Objection to the failed experimental cash cow at Briardale Gardens & Pattison Rd in Childs Hill.

A popular route at rush hour, roads are there to be used.

This is Mr Mustard's objection, which he has just submitted. You have until 7 October to get yours in.

This is an experiment which is failing.

There has been plenty of time for people to get used to the new restrictions, nearly 6 months having passed since its introduction, and yet there were 433 PCNs issued for contraventions at those locations in the week ended 31 August 18.

It brings the council into disrepute to have such wholesale flouting of banned turns. The general public at large won't know that the errant motorists received a PCN apiece.

It also isn't an attractive look that the council will gather in c.£28,000 in PCN revenue in a week when what they really wanted to do was to stop motorists from using the two roads in question at certain times.

It isn't clear to me why the experiment isn't working, and I don't suppose the council has done any research into why it isn't, by, for example, joining with the police and stopping vehicles after the contravention has occurred and asking the drivers about their actions.

If we contrast these junctions with that of Barnfield Road (junction with Market Lane, HA8) where there is a no entry restriction and an enforcement camera we find that in the same week ended 31 August there were only 2 PCNs issued for breaching the No Entry restriction. Clearly the No Entry sign is accorded much greater respect by the motoring public. I note that was the preferred option of the adjoining borough, Camden Council.

Barnet's DPR shows that they did not follow the preferred option of Camden Council, which would have led to the desired effect of virtually stopping any contraventions from taking place.

In summary my objections are:

1 The experiment is a failure so should be stopped and not made into a permanent order.
2 The majority of affected residents are within the borough of Camden so their view should take priority.
3 The council have carried out no research as to why their experiment has failed.
4 A new experiment should be conducted using 'no entry' signs. These have to be 24 hours but that doesn't matter as most of the traffic will be within the banned turn times so extending the times affects far fewer motorists & cycles can still be excluded.
5 No entry signs are respected almost all of the time.

I now have a copy of what Camden Council sent to residents, since the start of the trial.

Further to our joint letter of 16 March 2018, we write to update you in relation to the trial traffic scheme that is currently in place at Briardale Gardens and Pattison Road.

As you may recall, there is agreement between Camden Council and Barnet Council that there is a traffic problem at Briardale Gardens and that action was needed to address the safety concerns, in particular for pedestrians crossing Briardale Gardens at its junction with Finchley Road.  Officers from both authorities have been working together on finding an agreeable solution and in April 2018 an experimental scheme was implemented that banned the right and left turn movements from Finchley Road into both Briardale Gardens and Pattison Road operating between 6am and 10.30am and between 3pm and 8.30pm (except for cyclists), Monday to Friday.

We are aware that since the implementation of the experimental traffic scheme the concerns amongst local residents regarding road safety, particularly on Briardale Gardens and at its junction with Finchley Road, remain and that there is a widely held view that the experimental scheme has not been sufficient in addressing these issues and only a no entry from Finchley Road into Briardale Gardens will address the concerns.  Residents of Pattison Road have also expressed concerns at the operational hours of the scheme and its impact on them accessing their home. It is noted that the volume of traffic in Briardale Gardens has reduced by up to 90%, during the restricted hours, however, traffic volumes have increased by an average of 85% during the hours between the traffic restrictions, 10.30am – 3.00pm Monday to Friday.  There continues to be a high level of non-compliance, especially in the case of Briardale Gardens. 

Since its implementation the operation of the experimental scheme has been subject to ongoing monitoring, including traffic count surveys, video surveys, levels of compliance and the feedback received during the trial period.  This information is currently being reviewed by officers and will be used to produce a monitoring report and it is anticipated that this will be available in early October. 

This technical analysis and the findings of a road safety audit will be used to inform discussions with Councillors and the authorities will jointly agree a final decision on the future of the scheme. 

We would like to thank you again for your patience in this matter and would like to assure you that we are working to bring this issue to a conclusion as soon as possible.

Armchair Auditor Objection

The council's TMO had one fault (not 4)

Mr Mustard and Mr Reasonable have been separately busy pouring over a tiny fragment of the Annual Accounts of Barnet Council and looking at the backup documents. Our work continues as we struggle with Capita to get what we are entitled to see (they are trying to fob Mr Mustard off with a draft of a contract when he is entitled to see the actual contract with anything top secret crossed out - if Mr Mustard doesn't see a contract with redacted signatures and actual dates, how does he know a contract was signed?). The struggle is well worth it as some juicy stuff is to be found if you know which stone to look under. The bloggers also look under several decoy stones!

Mr Mustard tries hard to point the external auditor Paul Hughes (of Grant Thornton) at what he sees as terrible wrongdoing but Mr Mustard has yet, despite trying 5 times last year, to get him to issue a public interest notice or apply to the Courts. Mr Hughes is currently sunning himself, is Mr Mustard's guess, as he has an out-of-office set up (one of those infuriating ones which says if your enquiry is urgent do something about it yourself as they couldn't be bothered to make sure your emails are even glanced at whilst they are away) so you can read the Objection before he does.

Dear Mr Hughes

The London Borough of Barnet

Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2014

Notice of Objection

I am told by Barnet Council that in the year ended 31 March 2014 they issued 4,827 Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) within the Saracens Event Day zone with an estimated income of £217,215 which I believe they have collected unlawfully.

I request a public interest notice as per section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 that Barnet has unlawfully derived income of £217,215.

I request you apply to the courts under section 17 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to have the income derived from the £217,215 of PCN declared as illegally derived income.

The reason why the income is illegally derived is that the Traffic Management Order did not contain a definition of what constituted an Event Day and consequently there were no days whatsoever on which a PCN could legally be issued for failure to comply with Event Day signs. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that the TMO was invalid, as it has to be contested within 6 weeks of being made and that did not happen, but on the contrary that it is valid but does not permit enforceable PCN to be issued.

The council are well aware of the deficiency as on 13 March 2014 they made TMO 2014 No. 28 in order to completely replace the defectively worded TMO 2012 No. 70.

All income from PCN issued inside the Saracens Event Day CPZ prior to 13 March 2014 should be refunded to the public.

A copy of this Notice of Objection has been sent to Mr C Naylor.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Should you still have an unpaid PCN issued inside the Saracens Zone before 22 March 14 then do feel free to get in touch with Mr Mustard as they are a doddle to defeat. Later ones might prove to be a little harder but properly approached, they too can be beaten.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 18:07

Unlike the Capita man who had left halfway through the afternoon one of Mr Hughes's staff is still hard at it in his central London office and has thanked Mr Mustard  for his objection. So polite.

Fourth Objection - Income targets

No pictures of fourth objection available so here is one of the fourth plinth

Mr Hughes chased Mr Mustard up for any further objections after number 3. 

Mr Mustard thought that the accountability worked in the opposite direction but this is Barnet where the opposite is often the case and public servants forget what the word servant means (not thinking of it in any menial sense, only as in "to serve"). Well the bloggers do provide an excellent and free service of information spreading, armchair auditing, critical friend, check and balance, democratic oversight, etc .

24 July 2013


Mr P Hughes
Grant Thornton
Melton St
London
NW1 2EP


Dear Mr Hughes

The London Borough of Barnet
Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2013
Fourth Notice of Objection

1. Unlawful PCN targets within parking enforcement contract.

I request a public interest notice as per section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 that Barnet Council has signed and sealed a parking enforcement contract with unlawful collection targets, activity levels and incentives set within that contract contrary to law.

2. Unlawfully derived income from PCNs issued

I request a public interest notice as per section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 that Barnet has unlawfully derived income from 150,150 PCNs issued with an estimated issue value of £15,122,500 for the financial year 2012/13.

I request you apply to the courts under section 17 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to have the income derived from the £15,122,500 of PCNs issued declared illegally derived income.

I will supply documentary evidence of the unlawful targets. A copy of this Notice of Objection has been sent to Mr C Naylor and to Cllr Monroe Palmer, Baron Palmer of Child's Hill, OBE, FCA. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

Whilst he was writing Mr Mustard thought he would point out the bleeding obvious in a covering email to the external auditor, and the Chief Operating Officer, Chris Naylor, that the contract is not being adhered to by NSL and in that situation perhaps it would benefit from some auditing, just in case they weren't keeping up or Mr Mustard hadn't been clear enough.

It is clear to me that this One Barnet outsourcing contract with NSL is a complete and utter fiasco. In the limited time available to me, and given the difficulties in extracting information from the council, I have only been able to touch the surface as to what is wrong with the contract. It needs auditing (internally or by a contractor) with some thoroughness in the following areas, in particular:

-     How many PATAS evidence packs have not been produced leading to an automatically cancelled PCN and not receiving the service that has been paid for.

-     How many PCN are being pursued where the Notice to Owner was issued after the 6 month cut-off date which means the PCN must be cancelled.

-     How many PCN are being pursued where formal representations have not been responded to within 56 days which means the PCN must be cancelled.

-    Have bailiffs been instructed when a contract was not in place.

-     Have the contracted deployed hours been checked and provided or a price adjustment made for any under-deployment

-    Have unqualified Civil Enforcement Officers been employed.

-    Have 90%+ of all bus lane contraventions been captured?

-     Has all money due to the council been properly accounted for.

-    How many informal representations (between the PCN and the Notice to Owner being issued) have simply been ignored.

The problem for the council is that Mr Mustard probably knows more about the workings of the appeal process (despite gvernance banning him from asking questions about parking, parking tickets or CPZs which you won't find it is possible to do under the FOI Act - but hey this is Barnet where the impossible is possible) and the things that are going wrong in parking than almost anyone else at all in Barnet so fobbing him off isn't going to be easy or sensible. Did Mr Mustard mention that in the spirit of localism he has been keeping the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP informed? no; well he has so be careful with your next steps Barnet Council as the wrath of Eric is probably best not encountered.

Of course what the auditor will say is that there aren't targets for PCNs which is sort of true but there are other targets which can only be met by issuing a certain number of PCNs so we are in a game of chase the lady.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Third objection to Accounts - natural consequence of JR judgment

Following the judgment in the High Court that Barnet Council had been fund raising from CPZ residents contrary to the law, Mr Mustard thought he had better point out to the bean counters that the official Accounts of the council would need some adjustment. Let's see if they agree.

24 July 2013



Mr P Hughes
Grant Thornton
Melton St
London
NW1 2EP



Dear Mr Hughes

The London Borough of Barnet
Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2013
Third Notice of Objection

In the judgment of Mrs Justice Lang, DBE in the parking charges judicial review and in particular paragraph 64 of the judgment which says, inter alia, "the 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge local residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue .............the Defendant's purpose...was to generate additional income.......... This purpose was not authorised under the RTRA 1984 and therefore the decision was unlawful."

The judicial review was brought to challenge the increase in car permit charges in April 11 from £40 for a first car to £100 (and other charges for 2nd & 3rd cars) and the increase in Visitor Voucher cost from £1 to £4. These increases are clearly unlawful and I would expect the subject of this objection to have already been picked up by yourself and the council and a suitable provision made to refund the unlawfully gained income. I think that the Accounts for 2011/12 will also need to be reopened and provision made for a refund in that year also.

I require you to make a report in the public interest under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. A copy of this Notice of Objection has been sent to Mr C Naylor and to Cllr Monroe Palmer, Baron Palmer of Child's Hill, OBE, FCA. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely



Mr Mustard