Barnet Council - bizarre

 

This wasn't one of Mr Mustard's cases and he directs your attention to paragraph 5. As the council (via their agents) use a lot of standard paragraphs instead of writing letters from scratch and as they are printed remotely the staff don't get to see the totality of what they have produced i.e. it is signed remotely and electronically. Thus glaring errors slip through the net as this one did.

Even if a contravention occurred you may win on technical grounds such as these and you should especially give the tribunal a go once the discount has been lost for any reason.

No-one should receive a bizarre letter from a council. 

Barnet Council spout nonsense

Mr Mustard reads a lot of tribunal decisions, usually about 300 a month (sat in bed with his ipad and a cup of tea in the morning, bliss). He missed this one though and a vigilant reader brought it to his attention.

Adjudicators, being trained lawyers of at least 3 years call (qualified working time) tend to employ intelligent & indirect criticism. The most critical phrase Mr Mustard had seen up until now was 'This is an astounding decision' which was in relation to car drivers being expected to check the internet to see if there was a rugby match taking place that day rather than being notified by signs. Mr Mustard simply hasn't seen such a direct slap around the face with a wet cod nor such a warning to never say something again nor the use of the word 'nonsense' which leaves so little doubt about the concern for legality and procedural fairness in the mind of the adjudicator.

What worries Mr Mustard is that this is unlikely to be a one off event. Other people may have taken the council at their word, which we all should be able to do, but which Mr Mustard never accepts without verification, and paid the PCN for a car which was not theirs, an absolute miscarriage of justice.

Mr Mustard has noticed over the years that Barnet Council are more stubborn than most councils when it comes to accepting that cloning has taken place and it does happen a lot. When Mr Mustard gets a cloning case it is often the case that the car will incur penalties in more than one borough and drive away without paying for fuel. Other local authorities have proven themselves to be impartial and objective when it comes to accepting that cloning has taken place, not to Barnet Council, who insist motorists go to the tribunal even when faced with evidence from the DVLA, police and other authorities who have cancelled their PCNs. Mr Mustard doesn't know why they are stubborn in this area.

The above extract of a tribunal decision (number 2170150147 for experts who want to know) contains an important principle, the council have to prove that it is your vehicle. The registration plate does not make it your vehicle, just a vehicle bearing the number plate that has been allocated to a particular metal box. Best produce everything to the tribunal though that shows it isn't, starting with a 'spot the difference' set of photographs and prove you have told the police or DVLA of the cloning. When you tell the police they stick the number plates into their vehicles of interest database and keep stopping cars with that plate until they catch the rogue one.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The Flying Car comes to Barnet

I don't think so

The evidence packs that Barnet Council / NSL submit to London Tribunals for consideration by an independent adjudicator usually contain a site map.

One particular adjudicator hates Barnet's evidence as it is such evident nonsense, like the above photograph showing where my client was parked. What this evidence does is then cast doubt upon the rest of the council's evidence.

Mr Mustard's client doesn't always manage to park very well but he hasn't yet managed to park half way up a lamp post.

There isn't a PCN contravention code for parking in mid air.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

incompreheNSibLe

Here is another example of the standard letter PD07. The trouble with standard letters is that you have to fit the motorist into a square hole and they might be a round peg. An off the shelf solution to what is a custom made question. It will not work all the time. 

click to enlarge, back to return

Mr Mustard's comments, which follow the numbers down the side of the letter.

1. It is not a Notice, it is a letter.

2. The first redaction is the date in the format dd/mm/yyyy hh/mm/ss.  The second redaction is the vehicle registration plate and the third is the location with the cpz zone in brackets after the road name. The words "issued on" should appear before the date and the time is not needed especially the seconds. It would be better if the contravention description was placed in speech marks. I think something is also missing after "which was received" maybe the phrase "on dd/mm/yyyy". 

3. This is probably the case for every single parking ticket (PCN)

4. I don't think a negative can show anywhere. "A payment did not show on the handheld equipment of the civil enforcement officer" would be better wording although the sentence is probably superfluous and could be cut.

5. Almost correct except that there are 2 signs. The first one gives the times of the bay and the options for payment and the second sign probably on the other side of the pole gives detailed instructions.

6. This looks like a whopping great big lie. This ticket relates to one of the North Finchley parking swoop tickets when all the signs where changed one morning and simultaneously a gang of traffic wardens arrived and gave tickets to every motorist who had parked quite properly and was then faced with changed circumstances i.e. a blacked out sign turned into a new sign whilst they were away from their car. Can any trader in North Finchley tell him if signs had been up for weeks saying that other signs were to be replaced? (One trader has already confirmed that there were no such signs). 

Mr Mustard is himself a regular visitor to North Finchley. Two points from this. 

Firstly, why does it take weeks to change a sign when the council has a sign workshop? 

Secondly, what is a motorist expected to do, hang around waiting for the sign to be changed? If you receive this sentence in a letter write back and demand to see the evidence.

7. Irrelevant.

8. ditto.

9. Note the reference to a "letter" which was a "Notice" on the first page.

Now for more seeds of confusion to be sown. The PCN was issued on 11/9/12. So 28 days later is 9 October. 14 days after this "letter" is 12 October. So you can either pay £60 by 9 October or £30 by 12 October. Ridiculous. Which would you pay?

The letter/Notice says that the Notice to Owner will be issued 28 days after the PCN. That is 9 October. The motorist does not have it yet. The reason, which is not mentioned in the letter, is that after an informal challenge has been received the 28 days have to start again so this letter/Notice is just plain wrong.

This is what you get under One Barnet outsourcing. Firms like NSL Ltd who plainly don't know what they are doing and in trying to provide a service for less money provide a worse one than the council's own staff used to.

It is your name on these letters Barnet Council. You get the brickbats. You need to start sorting out the NSL back office; prior to 1 May, the council back office worked.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard