Showing posts with label mistake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mistake. Show all posts

13 July 2026

Barnet Council ignore their own error

 

Miss P went to Mill Hill Broadway. She parked in bay 9499 but she paid for the wrong vehicle. She received a PCN


Mr Mustard looked at all of the photos which the 'traffic warden' had taken. He knew they weren't of Station Road, NW7 but of The Broadway at Mill Hill.


Dental Wellness of Mill Hill are visible in the background, their address is 46 The Broadway, NW7. Mr Mustard checked location 9499 on the PayByPhone App, the location was 67 The Broadway.

Mr Mustard smiled, the PCN was a dead duck.

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge, as the first challenge in response to a PCN is called.

One problem with contracting out to so-called experts is that they aren't anywhere near Barnet (APCOA have an office in Wigan) so don't know Mill Hill from Millwall. They could have checked the bay location in the same way as Mr Mustard did but that would have taken diligence, which went missing.


The rejection ignores the difficult fact about location which 100% must be accurate and focusses on the lack of payment which wasn't challenged. APCOA, the sub-contractor, knew that Mr Mustard was acting so they should also know they were merely putting off the inevitable.

As he often does when contractors go wrong Mr Mustard emailed a parking manager at Barnet Council. 

Usually the manager responds in 24 - 48 hours but not this time. Mr Mustard was content to let the process run its course.

The Notice to Owner arrived. The location had been slightly amended since the PCN was issued, which is irregular. It now said 'Station Road, NW7 , Mill Hill' but that didn't make the address correct and so the same blank denial was put forward as formal representations.

It only took 4 days and the council responded


This time the council admit their error, which is as it should be. There was no explanation as to why the same challenge was rejected at the earlier stage, it wouldn't be the need to raise money would it?

The does not set a precedent line is a waste of ink, every location the council get wrong is a good ground for cancellation.

The end. 

 


 

5 September 2024

Hell's Belz in Hackney

The double kerb marks are more prominent now

Mr & Mrs Smith (not their real name) have a young child who goes to nursery in Belz Terrace on Clapton Common. Civil enforcement officers ('traffic wardens') seem to target Belz Terrace at nursery drop off times. Thus it was that a few months ago Mr Smith was driving the family car, registered to Mrs Smith, and during the nursery drop off a PCN was issued. This is fair enough, that a PCN is issued, as it takes a few minutes to walk your child to the nursery, go in and formally hand them over to a member of staff and sign the register, and the traffic warden doesn't know where you are. All they see is a car on double yellows. Perhaps parents should have a small laminated card including the nursery logo to put in the windscreen which says 'Boarding or alighting' just as delivery drivers sometimes have ones that say 'loading'.

What you do expect, or hope for, is that Hackney Council will, when presented with relevant evidence, cancel the PCN without ado if shown adequate evidence.

Mr Mustard challenged the PCN during the 14 day discount period although he wasn't fretting about discount, he would have taken the PCN all the way to the tribunal.

The online representation system didn't offer boarding and alighting but did offer loading and unloading so Mr Mustard chose that as the nearest option and pointed out the lack of choice.

He kept the challenge simple 'The x year old child Jim Smith was being alighted to the Adjacent Nursey. This is an exemption. Please cancel the PCN.' The nursery contract was attached.

Ten days later a rejection was received. The substance follows:

There was nothing careful about Hackney's consideration. No mitigation was advanced so there was none to consider so clearly this was a template response and the council diddn't consider the evidence even though that is their exact duty. A representation isn't a comment, which would be something like 'ooh, that blue dress suits you' which clearly he didn't write. Councils are easily satisfied in their own favour.

At this point he decided to step outside of the formal process which required him to patiently sit and wait for a Notice to Owner and instead to make a complaint, which he did on 7 February.



Just before that complaint a second PCN had been issued and thus it was that 2 days after the complaint Mr Mustard found himself challenging a second PCN issued at the same location in the same circumstances. He expanded upon the challenge to make it idiot proof (it wasn't).


The response really wasn't very good.


Before Mr Mustard could do anything another email popped into his inbox, just one second later!


The next day an explanation arrived in response to Mr Mustard's complaint.


Whilst pleased with the honest admission of error Mr Mustard was concerned about the public in general and so he asked about other possible errors:

The staff at Hackney are getting used to Mr Mustard and so they know it is best to reply as Mr Mustard will see things through.


As one can't force a parking department do the right thing, as they are generally self policing, so Mr Mustard went outside their world and asked the chief auditor to consider having a look. At that point he stopped chasing as audit programmes have to be planned in advance and he had put the germ of an idea there which may bring fruit in the future. That was all he could reasonably do.


If Hackney Council write the same load of old toffee to you do please ask Mr Mustard to act for you.

The end, for now.

Having completed the blog Mr Mustard went to shred the file and found a third PCN he had forgotten about. It was raised just before his email to the Auditor and it should have led Mr Mustard to point out further errors. Here is the gist of the third rejection, written by a third council employee, who also needs retraining as it contains different errors.

Error 1: The yellow stripes on the kerb signify a ban on loading, not on parking (waiting).

Error 2: You do not have to stay with your vehicle, you cannot ask your toddler to cross the road and walk to the nursery on their own. This question was considered by the High Court in the case of Makda, a taxi driver who went looking for his passenger.

Error 3: Never mind 'future contraventions' there hasn't been a contravention.

The end, until Hackney Council issue yet another PCN.

19 September 2019

Lack of logic

The guidance booklet is not a statement of the law
The is set out above. A motorist, let's call them Frank, parks with their blue badge on a one hour single yellow line. Provided that loading is not prohibited, notified by yellow marks across the kerb and a sign plate with times (except when there are two marks together which means 24 hours) a motorist can park for up to 3 hours on a single yellow line. The reason for the clock, or disc as it is properly known, is to enable a passing traffic warden to know when you parked in order to establish if you had been there for more than 3 hours. The clock has no function if the yellow line only operates for a single hour, that is very simple logic.

Along came a traffic warden, keen as anything to issue a PCN and duly did so because the clock, which wasn't needed, was set to the wrong time. That was mistake number 1.

Frank challenged, expecting logic to take over. It didn't and the above is part of the response received. That was mistake number 2 by Barnet Council.

Frank wasn't happy so off to his MP he went. The MP duly passed the query on to Barnet Council and clearly doesn't have much logic themselves, and meekly accepted the council's assurance that the council were correct and Frank was in the wrong. Here is part of the response.

A senior officer, one would expect, looks at queries from MPs. Well if they were senior they weren't much cop as they too got it wrong. Ironically the Statutory Instrument they quoted gave the correct answer about the situation. What a pity they didn't read it. Mistake number 3. 

At this point Frank contacted Mr Mustard who thought that the answers were not logical and so he carried out some research to confirm his thinking.

It doesn't help that the booklet you get with your blue badge overstates the law although it is safer to put your clock out every time you park so that you get in the bait and so that a zealously wrong traffic warden doesn't make you one of his victims

 
Mr Mustard wrote to the parking manager and all of a sudden some proper thought was applied to the situation. To save time Mr Mustard sent the manager the relevant section of the statutory instrument


To precis for you the above regulations say that you don't need a parking clock for restrictions which do not exceed 3 hours. It took two weeks but then the PCN was cancelled and a brief apology was given. No flowers, no chocolates, no bottle of wine though.

Frank was relieved and grateful and will, on Mr Mustard's advice, display their clock every time they park even though they don't need to.

Now you blue badge holders know and so you won't meekly pay up if any council makes the same mistake as Barnet did. Simply email mrmustard@zoho.com for free help.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

15 April 2014

NSL - 700 PCN not issued as out of time

Take the bus and you won't get a PCN
Minutes of a management meeting show that at 9 April 13 there were 700 Regulation 10 PCN which had not been issued on time. If they were £110 value PCN and 50% were paid inside 14 days and 20% at full price the council will have lost income of £34,650 or 21 day's worth of savings that NSL are meant to have brought us. (A Regulation 10 PCN is when the PCN is sent by post because of a drive away or because the traffic warden was physically prevented from serving).

Civica, the software supplier, said that progression of the PCN had not been configured (correctly) so it is all down to NSL (as the process worked when Barnet Council was in charge of it).

One Barnet, it isn't working is it?

Parking is such a vital service to the reputation of the council that it is foolish to entrust it to a contractor who has no connection with the borough other than as a cash cow.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard