Will or May

The will/may argument had been a useful safety net for Mr Mustard but no longer

About a year ago Mr Mustard picked a useful argument up from somewhere, probably an appeal decision that he had read, to the effect that Barnet Council were wrong to use the word 'will' in their Notice of Rejection of Representations, rather than the word 'may', as allowed for in the legislation. On such little differences the outcome of a PCN can depend, as the meaning of the words differ greatly.

For all that time Barnet Council have insisted that the word 'will' was substantially compliant and some adjudicators did agree with them but more didn't and Mr Mustard could lose on the parking grounds but then win on the technicality.

This is what the Notice of Rejection used to look like:

and this is a typical decision made by an independent adjudicator, whose job is, of course, to apply the law, in case 2160097842:

So if you already have a Notice of Rejection in your possession and you may even have already lodged an Appeal at London Tribunals (they used to be called PATAS) and if your Notice of Rejection also contains the offending word 'will', then you may as well add the extra point of appeal to your case as it may save you from having to pay out funds.

After resisting for a year Barnet Council bowed to the inevitable and changed the word (they will say the old word was not wrong and they have only changed as a precautionary measure. Mr Mustard will find other arguments of general assistance & tends not to rely only on his safety net in any event). The Notice of Rejection, since early June?, now looks like this:

You can't, sadly, go back over previous PCN and demand a refund as once paid, they cannot be reopened.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Outsourcing to snake oil salesmen

A council is obliged, under the Equality Act, to make due allowance for the disabled. It (well its contractor NSL probably) couldn't give a fig, based upon the following paragraphs from a letter sent to a motorist which is now the subject of a complaint to the Chief Executive. Parking also has to reflect real life.

It is nearly always the opinion of NSL / Barnet Council that a PCN is valid but that doesn't mean it will survive a close scrutiny by Mr Mustard. The blue badge clock does not have to be displayed in a residents bay, that is a howler as one can park for an unlimited time in such a bay.

If the driver is on their own in a car and visiting, say, a disabled relative who cannot walk as far as the car then there is no choice for the driver but to leave their car in order to obtain the blue badge before helping the disabled person to board the vehicle. There is nothing in the law which supports the council's letter (which many people would take as, and should be, 100% accurate).

Don't just take Mr Mustard's word for it. Take that of Mr Hugh Cooper, a lawyer, who sits as an adjudicator on PCNs. Mr Mustard always finds him to be logical and thorough (the last argument took the unusually long time of 1h 10m with both parties quite enjoying the battle - Mr Mustard did prevail on that occasion) and this is what Mr Cooper had to say in PATAS case 2140052218 which did concern Barnet Council back in December 2013 (they have a short memory).

Mrs V does not dispute that her car was parked in this parking bay without displaying a permit. However she has maintained from the outset that she came to visit a resident in the street, and only left the car without a permit for the time it took to go to her house, obtain and complete a visitor's voucher and return to the car, a process she estimates as taking about 3 minutes. She points out that the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after only one minute's observation, and suggests that he/she must have actually seen her leave the car. Mrs V has now produced a letter from the occupier which confirms her account.

The Enforcement Authority have insisted throughout that a permit or voucher must be displayed from the moment the car is parked in such a bay, and that no period of grace is allowed. Mrs V contends, by contrast, that it is not possible for a visitor to a resident to have a visitor's voucher already in her possession; it is necessary to go to the resident's house to obtain it, and so a short time must be allowed for this to be done.

I am perplexed by the Authority's stance in this case. It is self-evident that a reasonable period must be allowed for a visitor to obtain and complete a visitor's voucher from a resident, for the reasons Mrs V has clearly set out. Had the CEO observed the vehicle for, say, five or more minutes, then it would have been reasonable to assume that the owner was not obtaining a visitor's voucher, but by allowing only one minute that assumption could not be safely made. In this case I am satisfied that it was in fact wrongly made. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, and so I allow this appeal.

[I would respectfully suggest that the Authority give some thought to the instructions they give to their CEOs and to their decision-makers in relation to this issue.]

That final sentence is the usual under-stated way in which a lawyer slaps you round the face with a wet fish. Clearly the council (NSL?) have taken no notice of this decision and should Mr Mustard find himself, on the instant PCN, in front of an adjudicator with the identical argument he will be pointing out the earlier decision and suggesting that costs for wholly unreasonable behaviour are the order of the day. Something tells Mr Mustard that the case will not now get that far.

Will, though, NSL stop writing such misleading letters is his first question. His second question, now that dealing with representations is moving in-house is, will the in-house team be properly trained?

The other point is that an observation period should have been added for code 12 contraventions. It has not been. PCN are issued instantly and that is unfair.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Santander Cycles put a spoke through Mr Mustard's wheel

£34 for <30 minutes - avoid this bike.

Mr Mustard decided as he was carrying a "few extra pounds" that it was high time he started to use "Boris Bikes" when in London rather than change tube line. This coincided with the move of PATAS from Angel to the Chancery Lane area (and a change of name to London Tribunals) and Mr Mustard now has a pleasant ride from Euston to Chancery Lane. The traffic isn't a problem as there are a number of quiet or pedestrianised roads and some cycle lanes to use.

The usual problem isn't the traffic but finding a bike to hire near Euston and then finding an empty space to use in Chancery Lane as commuters clearly have the same idea as Mr Mustard and beat him to the stock.

On Wednesday Mr Mustard came out of Euston at about 9.30 and decided to try Drummond St first (you can get good cheap vegetarian curries there in a number of Bhel Poori houses, if you didn't know e.g. £7.05 for a Thali) and needless to say the rack was empty. Mr Mustard started to walk towards Chancery Lane as his first Appeal hearing was at 10am and he likes to be timely. He passed another rack which was also devoid of bikes. He crossed the Euston Rd and cut through into Endsleigh Gardens and there was a solitary bike in the rack. Mr Musatrd piled his paperwork into the luggage holder and the bike moved. Mr Mustard moved the bike gently, it slip easily backwards out of the rack. Oh dear, thought Mr Mustard, the previous hirer is going to get a charge for an unterminated journey at £4 per hour. Mr Mustard docked the bike, it went in and stayed in (this was a mistake of sorts as Mr Mustard could have ridden the bike for free, but would not that). Mr Mustard then inserted his key and removed the bike and cycled happily down to Chancery Lane where the rack he was going to dock it had been taken out of service. Mr Mustard cycled aimlessly in circles until he found a single space just off Lincoln's Inn Fields. Mr Mustard shoved the bike in, one must do this fairly firmly, the bike locked in but there was no green docking light. Mr Mustard then, being a careful man and distrustful of authority, took the following photograph of the bike, duly docked.

Mr Mustard got to London Tribunals just in time at 10am to find that the computer had decided to crash and no hearings could take place. The adjudicator came out to chat to him, and several others also exchanged a few words as Mr Mustard is a well known representative, and after sitting around for a while it was agreed that Mr Mustard would go off to the Supreme Court to listen to the Barry Beavis & the other case on penalties being heard at the same time, and return at 4pm unless the tribunal rang him at 3.30 to say otherwise. (London Tribunals are always administratively helpful). Mr Mustard decided to pedal down to Parliament Square. His key was rejected in a number of bikes so at 11:23 he rang the number on the key. Mr Mustard was told he had failed to return his other bike. No I haven't said Mr Mustard and in fact it is only 5 minutes away so can prove if it is still docked.

Mr Mustard took this photograph of the still docked bike at 11:35

TfL were also sending a street based employee to check where the bike was. Mr Mustard hung around for a while but they didn't show.

Mr Mustard then took the tube from Temple to Parliament Square, watched the proceedings until lunch at 13:00 (he will be on cctv inside the Supreme Court), walked up to John Lewis in Oxford St, and back, to buy a clean shirt (at 13:43) as it was a hot day, and then returned to Chancery Lane via Temple tube.

Mr Mustard doesn't do plain

Mr Mustard then argued his 4 Appeals and won 3 of them. He is slipping!

Here is even more proof that Mr Mustard was elsewhere during the day.

Mr Mustard is always a busy boy.

This does show you that Boris Bikes at £2 for the day and then free (except in this case) for up to 30 minutes are better value than the tube in central London as 2 stops are £2.30

Mr Mustard put a claim in for the refund of the £34 charged to his account and is awaiting the outcome.

The phone app shows that the journey finished at 18:21 How did the person who obtained the cycle where Mr Mustard had docked it, just off Lincoln's Inn Fields, not cause the previous journey to be terminated at that point? Perhaps the bike had worked itself loose again? It truly is the Harry Houdini of Boris Bikes and evidently faulty. Also at 18:21 Mr Mustard was clearly on the Central Line. Did he recklessly leave an unlocked Boris Bike lounging about all day? No.

Mr Mustard will let you know if and when he gets his £34 back.

If you have any doubt about docking your bike, and the docking or faulty bike button does not work phone up the number on your key at that very moment so that the fact of the equipment failure, which is not your fault, is recorded in real time.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update Sunday 2 August

TFL/Santander have emailed to say that £34 is being returned to Mr Mustard's account. He continues to photograph his cycle every single time that he returns it.

The Friday Joke - Capita

Customer - the model of efficiency

The adjudicators at PATAS vary greatly in their approach but one is, despite decades of parking ticket minutiae, always ready for some dry humour, indeed on finding Mr Mustard in the reception area recently he said "Good morning, I see you are here to amuse us again, Mr Mustard*" and now here he is returning the compliment (Mr Mustard is actually deadly serious with his appeals but also tries to keep it light, although there is always that tingle of nervous anticipation as he can't tell which way an adjudicator will think on a particular case, they often come at him from left field, although they nearly always end up in the same goal)

*Mr Mustard's real name was used by the adjudicator. Mr Mustard always calls them Sir or Madam, as the case may be, as those are the rules of the tribunal. Nor does one try to shake hands on meeting.

---

The Appellant's vehicle was parked in a restricted street displaying a badge that had expired and a fairly detailed note explaining that the badge was in the process of being renewed. Despite that note I would not criticise the CEO for issuing the PCN (as motorists cannot write themselves exemptions from parking restrictions).

However it transpires that the reason there was no valid badge on display is that the Council's agents Capita, had failed to issue him with one at the proper time. Having heard the Appellant in person in detail there is no doubt at all that the sorry history of his attempt to renew the badge in very good time is correct; and that his request to Capita for the required renewal forms was, as he was informed by Capita when chasing the matter, "lost in the system". When the forms were eventually received on a Saturday morning, he completed them and put them in the post that same morning.

It appears that Capita could learn something from the Appellant's efficiency.

The Council states that the Appellant should have applied for a temporary dispensation. He was never informed of this by the Council when he made his initial renewal enquiry or at any subsequent stage by the Council's agents Capita. All he was told to do was to display a note, which he did.

In my judgement in these circumstances the law follows common sense and does not allow a Council to enforce a penalty for a contravention which occurred entirely as a result of its own failings (Capita being the agent of the Council for these purposes). Allowing it to do so would be the equivalent of an abuse of process and in these circumstances no contravention can be said to have occurred (see the dicta in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 Admin [2011]EWCA Civ 905)

  

The Appeal is therefore allowed. (i.e. the PCN is cancelled)

The Appellant has shown to me today a charge certificate issued in respect of a very similar case, and where he never received a Notice to Owner. He has of course the right to follow the statutory procedures to set this aside. I am not seized of that matter today. However if it is the case that the situation in that case is indeed identical, the Council might be well advised to cancel that PCN without further ado, since if the matter ever came to appeal it might well find itself at risk of an order for costs on the Appeal being allowed.

---

The adjudicator is a solicitor or a barrister. They tend to talk in code but make no mistake about that last sentence, the adjudicator is steaming mad and will make the council pay for their stupidity if they continue to exhibit same. The barrier for costs is set very high "shall not normally allow" which speaks volumes in the context of this adjudication finding.

Anyway, the report amused Mr Mustard. If it brought a smile to your lips, then all well and good.

Do have a nice weekend and make sure you attend on time to any PCN paperwork.

Please also park properly as Mr Mustard currently has 75 PCN to handle and if he gets sent many more will have to give up his day job.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Camden Council FOI response sinks Camden Council PCN

So here we have it. A car, sporting a blue badge & clock, on Sunday 25 January in a pay-and-display (actually bound to also be pay-by-phone) bay that has been suspended as follows

Given that there isn't a workman in sight, on day four of the supposed works, the driver could have phoned up Camden Council on the given number (but they only answer it from 9am to 5pm from Monday to Friday so what use is that?) and asked if it was safe to park. Instead, the common sense decision was made that no harm was being done by parking there (Mr boring Mustard wouldn't have without being sure). Naturally along came a traffic warden who isn't paid to look at the situation and wonder if a PCN had any purpose other than revenue raising and after an observation period of just one minute, dished out a PCN.

Mr Mustard looked at the sign, which is in an authorised format and saw that he could argue that P&D Ref S07 was arguable as to location as he couldn't see SO7 anywhere. However he thought he would probably lose on that basis as the bay was signed along its length.

Mr Mustard first saw the PCN on Saturday 31 January 15.

On 2 February 15 he submitted a Freedom of Information request for job sheets, time sheets & invoices relating to the footway works which had supposedly been carried out.

On 5 February 15 he submitted an informal challenge to the PCN asking Camden Council to use their discretionary power to cancel the PCN as no works were apparent and so there was no traffic management purpose to the PCN.

The council's response was that a contravention had occurred so the PCN would stand. Here is part of the letter received, which often seem to Mr Mustard to have a holier than thou tone to them.

Mr Mustard suggested to his client that his magic powers were being stretched to breaking point in this case and that paying the 50% might be the best option. His client didn't have the money so opted to carry on.

On 3 March 15 the slightly late response to the FOI request arrived and the answer was

"There were no footway works carried out between 22 & 25 January in Kiddepore Avenue, NW3". Mr Mustard smiled to himself.

On 13 March the Notice to Owner was issued.

On 20 March Mr Mustard made the formal representations. They were the same as the informal challenge with the addition of the council's own FOI response to prove the absence of footway works.

On 8 April Camden Council accepted them and cancelled the PCN. The council couldn't resist though telling Mr Mustard, as if it was his car and not his client's, how wrong he had been. This sort of sanctimonious letter (who is responsible for ensuring that councils works are in progress if not the council?) does not endear motorists to councils.

The council had made a very sensible use of their discretion. Mr Mustard isn't sure that a PATAS adjudicator would have been able to cancel as legally the PCN was correct, they would have had to recommend cancellation to the council, he thinks.

The joke though is that his client could have moved the car forward by 5 metres and parked quite happily on double yellow lines for 3 hours.

Wasn't it a waste of parking bays though for Camden Council to suspend a long bay for 4 days whilst absolutely nothing was going on? Someone must have known that the works were not going ahead as planned. Not a good example of joined up government and not helpful to the residents of Camden where parking space must be at a premium.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

No compassion; no goodwill

A truly sickening state of affairs.

Here are the bare bones of the facts.

Day 1. An elderly lady (80+) parks in a 4 hour limit disabled bay, displays her blue badge and forgets to set the clock. It shows 11.00 and the PCN is issued at 15:30 for staying beyond the time allowed. The contravention is for code 30(o): Parked for longer than permitted (blue badge holder).

Day 15. The lady's husband (aged 100) dies.

Day 19. Mr Mustard files a challenge to the PCN & mentions the bereavement.

Day 24. The challenge is rejected. Mr Mustard tweets about it, the Tooting Twister is alert and the Parking Management at the council immediately email Mr Mustard for the details. They subsequently request a copy of the death certificate.

Now for some more detail and comment. Here is the gist of the challenge that Mr Mustard sent in:

Dear Sirs

I represent 80+ year old (Mrs Redacted) of (redacted address) as attached authority.

She received a PCN on 2 January 2015 for being parked longer than permitted. I cannot discern the time set on the blue badge clock and whether it is correctly set or not but even if it isn't that does not prove that the car was parked for longer than the permitted time, it only proves the time that the clock was set at.

I attach statements from the lady herself and a relative who was in the house and can confirm the departure and return times on that day such that we know that the vehicle can only have been parked for a maximum of 2 hours and 15 minutes.

I draw to your attention to the very recent death of her husband, at the age of 100, on (redacted date), and whether or not you agree with my argument I suggest and request that this PCN should be cancelled as a gesture of compassion and goodwill in any event.

Yours faithfully

It is very unusual but NSL decided upon, typed and posted their response to Mr Mustard in just 5 days. A pity they didn't stop to think for longer or refer the matter to the council (which it is thought they didn't but Mr Mustard can't be 100% on that point)

Here is the main part of it:

(proving one of the perils of outsourcing; a complete loss of control)

Mr Mustard wonders about the individual who personally signed this letter and whether they are a fit & proper person to do their job (they will have to be redeployed soon because the handling of challenges is going to be brought back into the council and not a day too soon) or whether they should perhaps do something else that doesn't require any compassion to be shown. Perhaps they are too young to have yet lost someone close to them and so don't understand about life? Certainly, some training is in order.

So officially, the council (but actually NSL and this highlights the loss of control which comes with outsourcing) don't think it appropriate to cancel a PCN for a recently bereaved person.

The NSL employee says a contravention had occurred. It had, but not the one they ticketed for. It should have been this one

and if repeated at the formal representations change the failure to consider the point of challenge would have been counted as a procedural impropriety by the PATAS adjudicator. For that reason alone the PCN should have been cancelled.

So the council sympathise with you having a bereavement of your husband of 60+ years but still want you money. The council didn't even offer the 50% reduction which they sometimes do even if you challenge more than 14 days after the PCN was issued and even sometimes when they have sent you a PATAS form. They usually offer the discount late when they feel that the council's position is weak (is Mr Mustard's feeling). They evidently didn't think so in this case.

The council are unable to issue a goodwill cancellation. Oh dear, Mr Mustard can hear adjudicators seething with annoyance at that remark and writing a decision which puts the council straight about the use oif discretion in no uncertain terms. Mr Mustard's experience is that adjudicators show compassion where it is due (even though they have to apply the law, they will try and find a justification to enable them to cancel the PCN).

The council are happy to continue with enforcement action Mr Mustard doesn't blog the words of the parking manager but reading between the lines he is not a happy bunny. The next monthly management meeting with NSL is going to be a fraught affair (predicts Mr Mustard who, despite being professionally rather busy, has piled the desk of the parking manager high with complaints this month).

Mr Mustard has been asked for a copy of the death certificate. He has in turn asked the grandson for one and then remembered that the contravention code used was the wrong one. Thus the council don't need to see the death certificate no matter how delicately they ask Mr Mustard who then has to ask the family at a time when he does not want to intrude upon their grief. The reason the council ask for the death certificate is that, apparently, lots of people lie to parking about someone having died.

The fact remains that the council have a wide discretion to cancel any PCN for any reason they like. Mr Mustard thinks they should exercise it in this case. Generally his customers tell him the truth (although he may be about to blog about a case where he wasn't - everyone gets it wrong sometimes).

Yours, sadly

Mr Mustard

p.s. Mr Mustard is offering parking management the right of reply.

Update Tuesday 24 February.

Mr Mustard produced a copy of the death certificate yesterday to satisfy parking management's requirement, even though it pained him to ask the family, and they have now cancelled the PCN which is an exercise of their discretion for which they have been thanked. Mr Mustard is still debating with them whether the PCN code used was the correct one. That argument will start again the next time that a blue badge clock isn't set by someone else.

PATAS - avoid Saturdays

If Mr Mustard's 10am Appeals are quickly over, he can be found in here, hic

Now here are some interesting statistics (or maybe not?); the success rate of motorists versus Barnet Council by day in the second half of 2014

Mr Mustard's advice is forget Saturday, just don't go to PATAS that day, take a half day off work and go on a week day as things are much more likely to be satisfactory if you do this. It won't turn a no-hope case into a racing certainty but at the margin it seems that adjudicators are more kindly disposed in the week.

Mr Mustard had 85 PATAS cases in 2014, of which 42 were in the second half of the year but of those only 26 were for Barnet and not all went to a hearing (the council might have thrown in the towel just beforehand) and so may not have been marked against Wednesday so he may not have overly distorted the Wednesday statistics. Mr Mustard likes Wednesdays as they are the day when the public hearings usually only go on until lunchtime.

Thursdays are late night opening but not that late; you'll still have time to do some shopping in the West End but this factor probably accounts for the high number of Appeals.

That just leaves Mondays to mention with the highest number of hearings when perhaps more adjudicators sit than on any other day (Mr Mustard will ask at PATAS reception next time he is there to see if that is the case).

So broadly, "any day but Saturday" should be your mantra for a personal hearing, which is better than a postal one by the way as you get a better opportunity to highlight the strong points of your case.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PCN Flowchart

Parking tickets are complicated. Mr Mustard thought he would draw up a simple flowchart of how it all worked with the PCN values and time limits. He couldn't get it all on an A4 sheet so he has had to cut down the information he is giving you for now.

This chart shows how much you have to pay for a £110 PCN in the left hand column as time passes by and you drop slowly down the chart. He has also given you some values of other PCN for other boroughs both inside and outside London to save you doing the maths.

Mr Mustard hopes this gives you an overview of where you might be in the process. He plans to draw up another chart which concentrates on time limits and ignores bailiffs as 99% of cases don't got there. He will leave PATAS in but 97% of cases don't go there either.

Having said how complicated PCN are Mr Mustard has noticed that he hasn't said what happens if you do file a Witness statement TE9. Provided it is in time (the deadline date is on the Order for Recovery) then you will either go back to the Notice to owner stage and be sent a fresh one so that you can make representations or your file will be sent to PATAS for them to decide what to do next. It is best to avoid all the rigmarole by never missing a deadline.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Bizarre PCN of the year

Mr Mustard has been consulted about the above PCN issued by Harrow Council.

The PCN is for contravention 26 "parked in a Special Enforcement Area more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place". Clearly the single yellow line was not operative at 12:58

Things you need to know:

1. The whole of Greater London is a Special Enforcement Area.

2. The contravention was designed to stop double parking.

3. If a bay for parking was painted in the middle of the road and you parked in it you couldn't be guilty of parking a long way from the kerb as you were in a Designated Parking Place.

4. The whole of the car, including the wing mirror, has to be more than 50cm from the kerb. This car clearly isn't. A PCN for parking across a dropped kerb might have been justified but a PCN cannot be issued for that now.

The informal challenge has been rejected.

Mr Mustard has now drafted the formal representations which consist of one line to the effect that the car was not 50cm from the kerb. If it is rejected then it is off to PATAS we go.

If & when this PCN reaches PATAS the Adjudicator should dismiss it in a minute or less and Mr Mustard would suggest that costs would be payable by the council for being "wholly unreasonable".

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Blue badge bother

Here is a decision from PATAS which Mr Mustard thinks will divide opinion.

Mrs Redacted states that she is aged 90 years and has Alzeimher's disease. She has a disabled badge but due to her illness she forgot to display the badge in her car. Mrs Redacted states that when she remembered that she had forgotten to put the badge in the car she returned to her car. By that time a Penalty Charge Notice had been issued. I have seen a copy of Mrs Redacted's badge.

The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the car parked in a resident's bay and a Penalty Charge Notice attached to the window of the car. There was no permit or disabled badge in the car. I find that the contravention occurred.

The onus is on a disabled badge holder to ensure that the disabled badge is displayed when it is required. Mrs Redacted forgot to put her badge in the car. I find that the contravention occurred. 

I have no jurisdiction to take into account the mitigating circumstances raised. I do not consider that the mitigation is sufficiently compelling to make any recommendation to the local authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

The job of the adjudicator at PATAS is to apply the law. The law says the badge must be on display. Other motorists please note that Mr Mustard recommends that you find additional grounds on which to take your case to PATAS.

One role of the local authority (Barnet in this case) is to exercise discretion. That usually leads them to allow one cancellation for this forgetfulness and after that the blue badge holder will find errors expensive at £110 a pop. If the blue badge holder lives within a CPZ Mr Mustard would recommend they also buy a residents permit at £40 and then they only need to use their blue badge when travelling and the blue badge will be at less risk of being stolen.

The question that none of us know the answer to is whether Mrs Redacted is fit to drive (help here). Mr Mustard dealt with a similar case where he found the driver to be forgetful as to his badge and sometimes had to search for the right word but was generally full of beans and healthy save for a problem with walking. Mr Mustard used a pretext to find the phone number of the driver's son and alert them to the possible problem. He did not feel able to intervene to any greater extent. He hasn't had a recent PCN to deal with but doubtless one will arrive now! He has to argue like crazy with this particular robust gentleman if Mr Mustard feels he should pay up (Mr Mustard likes this gentleman but must tell him the truth about his chances of success) and luckily paying up won't stop him from eating.

There is useful information on Alzeimher's here.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 10:50am

Looking back through his notes of earlier cases Mr Mustard has just noticed a second case for Mrs Redacted with the same facts in front of a different adjudicator who also found against her and there is a note on that case that the council has also cancelled a PCN for this contravention. Time to hang up Mrs Redacted's driving gloves?

Parking appeals - 8 to 20 months later

Mr Mustard is indebted to the Barnet Bugle (who is usually at interesting meetings with his camera so that important matters get recorded) for these extracts neatly edited together of last night's full council meeting. They show Cllr Alan Schneiderman asking serious supplementary questions about the PATAS parking ticket Appeal statistics for the year to March 14 and Cllr Dean Cohen vaguely promising action at some unspecified future date. Although the figures were only published last month, the council tracked them throughout the year so they shouldn't have been news to Dean and thus putting a plan in place in November 14 is rather slow work.

Mr Mustard only accounted for about 2% of the Appeals to PATAS.

Dean's replies were without substance. That isn't how the democratic process should work. Dean should have been able to say what actual steps were being taken to file evidence packs in more cases, get fewer Appeals in the first place and increase the success rate. Did he not know?

The arrival of a permanent parking manager, as opposed to a passing through interim, has seen a number of technical paperwork errors be corrected and so, as it happens, the council success rate will go up once the erroneous notices have worked their way through the system.

If you are reading Dean and want to see some PATAS cases being heard you can simply turn up there at Angel, Islington on any working day or Saturday morning (not Wednesday afternoon) and watch any hearing as a member of the public. You could see how a number of boroughs perform as against Barnet. If you want to sit in on any Appeals for which Mr Mustard is the representative do send him an email and he'll tell you when there is a good list of cases. Mr Mustard currently has 4 cases at 10am on 4 December (one against Hackney and three against Barnet) but Barnet may throw the towel in before then, as is customary, so best to check first.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Not a sign of the times

It was only in August that the Secretary of State for Transport approved a suspnded bay sign for Barnet Council. Before that they didn't have one and so every parking ticket for a suspended bay or space could be contested. Now they do have one but it doesn't look like the one above which was erected on Saturday.

Firstly that is insufficient notice. If you had gone away for a long weekend you could have been ticketed before you got back. 5 days is seen as the bare minimum for suspension except in an emergency.

This is what the sign should look like.

There is no mention in the authorisation that gaffer tape is an acceptable material.

The sign should be in 3 parts so that once folded and mounted it can be seen from both sides of the suspended section. It should really contain details of exactly what section of road is suspended (this cannot be done by the use of cones as in this instance as they tend to "walk" along the road) and there shouldn't be an advert for the surfacing contractor on the sign although there should be a telephone number to call in case of query. The sign in this case is within a residents' bay that holds a dozen cars. How much is suspended? probably only about a 5m section but you could argue it is the whole bay. We'll see what traffic wardens make of it and then NSL will get yet more representations to deal with from Mr Mustard which they will doubtless reject. No wonder Appeals to PATAS have risen so much.

The parking contractor should not be left to erect their own signs as appears to be the case here as the result of any slackness on their part is a PCN for an unsuspecting motorist.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PATAS 2013/14 - Huge increase in parking appeals

News from Labour

London Borough of Barnet Labour Group

We’re on your side

For immediate release 

1 November 2014

Huge increase in parking appeals

Figures just released by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) show that the number of appeals against parking tickets issued by Barnet Council has risen by 45% and is now the second highest out of all London boroughs.

In 2013-14, there were 3,470 formal appeals against penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Barnet Council, up from 2,393 in 2012-13.  This is even higher than the 3,235 appeals against PCNs issued by Westminster Council tickets, a borough covering central London and which issues far more tickets.

The figures also show that Barnet lost almost 60% of its cases at PATAS, one of the worst records in London. In answer to a question submitted by Labour’s environment spokesperson, Councillor Alan Schneiderman, the Council has revealed that in hundreds of cases it doesn't defend its case and the resident’s parking fines are simply written off.  And in some cases, the Council contests the appeal but then fails to submit any evidence leading to parking adjudicators making an automatic judgement in favour of the resident.

Cllr Schneiderman said: “Barnet has been treating motorists as a cash cow for too long and these figures prove it.  A huge rise in the number of appeals is bad enough but the fact that the Council loses almost 60% of appeals - and fails to defend hundreds of them is proof that too many tickets are unfairly issued.”

“It’s time for the Tories to admit that the outsourced parking service has failed and we should look at bringing it back under Council control.”

Ends.

---

Notes:

1.    The Parking and Traffic Appeal Service (PATAS) considers appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued by all London local authorities.

2.    The appeal statistics for 2012-13 and 2013-14 can be found on the PATAS website: PATAS Annual Report

3.    Council Questions to the Leader can be found on Barnet’s website at: Full council meeting 4 November 14

Councillor Schneiderman’s questions are Nos 8, 38 and 54.

Why?

PCN appeals can be a bit of a rollercoaster ride

Last year a number of people asked Mr Mustard why he spent so much of his time helping people with their parking ticket (PCN) appeals. Mr Mustard wasn't giving very complete replies as he hadn't really thought about it. One day, on the tube on his way back from a PATAS hearing, he reflected and here is the list of the main reasons:

1. To combat the council using parking tickets as a revenue raiser instead of council tax.

2. As Mr Mustard has built up certain skills and read the relevant legislation which would be wasted knowledge if he didn't use it more than once.

3. As to many people the sum of £110 is their food bill for the rest of the month and it's all they've got.

4. As he has spare time (for now).

5. To raise money for charity. If Mr Mustard's assistance leads to your PCN being cancelled he asks you to make a donation to the North London Hospice (amount of your choice).

6. To combat the sharp practices of NSL and/or Barnet Council. A car was taken from a pregnant lady for a parking ticket where the council didn't follow procedure, a traffic warden photographed a sign from a  different bay to prove his PCN, a motability car was clamped, a motorist caught a traffic warden out telling stories because he had cctv at home which captured his broken down car being pushed by him, where the council know that lines are too faded to enforce and they carry on issuing PCN.

7. To encourage others to stand up for their rights.

8. As it's fun (yes, really, pedantic as well!)

9. As he hopes that continued exposure will lead the council to change its ways for the better.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

No messing with the NoToMob

Mr Mustard likes to ride with the lads and lasses of the NoToMob when he has the time. They are an incredibly talented and hard working bunch of people with disparate skills and a common desire to stop parking contraventions being driven by councils' need for revenue.

As soon as POPLA was mooted one of the mob was on the phone to Mr Mustard and an awful lot of work has been going on behind the scenes, away from motorbikes and cameras by others who work tirelessly on technical matters. Mr Mustard claims no credit for this blog post, all the hard work has been done by others.

One thread of the work has now ended up with these documents, published by London Councils, a sort of council overlord for London.

eh? no financial implications, oh Mr Mustard thinks there are

and this extract from the Governance report isn't pretty reading

so how does this affect Barnet Council?

Well, it affects every council in London as rather than immediately abandoning all thought of continuing to run POPLA the officers at London Councils are trying to get each and every councillor on the TEC (Transport and Environment Committee) to delegate the power from their council to enable them to carry on. Problems created by Parking on Private Land (Appeals) has got nothing to do with Barnet Council as they have PATAS to adjudicate on council parking tickets and this is just letting a quango get involved in something they shouldn't be involved in.

Mr Mustard wrote to our parking councillor, Dean Cohen, some time ago when a sort of select committee of the TEC decided what route to go down and Dean did write back to Mr Mustard to say he wasn't part of that decision but he does have to be part of the next one (possibly on the agenda, not yet published, of the meeting of 16 October). Mr Mustard will ask him in a new email not to delegate power to London Councils to get involved in non core business. 

There is nothing in it for the residents of Barnet.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard