Brent Council - lawbreakers

 

Mr Mustard apologises for the recent dearth of blogs but he is busy earning a crust and is therefore rejecting the vast majority of requests for help with a PCN and not writing much on the blog. A few years ago the backlash against big brother cctv enforcement was felt by the government and they curtailed the widespread use of cctv to punish every perceived contravention. The law is now as set out above in the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State.

Last month a motorist came to Mr Mustard with a PCN and given the circumstances he decided to fight it. The driver had parked up for a few minutes in the taxi rank and there was no excuse, taxi ranks are for black cabs and Mr Mustard is in favour of them so please get off their ranks. However, he is even less fond of money-grubbing councils so the motorist got some help to fight the PCN and guidance about their future parking.

Here is a section of their PCN:

The camera isn't obviously sited, it is the other side of the road behind a tree, so much for the idea that cctv surveillance is to encourage compliance, this one is to maximise income.

Brent Council are still thinking about the challenge that was made a month ago, and their 56 days in which to respond are rapidly ebbing away but here it is, short, sweet and utterly devastating for the council:

The council is not empowered to issue PCNs in a taxi stand using cctv, a CEO in person must be at the location. The PCN has been issued unlawfully, please cancel it

Obviously this couldn't be a one off error, someone has authorised the installation of a camera for the purpose of issuing PCNs in what is, in fact, an illegal decision. Mr Mustard thought he had better find out how profitable the camera was so he asked some simple questions by FOI which worked well and here are the responses:

Gosh, Mr Mustard was quickly on to this, it only started on 6 March 26.

Mr Mustard has today emailed the Monitoring Officer for Brent Council whose statutory duties include ensuring that the council follows the law. Let's see how long it is before he receives a response.

Mr Mustard thinks that it would be better that instead of asking a council to police itself, when it is hungry for revenue, that an external independent Ombudsman would be more effective at controlling the rapacious instincts of councils (and private parking companies) when it comes to the issue of PCNs which are a failed system in terms of controlling parking & driving but a massive success in terms of profit making for councils to shore up their pressed finances. Over 9m council & TFL PCNs are issued in London each year, they just aren't working to prevent contraventions.

To be continued. 

 

The naughty London Borough of Waltham Forest

cute, unlike Waltham Forest council

---

Update 28 January 16.

Instead of sending me the FOI response Waltham Forest Council now expect Mr Mustard to go and fetch (like a dog, see above) his response CU127745 from a "MyAccount" that he doesn't have or want (Mr Mustard did look at setting one up but the council wanted his star sign, collar size and to know his favourite colour so he didn't complete the process) and they have clearly forgotten that they agreed to respond to him in writing i.e. by sending a letter. They could email it, that would be fine. They are back on the naughty step.

Councils everyhwere. Your duty is to send the response not to ask requestors to fetch it.

---

Update 11 January. Someone at Waltham Forest decided to accept Mr Mustard's request after all. Well done them. The council are now off the naughty step.

---

I acknowledge receipt of your request on 2 January 2016.

We are in the process of updating the procedures in regards to handling Freedom of Information requests which are not via our online portal.

I have logged your request under our reference number FOI 2016-0****.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the Council has 20 working days in which to respond to your request.  Therefore, a written response will be sent to you on or by 29 January 2016.

---

Second update: The complaint is also being dealt with. We are cooking with gas now.

We acknowledge receipt of your complaint which will be considered under Stage 1 of the Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure. This has been passed on to the appropriate Service for investigation and response.

The Council will respond to you in writing within 20 working days from the date of receipt, in accordance with our complaints procedure.

---

Original blog post

The morning started well and then Mr Mustard received the below email in response to a simple request he made on 2 January:

---

From: Wfdirect [mailto:wfdirect@walthamforest.gov.uk]
Sent: 05 January 2016 09:01
To: Mr Mustard
Subject: RE: FOI request

Dear Mr Mustard

Thank you for your email

Please note we do not accept Freedom of Information request via email.

As Waltham Forest Council are now going digital Freedom of Information and Complaints can be done via www.walthamforest.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Name Redacted by Mr Mustard
Customer Service Advisor
London Borough Of Waltham Forest

---

Steam started to come out of Mr Mustard's ears. The council must know the law, and expect you to follow parking law exactly, but think they are above it. That, or they don't know the law. Mr Mustard is unsure as to which is worse. He had seen reference on twitter to Waltham Forest refusing requests and he doesn't take no for an answer, when it should be yes. He emailed back:

---

Dear Sir/Madam

I have seen mention on twitter of the borough's wrongful refusal of perfectly valid FOI requests. I have looked at your title and decided that you are a generalist and not a specialist in this area and so my ire is not aimed at you personally. You probably don't know this but even a request on twitter could be valid so one by email certainly is. I have attached a copy of the ICO's comprehensive guidance on the subject of recognising valid requests. As it is long I have extracted the relevant part here:

My request fits with the above.

I understand why you try and straitjacket people into using (ghastly) webforms, it is because it is cheaper for you to process and administratively convenient. I find that it is quicker for me to use an email as I can automatically add my personal details, I can file the email within my own file structure (and I may not even get a copy of a webform that I complete) and can add a follow-up date. What the borough has forgotten is that it is there to serve the residents and/or other interested parties.

I have now found the relevant page on the council's website (you didn't even give me a link to the relevant page but only to the site itself thus taking up more of my time) and the page gives me no option but to apply for a 'My Account' which I have no wish to have. You cannot put such hurdles in the path of a FOI request. You also insist on being supplied with an email address and I doubt that fits with the requirements of the Equality Act as the elderly and disabled may not possess or easily have access to a computer or smartphone and may well prefer to write a letter.

You now have on your desk not only a valid FOI request on which the clock is already ticking but a complaint that you are ignoring the law. I have therefore copied in the council's monitoring officer with a request that she ensures that the borough follows the law in future.

All I require in response to my complaint is an apology for wasting my time & misleading me, and an assurance that no-one else will be mislead on this subject in the future & that requests by twitter, email, letter or other written forms will be accepted without demur.

Best regards

Mr Mustard

Mr Mustard will let you know what happens next. He is currently making a ncie cup of camomile tea and taking one of his calm tablets.

Monitoring Officer - Where did it all go wrong?

Actually it all went wrong when the Job Description was changed. This was in the time of Nick Walkley as Chief Executive, now at Haringey Council and if memory serves Mr Mustard correctly we also had, at that time, the pleasure of top level HR advice from Jacquie McGeachie who also, completely coincidentally, left us and went to consult at Haringey Council. Which of the two of them wrote the job specification Mr Mustard couldn't say, maybe someone else entirely, but Nick would have had to approve it. In the light of recent events it was a poor decision.

The below figures from DueDil (a most useful free site for company information) are to 31 December 13. The McGeachie company is now worth a mere £241 despite being previously being paid a zillion* pounds a day by Barnet Council; maybe her skills are not so valuable or sought after in 2014?

Mr Mustard's Haringey based follows will doubtless now be combing through the over £500 lists (expect payment to be disguised by use of another agency) or asking an FOI question, and checking the job description of the monitoring officer.

Here is part of the job description of the job which included the post of monitoring officer in 2011 (Mr Mustard's questions may have become vexatious in late 2012 but having information like this shows the real value that was in them) 

Fast forward to the current requirement (probably being changed as this blog is typed)

Not much specified there in the way of legal ability.

If you want to see the full job descriptions, they are here, from 2011 and here from 2013.

The immediate problem is over but what did it cost us? The answer will be in the council's March 15 Accounts which will appear in draft form in June 15.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

* Mr Mustard is prone to the occasional exaggeration. It was something in the area of £750 to £1,000 a day, nothing over generous.