Cyber attack problems - Kensington & Chelsea

 

The cyber attack on Kensington & Chelsea Council has been widely reported. The above is an extract from the Frequently Asked Questions section on the council website.  There have been real knock on effects, even though parking software is usually an externally provided service, as the below letter shows which relates to an on street PCN issued on 13 August and challenged on 26 August which was day 14 so preserved the 50% discount:

Some small observations.

Why was there a 'significant backlog' prior to 24 November 2025 ?

The identification of the 6 month limit is correct but the guidance of the Secretary of State contains this:

Mr Mustard suspects that a Ground of Appeal of delay if raised at London Tribunals will tend towards the council being given a fair bit of leeway. If Mr Mustard were instructed as representative he would be looking for a comprehensive explanation and timeline as to what steps have been taken and suggesting that the passage of time prejudices the motorist and that should take priority over the council's technical problems.

Mr Mustard's suggestion to help the council get back up to date is simply to cancel historic PCNs, clean the slate and start again, bang on time with everything. One suspects that the thirst for revenue won't allow for this solution to be applied.

The council has taken a reasonable approach though and Mr Mustard will be sending in both sides of the blue badge. It is a common error for people who live in the suburbs to think that the badge applies everywhere when in fact they are of limited application in central London. If you don't go there often it is easy to forget.

How kind of the council to still be willing to accept the motorist's money. However, as the challenge to the PCN was made within the 14 day limit they are obliged to honour the discount offer stated on the PCN.

The end. 

 

Lots wrong at the Kensington & Chelsea car pound

As readers will know, there is a risk in some boroughs that a car with a PCN on the windscreen can be removed to a secure pound (in Lots Road for this borough) and recovered only after paying 50% of the PCN (as you are hopefully paying within 14 days so get the discount) a £200 removal fee and £40 per night storage.

For parking PCNs (as opposed to other types) the pound may only demand payment of the PCN which led to the removal. This is the law and it is also stated in the Statutory Guidance of the Secretary of State which a council must know and follow.

How, therefore, did the car pound operated by NSL on behalf of the Royal (as in right royal cock up) Borough of Kensington & Chelsea ('K&C') decide to hold Mr Calm (not his real name) over a barrel and decide to simply refuse to follow the law. Lord Mustill, in the case of Doody, had this to say:

Where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.

There is no exception to the law at the Lots Road Car Pound - well not after this episode there isn't.

So there you are late at night being right royally messed about and lied to by the senior staff at the pound and all credit to Mr Calm, he really was pretty calm under the most severe provocation and whilst his Human Rights were being trampled on.

This was a situation which was being managed late at night by telephone by a particularly knowledgeable pro bono PCN expert called Ivan Murray-Smith. He can quote parking laws faster than anyone Mr Mustard has ever met and in the background he was being guided by other experts although Mr Mustard had been working hard and was a bit jetlagged from a work trip so at 1am he went to bed.

Two complaints were made to K&C. Here is their response along with commentary by Mr Mustard

It is pleasing to see the Head of Parking take responsibility.

There needs to be a bit more flexibility in documentation for release. If you have the keys and can state what items are in the glove box, for sure you are closely connected to the vehicle. If you are visiting from Birmingham or Manchester you are unlikely to be carrying anything other than your driving licence. Mr Mustard leaves an insurance schedule in his car as others sometimes drive his car (yes, they are insured!).

At the end of this first page you can see that Mr Calm was 'asked' to pay for 4 other PCNs. That was an 'ask' where a metaphorical gun is at your head, it certainly wasn't asking nicely, it was an if you don't....

This is how to respond to a complaint. Admit you were wrong 'should not have asked Mr Calm to do this'.

Having had his nose pressed into the Traffic Management Act that empowers him the Duty Pound Manager has been awakened from his entitled slumber.

There is a world of difference between making motorists aware of something and refusing to release their car unless more money is handed over, a payment which brings the challenge process to an end.

When K&C refer to friend/solicitor they mean 'representative'.

Refusing to leave at midnight was fair enough. It wouldn't have made any difference if Mr Calm had objected to the police being called, the pound would have phoned them regardless. Did the pound give Mr Calm the name and number of a suitably senior officer, who did know parking law? no, of course they didn't. They are the public face of K&C and should have dealt with this situation much better.

What the police did isn't a matter for the parking manager who wasn't there. If he was on call for the pound this situation could have been prevented.

The police response seems to be entirely correct in the circumstances although K&C were breaking the law it isn't as clear cut as being called to a burglary and letting Mr Calm have his belongings from the car was helpful (Mr Mustard doesn't know what but it could have been important documents, medicines, money, whatever).

Here it is admitted that payment of £265 should have led to the release of the car.

When K&C say they 'discovered' the absence of an MOT they mean they looked it up on the DVLA website just like we all can. It had expired on 23 November and they nabbed the car on the 25th so out of date but not hideously so. It now has one.

K&C say they have 'internal processes' which enable paid PCNs to be challenged. Do they publish these anywhere as otherwise how would the public know? Mr Mustard had a look around the K&C web pages but couldn't find this policy. He will have to ask for a copy of it and any others they keep to themselves.

Having deliberately got things wrong at the pound the permit team then make matters worse by accidentally refusing a permit application and Mr Mustard doubts that there is a single road in the borough where you can easily park for free for 24 hours a day as the entire borough has controlled parking zone hours for some of each day on most days of the week. This was to compound Mr Calm's problems and expense.

'NSL were incorrect', say K&C, too right they were.

'NSL should not have insisted', correct again.

'I can assure you that NSL were not engaging in extortion or blackmail...' but what were they doing, it certainly wasn't lawful.

 

Mr Mustard's main takeaway from this shocking fiasco are the arrogant and contemptible statements of the staff who, safely ensconced behind their glass screens, think they can say and do what they like:

'We do not follow the law' and

'I don't want to listen to the law'

Mr Mustard thinks they will be following the letter of the law from now on as will the staff at any other NSL operated car pound.

Reprimands are the order of the day, without the tape recordings there would be an argument about what was said. Feel free if you end up at the car pound to leave your camera or voice recorder running.

Oh dear, there is no TMA 2008 (Traffic Management Act). What the manager meant to refer to is correctly identified on the K&C website, if only they had looked at it.

Second-hand apologies aren't worth much. Personal hand written apologies would be more valued, remember this one?

Mr Mustard thinks they will play with a straight bat at Lots Road from now on.

This was not a one off. Please come forward if you have been hoodwinked into paying more than one parking PCN (not bus lane or moving traffic) by any car pound in London.

The End.
 

Time travel in Kensington & Chelsea

You probably don't know that Mr Mustard likes the Harry Potter books and films as he hasn't chosen to mention it before and as broomsticks don't get PCNs. It has however become relevant as time travel is apparently possible by traffic wardens within Kensington & Chelsea. If you have read or watched you will know that Hermione (pronounced her-my-oh-knee not her-me-own) Grainger once tried to be in two places simultaneously:

Hermione wasn't actually in two places at once, she rewound time and then performed the second set of tasks she wanted to do, using a Time Turner.

It is rumoured that all of the devices were destroyed but clearly one has avoided that fate and is used for the very important work of maximising the number of PCNs which can be issued by one person.

Coming up is a decision about two consecutive PCNs issued by one traffic warden who claimed two over-lapping periods of continuous observation of two different vehicles. The eyes can only focus on one thing at a time. 

Here are extracts of the two PCNs.

Had the PCNs said 'at x and y times' there could be no complaint but the usual argument of council back offices when rejection loading/unloading claims is that the traffic warden was there throughout (relying on the to and from times) and didn't see any unloading and so it wasn't happening. Firstly, that wasn't the truth and secondly, you can't always get the removals vans to the door. Here is what the adjudicator decided for one PCN (the other one being decided earlier by the simple way of accepting that loading was taking place).

Well spotted by the adjudicator that there was an inconsistency in the recorded times, they are all ace at that sort of detail, and agreeing that the two observations couldn't have been continuous, which wasn't helped by the traffic warden leaving the location between the stated from/to times as the data recorded on his hand held equipment recorded! (this data was demanded by the Appellant's representative for use at the hearing).

When two liveried removals vans are together at a location perhaps the logical thought isn't to scurry back and forth hiding behind trees or street corners (to function as an imaginary invisibilty cloak) but to ask yourself if someone really is moving in or out and give a much longer continuous observation (a real one) or to pop by 3 or 4 times to see if furniture really is on the move.

The back office don't escape criticism either. The furniture of residents in Onslow Gardens is more likely to be antique than Ikea (other cheap furniture shops are available) so leaving the van doors wide open doesn't strike Mr Mustard as the best idea and given that the loading was from the sixth floor it would take time so there will be periods of apparent inactivity.

Whoever rejected the representations, the person who then decided to fight the Appeal as well as the traffic warden all deserve a spell in Azkaban.

Mr Mustard