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.

Pay-by-phone put to proof at PATAS

what we want, meters that take coins & cards

Pay-by-phone parking has been controversial since it became, in effect, the only way to pay (vouchers and paypoint are not fast enough). Before then, when offered as a choice, it was OK. Cash is a universal medium which it should still be possible to use at the point of parking i.e. in a meter.

The following case from PATAS the home of the independent adjudicator shows that it is worthwhile for you to put the council to prove as to how pay-by-phone should have worked and how it was explained to you. You can appeal on the grounds that the instructions were not clear or not available to you at the parking place. Make the council prove their case. This one is reference number 2130000659. Just before the hearing at PATAS, at least 3 working days before your hearing date, the council has to send its evidence to you and to PATAS. If you have put the instructions for payment into question then the council should prove the rules and the signs. If they don't put that into the evidence pack you can send and email to PATAS adding this absence as a further argument to your case. The more arguments you put forward the more likely you are to win.

The appellant attended the hearing before me. He reiterated the statements made in his representations and Notice of Appeal. Basically he claims that payment of the parking charge was made and so he denies the contravention. He admits that he was subsequently made aware that the payment had been made in respect of his wife's vehicle and not his vehicle. He has detailed the steps taken upon parking in order to make the payment.

The Authority has produced a copy of Penalty Charge Notice, as well as the contemporaneous notes recorded by the civil enforcement officer.

The appellant basically claims the information given on the pay by phone system is not clear, he states that his wife was asked by a recorded message whether she wanted to use "the account", he said that she assumed this referred to something akin to a payment account and not to the vehicle registration mark. He said that at no point in the process was his wife informed of the vehicle registration mark against which payment was being taken.

The Authority is under a duty Regulation 18 (1) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England & Wales) Regulations 1996 to ensure that the motorist is given adequate information as to what is required in order to comply with the restrictions.

The Authority has not produced any evidence as to the instructions given to motorists wishing to use the pay by phone system. The Authority has produced no evidence as to the steps the motorist should have taken in order to pay by phone for this vehicle as opposed to the other vehicle. The Authority has produced no evidence to show whether there are any written instructions on a sign plate informing the motorist of what he is required to do in order to pay by phone. On the evidence I cannot be satisfied that at the time of payment motorists are clearly informed that the payment made is being registered in respect of a particular vehicle registration mark. The burden is on the Authority to show that they have complied with their obligation under Regulation 18.

I allow the appeal.

Dealing with an appeal to PATAS is not hard. Their appeal form is simple and you will have already advanced your arguments to the council. All you need to do is summarise them, Mr Musatrd likes to put in numbered lists if there are several points of appeal, and refer to the documents so as to make it simple for the adjudicator to follow. When you get the evidence pack from the council go through it and see if anything is missing or wrong and bring that to the attention of PATAS straightaway (no need to tell the council). You can email them.

You have nothing to lose by appealing. If you win that is it (the council can ask for a review but that is very rare) and if you lose you can ask for a review if the adjudicator has missed something or you can take it on the chin and you get 28 days to pay the original charge of £60, £110 or £130.

Mr Mustard is writing a guide to appealing and will release it in stages as it progresses.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard 

Kiss me Quick - then Squeeze me slow

Mr Mustard talks to traffic wardens when he sees them out and about. Some run a mile and others shake his hand. He remarked on the new woolly hat that one of them was wearing for his winter duties and then, whilst thinking about the changes to parking charges over the 25 years during which Mr Mustard has had his office in Barnet, and his home for 19, he realised that Barnet Council have been slowly squeezing the life out of high streets and so a summer uniform hat sprang to his mind.

Do take a photo if you see a traffic warden wearing one next summer.

It is the role of a council to support its High Streets. The council manage many of the factors which dictate the success or failure of high streets chief among which is parking (both cost and method of payment). A shopkeeper could have fabulous bargains and an immaculately presented shop but if no-one is walking along the pavement then they are not going to step inside. The internet has taken some of the trade but not the cup of tea trade and for that people need to be easily able to park at reasonable rates (or even for nothing). 

Whilst he was searching for something else (on crossovers it was, he is still looking for that!) Mr Mustard came across the figures for the Special Parking Account for the year ended 31 March 2002. Great he thought, what a wonderful comparison that will make with 2012. Now Mr Mustard always tries to be objective, in which case any comparison has to take account of inflation and population growth. On to the Office for National Statistics he went and found indices of 174.5 from 2002 and 240.8 from 2012. That gives an inflation factor in the decade of 1.38. Mr Mustard took an educated guess at population growth and went for 10% although it was probably a point or two lower than that. Add .1 to 1.38 and you should have increased income of 48% if the council have kept a level playing field (one they haven't sold off of course). Here are the figures.

Parking income				Above
				inflation
	Actual	Adjusted	Actual	Increase
Item	March 02	March 02	March 12	%
Parking tickets	2,584,507	3,825,070	7,090,785	85%
Permits	211,290	312,709	1,228,592	293%
Paid for parking	1,021,678	1,512,083	3,793,484	151%
Costs	2,020,075	2,989,711	6,050,320	102%
Surplus	1,797,400	2,660,152	6,062,541	128%
Bus Lanes	0	estimated	1,200,000

Just to make sure you follow the numbers. If Barnet Council had been even-handed they would "only" collect £3.8 million this year from penalty charge notices (parking tickets to you and me). Instead they will rake in £7 million. This is what is squeezing the life out of the High Street. The council have upped the ticket issue rate, probably by employing more traffic wardens (to use their old familiar name) who are also more eager to dish out tickets due to the pressure they are placed under (Mr Mustard does not blame the wardens although he would rather they didn't cheat). Barnet Council are taking an extra £3.2 million out of the pockets of motorists which could go into the tills of local traders and make our High Streets more vibrant. 

The solution is to decrease the number of traffic wardens from the current 50 or so (does North Finchley really need 5 who seem to station themselves outside Cafe Buzz? - and Mr Mustard is often inside watching!) and reduce their number pro-rata down to 27 and then the same level of parking ticket income would be achieved.

Now it is when we get to permits that the real steal has occurred and it was one of the reasons why Mr Mustard started blogging. Prices have almost been trebled in real terms. This is a consequence of Mr Mustard's annual permit increasing steadily in price from £20 to £40 to £100 and also due to the cost of business permits being hiked. We are being right royally ripped off. 

The solution is easy. Go back to £40 for the first permit. There is no administrative justification for it to cost more. The CPZ was sold to us in about 1998 on the basis that it would only cover its costs. Poppycock. (Mr Mustard remembers an A4 card covered glossy brochure with a fold-out map being produced for the Chipping Barnet zone. If you are a hoarder please hunt it out as Mr Mustard would like to have a copy for proof of the basis of the introduction of the CPZ.)

Paid for parking has seen another increase of 151% above inflation. I do hope that Cllr Dean Cohen is not going to have another little tinker with pricing like Cllr Richard Cornelius did before him. It is not enough, it is not equitable and Mr Mustard is sending his findings to Uncle Eric (really The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP and not Mr Mustard's real uncle). To get back to parity the hourly rate should be 80p. Then once you have done that Mr Mustard will ask you what you have done Dean to actually help the High St because at 80p an hour the answer will be nothing, you will neither have helped nor hindered. Being a Cabinet member is going to get very pressurised for you.

Costs have doubled above the rate of inflation. They have increased faster than the parking tickets can be issued which simply shows that as the number of tickets increases the willingness to pay them diminishes. The administrative cost of issuing permits are unrelated to permit face values so the costs must all be to do with parking tickets. If the number of parking tickets was decreased then the number of back office staff could also be decreased; they might even have time to read your letters, the ones where you advance perfectly valid reasons that any compassionate person would accept.

As to the surplus which in any other situation would be called profit that has more than doubled, if you want any proof then it is here, from the surplus that you can see, that over the last decade the motorist has simply been used as a cash cow. Profit has gone from less than £3 million to over £6 million.

Bus lane income didn't exist in 2002 but it has been shown as part of the cost relates to that new revenue stream. Over a £1 million from one little stretch of road. Just stay out of the bus lane and stay out of trouble.

Vexation

Now here, whilst Mr Mustard is writing, is a funny thing.

On 1 October he asked for a breakdown of the income streams and costs of the Special Parking Account (SPA). His request was rejected on 16 October 20102 as being vexatious. Mr Mustard now has a score (that's 20 to you) of emails which say that his last 20 questions are vexatious.

By coincidence another person asked on 1 October for details of the Special Parking Account, and other information.

On 29 October they received their reply about the SPA without any mention of their request being vexatious.

Mr Mustard is starting to think that it is him who is considered as vexatious and not the question as otherwise why was his question refused and the other one answered. Not because he is a blogger surely, as that would be contrary to the FOI Act.

Conclusion

The conclusion that Mr Mustard draws is that we don't need income from car parking. If all pay by phone bays (except car parks where it makes sense) were converted into 30, 60, 120 and 240 minutes free bays there would be no need to install parking meters and motorists would be easily able to come and go from town centres and they would thrive. As the majority of the income comes from parking contraventions they would continue as before and more people in town centres = more scope for tickets to be issued.

So forget the £2 per hour, make all on-street parking free and then only those guilty of an offence will have to pay and shoppers will return in their hordes to the High St.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard