment which of course takes about a minute after parking (you must not try to pay whilst still driving along). He/she then waited until 08:39 and issued a PCN for non-payment. Mr Mustard thinks they forgot to check for a payment at the end of the 5 minute observation period in their haste to clock up another PCN towards the non-existent target (something makes them really keen to issue PCNs).

Having found the PCN when she went to use her car a bit later, Miss R thought she wouldn't trouble Mr Mustard with such an easy challenge, she would make it herself. She duly did so and the council denied that any payment had been made for that car that day which is odd as Mr Mustard could see the payment in her on line account.

Mr Mustard therefore intervened and sent a complaint to parking management, who know that Mr Mustard is always serious and almost always correct, and has heard back very swiftly today (the complaint was only made on Saturday) and the PCN has been cancelled.

This response nails the lie that payments made to PayByPhone appear instantly on the hand held equipment of the traffic warden.

Whilst that is a quick and sincere apology, one small part of Mr Mustard's email did not, as per usual, get responded to. It read:

NSL back office have incorrectly stated that no payments were made that day. Motorists really shouldn't have to suffer two errors on one ticket, it is stressful, exasperating, wastes their time and costs them a £25 charity donation for my help.

The council really should compensate motorists when they have got it so wrong. You don't let motorists made even one teensy weensy parking error without expecting to extract a penalty of £60 or £110.

The blog for the last few entries has highlighted one cock-up after another. There is another good (bad) one (two) coming shortly.

How much should motorists have to put up with?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard