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

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

No sweeteners at Cafe Buzz today

This chart would not find favour with Cllr Cornelius - too complex

Mr Mustard thinks that our "leader" Richard Cornelius is a fundamentally decent human being, always scrupulously polite, but not leadership material and that he shies away from the difficult decisions as he doesn't like conflict. Mr Mustard often sends advice to Cllr Cornelius and so do a large number of other people. He will want to keep everyone happy and therein lies the problem. Perhaps he lays awake at night worrying about all the advice, suggestions and criticism he receives trying to find a way to square the circle and keep everyone happy.

Mr Mustard thinks that Cornelius will get up one morning and simply decide that he wants to pop into Cafe Buzz whilst he is passing and be welcomed rather than reviled and thus he will have to step down as leader; if you could just reverse the 2010 parking charge increases before you do so though please Mr Cornelius. 

Here is what Helen Michael of Cafe Buzz has sent him today:

Dear Mr Cornelius,

I have read your interviews with Daniel O’Brien in The Press and Nathalie O’Neill in the Times with interest

I feel that some of your comments are directed at me and that I have been publicly criticized.  I should like the opportunity to respond.

I wish to make it clear that I was nominated as the spokesperson for the traders of North Finchley.  As a woman trying to run a small business in these difficult times - difficulties compounded by your parking policy - I have my hands full trying to make a living and I could do without this distraction.

This was not a role that I sought. I am not a natural activist I just want to do something; before this parking fiasco I was not known to the Council.

After initially trying to reason with Barnet Council about the parking issue only to find that I was treated with disdain and ignored, I organized a petition and collected in excess of 13000 signatures.  I speak on behalf of all those people who went out of their way to sign the petition in direct opposition to your parking policies.  I also speak on behalf of all those traders who displayed anti parking increase posters throughout the borough.

I and the other traders feel that we are having our intelligence insulted by empty promises made by you. 

We met in Café Buzz in March for breakfast. You agreed that something had to be done about the parking issue quickly and you made it clear that the meters were not coming back.  We made a concession in relation to scratch cards on the basis that they would be introduced quickly. 

You assured us that they were being organized and would be available shortly. Well, we are now middle of August and still waiting. I and the other traders are driven to the conclusion that we are being led up the garden path.  

 As for your comments that we are a vocal minority, I find this deeply offensive. You have been invited on many occasions to walk the length of the High Road and speak to every trader, independent and multiple alike. If you had taken the trouble to do so you would have found that far from being in a minority, there is 100% view that your parking policies are having a disastrous effect on the High Road. 

You seem conveniently to have forgotten that in excess of 100 local businesses from around the borough attended a business forum meeting in January, at the Arts Depot (where you promised scratch cards).  Not one of the businesses had anything positive to say about your parking policies.  In fact some were incredulous and quite angry at your apparent indifference.  This was an opportunity for you to hear what the shopkeepers actually wanted, but you said, as you have on a number of occasions, that there was nothing you could or would do. On this, at least, you have been consistent.

You have said many times that I have led a very effective campaign and that it is this campaign that is keeping people away.  Well let me tell you that it is YOUR council’s policies that are responsible for keeping people away.  My campaign has merely been effective in raising the profile of this insensitive, undemocratic and arrogant council.

You refuse to take responsibility for the grave error of judgment which has resulted in numerous businesses going to the wall. Was nothing learnt from Councillor Coleman’s trouncing in the GLA where the electorate spoke loud and clear of its view on your parking policies?

The announcement of the paltry adjustment to the charges in the Lodge Lane car park does not begin to rectify the situation. It has been perceived for what it is – a sop.

I and my fellow traders are bemused by what is driving this insane parking policy. It is quite clear that not only has it been a complete failure in its objective to raise revenue, it has had the opposite effect. This is in addition to the devastating consequences for local traders. In case it has escaped your notice, every business that closes down represents a further loss to the local economy - and to council funds.

I have to remind myself that you are a Conservative councillor. Traditionally the Conservatives have always championed the cause of small businesses. I believe that this is still the policy at Central Office.    

I for one am aghast at the arrogance and ineptitude of a council that purports to act in the name of small businesses.  I know that your policies have driven away many core Tory voters.

Regards

Helen Michael

That is another weight loaded onto the Cornelius shoulders. How much more can they take? The sooner he resigns as leader the better for Barnet.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Brum notes

This is much more interesting than Nick's message. A canal in Brum.

From: First Team
Sent: 29 June 2012 14:59
To: AllStaff
Subject: Weekly message from the Chief Executive

I was in Birmingham for part of this week attending the Local Government Association (LGA) Conference. The overriding message of the conference was that local government faces an extended period of budget reductions and increasing demand. The LGA has set out its cross-party view on what this means and much of it will be familiar to those of you who have attended a budget briefing here in Barnet in the past couple of years.

Not all was doom and gloom although this was not an 'upbeat' conference. There seemed to be three responses which councils from across the country were exploring that go beyond the efficiency agenda we are all familiar with.

Firstly, the troubled families programme and finding new ways to ensure young people do not end up in cycles of deprivation and high demand on local services. As you know, Barnet is recognised nationally for its work in this field but, as the director of the national programme said, we have to move from small 'boutique' projects to mainstream authority. The strategic review of early intervention work needs to set its sights on delivering exactly that.

Secondly, that our growing elderly population must be seen as an opportunity. Engaging these citizens in using their skills and experience to support others delivers for the individual and for communities. Roger at the Barnet Eye was unimpressed with the grab-a-granny type sentiments being expressed here. Doubtless the message was meant to be that older people who have perhaps gone part-time can contribute to help younger people or the disadvantaged by dint of their age and experience but the use of the word "opportunity" is crass. Mr Mustard thinks that Big Society will only get us so far and one reason we pay so many taxes and charitable donations is to provide a safety net for the good of society. If one has to work less in order to volunteer more then one's income is less and thus you pay less tax and have less spare money for charity. There is a limit which might well be reached.

Finally, that councils have a key role to play in promoting the economic growth that ensure the UK economy begins to improve. The council took its first significant steps in this area, agreeing a Skills and Enterprise Action Plan last week. There is a £1million package to support local business and help young Barnet residents back into work. Of the £1m administration will swallow £120,000 and Brent X are getting £150,000 to provide retail training which they could easily fund out of the millions they must make themselves. If we go back to the year ended 31 March 2011, before Brian Coleman went wild with parking charges increases, the annual income from pay & display was £2,109,547 and so £1m put towards reducing parking charges in the High Streets could make a vast difference to local businesses and then jobs would flow without Barnet Council and their various schemes. Councils are not business experts so should leave businesses to run themselves without hundreds of committees. The council are now trying to fix the problem that they caused. Less state interference would be better. 

Guidance for businesses wishing to access the scheme is available on our new web page for business. However, I want to encourage all staff to get involved in signposting local businesses they know to the proposals as we look to significantly improve our business engagement. It would have been helpful if a link had been provided. How many businesses in Barnet do you suppose actually look at the council website?  Here is the link. There you go Nick, Mr Mustard has probably doubled the readership for you.

Nick

March against parking prices - Monday 9.30am - North Finchley

Colourful coffins are a tradition in Ghana - now coming to Finchley

North Finchley Traders are organising a protest against Barnet Council's extortionate car parking charges on Monday Morning at 10am. 

 

The traders are holding a funeral for the local High Street, together with coffin. 

 

The Master of Ceremonies will be dressed as Brian Coleman, the Councillor responsible for the parking charges.

 

For more details contact Helen Michael on 07835 133355

 

Meet at Cafe Buzz North Finchley 9.30

Barnet Council follow Grant Shapps's advice ( for once )

another dirty battle

Back on 19 November the Communities Department put out a press release about the Olympics which included the following phrase:

Local Government Minister Grant Shapps today fired the starting pistol in the race to get Britain warmed up for London 2012 and plan Street Games.

The Minister urged communities across the country to dive right into the spirit of London 2012 and host sporting events in their own neighbourhoods - before, during and after the Games. He also put the ball firmly in the court of local councils, urging them to "high jump over red tape and regulations" and make it easier for communities to come together for sack races, football tournaments and tug-of-war contests in their streets.

It looks, according to this labour party press release, like the "leader" Richard Cornelius and the Cabinet Member for Environment, Brian Coleman, have embraced this idea wholeheartedly and that a tug of war is about to start. You are meant to have eight people in a team but now that the rope has been grasped others may feel compelled to join in and an advantage may be gained by having uneven numbers. 

Mr Mustard has reported on this subject already when he wrote about the DPR that was sneaked out on 23 December and it seems the fog has not lifted.

---

News from Labour

London Borough of Barnet Labour Group

We’re on your side

Tuesday 10 January 2012

Parking charges may still go up by 5% despite u-turn

Parking charges may still go up by 5% despite an announcement that they wouldn't made by the Leader of the Council before Christmas. The Labour Group called-in the decision to increase parking charges to last night's Business Management scrutiny committee (BMOSC), where Cabinet Member, Cllr Brian Coleman refused to remove the 5% increase in parking charges from the fees and charges report. When Labour raised the announcement by the Leader of the Council in a local press article, Cllr Coleman said - "The Leader can say what he likes."

The proposal to increase parking charges will stay as part of the formal budget consultation, and a decision will be taken once the results of the consultation are known.

Labour's bid to refer back to Cabinet the decision to outsource the parking service to a private sector company was refused by the Conservative majority on the scrutiny committee, but it was still unclear where the overall responsibility will lie.

Labour’s Environment spokesperson, Cllr Kath McGuirk said: "Coleman was very gung ho, but it may all come back to bite him and he is clearly alienating many of his colleagues.

"The Leader of the Council seems to have been overuled by his own Cabinet Member - it does beg the question who is running Barnet council?

"In the meantime, local residents still have the prospect of another 5% increase in parking charges, while some Conservative councillors shamelessly continue to take up their free parking permit for being a councillor - it's disgraceful."

Notes.

1. Details of the Labour Group call-ins follow:

Cabinet Resources Report: Fees and charges for 2012/13

Called-in by: Cllr Kath McGuirk

Decision called-in: 1.1 and 1.2

Reason for call-in: To confirm whether parking charges will be going up by 5% as detailed in the report, following the announcement by the Leader in the local press that they won’t.

Objective: To refer the schedule back to Cabinet to withdraw the 5% increase in parking charges from the consultation, and the budget for next year

Cabinet Resources Report: Award of contract – parking enforcement and related services

Called-in by: Cllr K. McGuirk

Decision called-in: 1.1

Reason for call-in: To ask further questions about the location of services in Croydon, the impact on current staff, the equalities impact assessment, to ask about the TUPE Plus offer to staff, to ask about the flexibility of the contract, to ask about income levels and investment;

Objective: To refer decision back to Cabinet to reconsider the award of contract.

2. The Cabinet Resources reports can be found here .

3. Details of the Leader's u-turn on this year's parking charge hike can be found here: Barnet Today

---

sadly, lots of people are going to have a lot of time to garden this year

The winner of the sack race is a foregone conclusion. The current administration plan to gift their employees, something like 70% of them it would seem, to new employers on a free transfer, which some deft Tupe+ footwork will almost certainly end up with the employees paying the transfer fee in the form of reduced wages, increased hours or redundancy or suddenly finding you have joined East Croydon FC after being a lifelong Barnet supporter. 

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Stop Barnet Council from killing our High Streets with unreasonably high parking charges

Sign this petition please. We want shops in our High Streets. If Barnet Council kill them off it will make the borough a sterile and more dangerous place ( the more people that are out and about the safer we all are )

Link to Petition

Remember, if you see this man 

- he may look like your favourite uncle ( assuming you only have the one ) but he is the leader of the council and despite listening to a forum of annoyed shop-keepers, who are suffering, he has refused to act -

if you are a shopkeeper charge him a higher price ( if legally possible ).

If you are a motorist tell Mr Richard Cornelius, for that is he, what you think about the increased parking charges and about removing parking meters which leaves so many people disadvantaged. It is his duty to listen to the electorate. If you drive and don't have a mobile telephone or credit/debit card then tell him that.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard