Pay by text - delays

Slow text!

This tribunal decision, number 2160435402, which you can download from here could help anyone else whose text requests to pay were dealt with very slowly by PayByPhone.

The appellant attended the hearing. He reiterated the points made in his representations and Notice of Appeal.

The appellant accepts that at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued payment had not been taken from his card by the pay by phone system although he claims he had done all that was required of him to make the payment.

The issue is that although he claims he sent a text messages to make the payments to park for a full day in the car park, the pay by phone system did not process the payments until sometime later in the day.

He produced his mobile phone showing the relevant text messages sent by him to the pay by phone service. He had not retained the responses to the messages on his phone but had a photocopy of a screen print of the responses. In addition he produced a copy of the statement from the mobile phone company. The phone is a company phone so it includes details of other phone numbers including the appellant’s number.

The appellant explained he regularly uses the car park to park his car. On the 31 May 2016 he sent the first text message at 7:40. Usually he would receive a response immediately from the pay by phone system confirming the parking but on this occasion he did not receive a response so he sent a second message at 7:40 but he received no response. So he waited until 8:57 when he reached work and still having had no response to the earlier two text messages, he sent a third text message. He claims these were not processed until later in the day at 17:24 when he received responses to all three messages.

I accept having examined the appellant’s mobile phone and compared the text messages sent with those recorded on the mobile phone statement that the appellant sent the messages at the times he claimed he had sent the messages.

The copy responses to the text messages produced by the appellant match the times and detail of the responses shown on the Verrus pay by phone system.

However, the record of the times the appellant requested the parking produced by the Verrus pay by phone system is at odds with the times the messages were sent as shown on the appellant’s phone.

The appellant has raised an issue with the adequacy of the pay by phone system and the onus is on the Authority to satisfy me that on the 31 May 2016 there was no fault with the pay by phone system.

I note that there is a statement on the record produced by Verrus pay by phone that there was no down time on the 31/05/2016. Having examined the text messages on the phone and the Verrus pay by phone record, I find that there was a problem with the pay by phone system which resulted in a delay in the messages being recorded by the pay by phone system. There may not have been any down time on the system but it is likely that there was a delay.

The record produced by Verrus pay by phone shows the appellant made two payments within the same second at 17:24:01 and a third payment at 17:24:55. It is highly unlikely that a motorist would be able to send two text messages within the same second. It also seems odd that the payment which was allocated to the following day the 01/06/2016 was taken 4 seconds earlier at 17:25:13 than the first payment made for the date of parking (31/05/2016) which was taken at 17:24:17. The fact that the payments were not attributed in a chronological manner throws doubt on the reliability of the records produced.

Just as there is an obligation on the Authority to maintain road signs and markings there is also an obligation on the Authority to maintain the pay by phone system.

In this case I find the pay by phone system had failed on the 31/05/2016 so that there was a delay in the system recording payment. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

---

Attitudes of adjudicators to staying with your vehicle until the transaction is concluded vary. One recent decision said it was the prudent choice and another said the whole point was you didn't need to as it is a mobile payment system after all. Being with the vehicle won't stop a traffic warden from giving the car a ticket so there is nothing much to be gained by staying. The council can check all your interactions with PayByPhone so simply demand they produce them at Appeal if you are sure they will help your case.

You should not suffer because a system that the council have imposed on you does not work efficiently.

It is also unreasonable behaviour by a council to seek to penalise a motorist (who probably parks and pays every working day) and was not trying a fast one on. No wonder the reputation of parking at Barnet Council is so poor when they act like shysters.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

We will be slow but you mustn't be

"IT" should have read "I.T." standing for Information Technology.

This scruffy note was being inserted into PCN envelopes whilst the parking enforcement software was being changed from Civica to ICES.

So it is OK for the council to be slow but if you fail to pay, during a time when the on-line payment facility was not available, then it is your fault that the council couldn't upgrade in 2 days over a weekend which would have been the best approach.

As it happens you don't need to fret about the council being slow. If they take longer than 56 days to respond to your formal representations, the ones you sent in after receiving the Notice to Owner, the council are deemed to have accepted them. So, sit tight, be quiet and let the days tick by.

If the council don't respond to your informal challenge, the one you sent in when you found a PCN on your car, and then send you a Notice to Owner, that is a procedural impropriety following the Hackney Drivers Association Ltd judicial review and you can quote PATAS decision 213064382A as being one that followed the same reasoning, in your Appeal to PATAS.

If your resident permit has run out, and you can't get it renewed, then you should follow this advice from the council

Through this period of change, your vehicle registration number has been sent to our enforcement partners NSL, so that they do not issue this vehicle with a penalty charge notice. However, as this is a manual work around until our permit system maintenance is completed, if you do receive a PCN during this time we ask that you call us immediately, where we resolve this instantly for you.

Please call us on 020 8359 7446.

We will contact you when our systems are available for you to complete your application in full.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

FOI all over the place & records destroyed rather early?

Back in September 12, before Barnet Council lost their rag somewhat with Mr Mustard and made question after question vexatious, he was helping a friend who had received a parking ticket in the snow (it has now been cancelled by the independent adjudicator) Mr Mustard started to muse upon the enforcement pattern during times of snow. The safety of traffic wardens ought to be put before the council's grubby revenue gathering. Thus, he sent in the above question.

Here is the answer he received.

This answer was given in deployed hours rather than shifts which was probably because shift lengths varied and so that was sensible. However the average PCNs per deployed CEO was of no use at all as the number of deployed CEO (traffic wardens) was not stated. Mr Mustard asked for clarification in September 12.

Thank you for the reply which doesn't quite answer my question which was the number of PCN issued each day although is helpful as the CEO were not working similar length shifts by the looks of it so the number of hours worked is a better measure.

Could you please also supply the number of PCN issued each day as originally requested.

In January 13 he wrote the following:

I note that an answer to this email remains outstanding. Please now provide an answer as soon as possible.

The council's response was:

Thank you for your request for a review of the civil enforcement officer shifts received on 14 January 2013. I’m sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the council’s response to your information request.

We will now conduct an internal review.

Did Mr Mustard ask for an internal review? not really. He simply pointed out the failure to answer the original question. A response to the question would have sufficed.

The review arrived. The first part surprised Mr Mustard, a former payroll manager.

We are unable to provide this information regarding the number of shifts worked by Civil Enforcement Officers during the period specified as those records were not retained following the transfer the Parking Service on 01/05/2012.

Why not? If there was any query about hours paid then it could not be answered. It is normal to keep payroll backup records for at least a year and preferably 3 (certain records have to be kept longer in case of government inspection). Mr Mustard thought that the records would have been kept in the SAP system and there was no good business reason to destroy them. Doubtless this was a breach of the council data protection policy.

The second part of the answer was:

Mr Mustard looked at the numbers supplied and thought it odd that the number of PCNs issued was remarkably similar to the number of deployed hours and in some cases identical. He didn't believe for one moment that traffic wardens only issue 1 parking ticket per hour so he guessed that Barnet Council had, once again, erred. The answer should have failed the sniff test, it was self evidently and glaringly wrong. Mr Mustard asked for the review to be reviewed. The council responded in due course.

Thank you for your email, and my apologies for the delay in replying.

I have asked the service area to double check the figures they provided and their answer is as follows:

I can confirm that the PCN numbers cited in the email below is correct. This was obtained from a report from the Civica system. There was an error in the previous email where the PCN numbers were incorrectly calculated as being deployed hours. We are unable to provide actual figures pertaining to deployed hours as these are no longer available to us as a result of the transfer of the service.

Therefore the information provided to you in the Internal Review was correct and the previous information provided in the original FOI response was incorrect. I can reiterate the previous apologies for this error. ("I can" is pretty feeble as apologies go because it doesn't say that you do reiterate the apologies.)


I trust that this resolves this issue. 

The "issue" isn't really resolved. Mr Mustard still has no idea what happens about parking enforcement when it snows. Next time it snows he will get his questions in before it thaws.

Barnet Council wonder why they are on the naughty step at the Information Commissioner. Given the speed and quality of their answers, one can't be surprised.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Let's appear to do something about the parking problem

The Parking consultation team at full speed

It must be at least 2 years ago that the residents of Chipping Barnet (or High Barnet as it is often otherwise known) were consulted about the operation of the CPZ. Since then, despite chasing by at least 2 of the neighbours nothing has been heard. There was a question about it at a residents' forum about 6 months ago and the answer was that there wasn't enough resource to deal with the answers (or more likely that the answers were not the ones that were wanted and so we got kicked into the long grass). Time for a question at the next residents' forum later this month (unless it is less than 6 months since the question was asked in which case we will be in the stupid position of being time-barred from asking about the ridiculous council delay - this is democracy as practised in Barnet) as, by some miracle, there has been plenty of time since then to get the Saracens CPZ onto the drawing board.

Having comprehensively messed up parking in Barnet in 2011 and set the whole of the borough's traders against them (well not the ones in Brent Cross obviously) instead of simply reversing the bonkers decision to remove parking meters the council simply blunder on despite howls of protest and constructive suggestions. Richard Cornelius and Dean Cohen simply tinker at the edges. A 30p reduction is meant to please traders? It shows an astonishing lack of understanding of the problems faced by Barnet's traders.

Anyway, the council, being bereft of ideas, decided to consult with traders. Mr Mustard should have been consulted but wasn't. The consultation end date was 28 September.

---

12 September 

Dear Sirs

We have operated a business in High Barnet for 25 years. We should be consulted about parking arrangements. The Consultation

Please send the referred to letter.

Yours sincerely

---

Guess what? Mr Mustard did not get a reply in time and missed the deadline. Never mind, it will be at least 2 years before anything happens so you can still write in if you like. Mr Mustard wrote again today.

---

Dear Sirs

I don't know why you didn't respond to my email of 11 September requesting a copy of the letter sent to businesses about parking and so I have missed your consultation deadline.

I am sure that you won't yet have considered the results so there is no prejudice in you now adding my views to the ones received.

In 2010 parking worked; traders and residents were not, on the whole, unhappy.

In 2012 parking is clearly broken with the expected income in the first quarter down by £600k (money talks); traders and residents are very unhappy and there is open revolt in certain quarters and the council, by merely tinkering at the edges, is risking the threat of widespread revolt.

Therefore, in the short term, the answer is simply to reverse what happened in 2011. So put parking meters back that accept cash & add the facility for credit cards. By all means retain pay-by-phone and in the years to come its use will increase although what is more likely is that it will be overtaken by some other new technology. Also put the charges back to what they were at the start of 2010.

In the long term for High Streets the council needs to implement the ideas set out in the Portas review. Primarily there needs to be a free parking period so that people start to visit the local town centres again. I used to visit North Finchley purely to visit the book shop as you could park outside for a while for free and this despite there being, at that time, 2 bookshops in Chipping Barnet (North Finchley had a stock range which wasn't available locally). I would inevitably also go into other shops whilst I was there. Once the now closed Borders opened at London Colney and parking restrictions existed at N Finchley I simply didn't visit that High Street any more (not until in the last 12 months when I found out about Cafe Buzz and when I visit there I either do it by motorcycle which is free to park or I park the van on the edge of the CPZ and walk in).

In addition, all restrictive hours need to be reviewed, as they are a hotchpotch, to see if their times could be reduced, especially CPZs as we have some that are for 1 hour, others all day and some town centres (e.g. Totteridge) without a CPZ and restrictions which are only intended to maximise traffic flow at peak hours. Our High Streets need to be put onto a level playing field with shopping centres which offer free parking even if all day free cannot be managed as there simply isn't the free space.

The areas covered by some of the CPZs are huge and far bigger than the handful of streets envisaged by their enabling legislation. The spread of them should be reviewed to see if they can be reduced as during their hours of operation many roads in all day zones sit empty which is a complete waste of a resource.

In summary, radical change and less local government interference in parking would be a good thing.

Make it simple to park, make it easy to pay, make the charges reasonable, and people will come back to the High St.

Yours sincerely

---

This email has been now been added to the response pile as Mr Mustard copied it to an Assistant Director to make sure something happened. 

Right, sit back and wait. Will it be days, weeks, months, years or decades before the results are published or will the answers simply be too unpalatable to the council and never see the light of day?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The Sloth Society - New Southgate branch

Mr Mustard likes 3 toed sloths. Its embarrassing when they make you look slow.

Readers will recall that in March 2011 the wheels where shown to have completely fallen off the procurement arm of Barnet Council and a Procurement Action Plan ("PAP") followed quickly on the heels of the critical "MetPro" Audit Committee of June 2011. The PAP did not mention that the Procurement Code of Practice was to be updated (the one on the council website is from March 2006). The PAP also didn't mention that a Procurement Centralisation Plan ("PCP") was envisaged. Perhaps these decisions were only taken later but if so they display a complete lack of joined up thinking as the council had 3 months to think about the matter before non-stick Nick Walkley had to try and tell the Audit Committee why procurement was so appalling.

Now back in November 11 in response to an FOI request by Mr Mustard about how the financial strength and council business share of major suppliers is regularly monitored ( not sure that it is ) he received a specially created policy extract containing parts of the Procurement Code of Practice. Mr Mustard noticed that the paragraph numbers of this document (thick end of 2 A4 pages) were different to the March 2006 version. So assuming there was a new version and the website was slow in being updated ( quite normal! ) he asked to see a copy. The answer he got was that he couldn't have a copy because it was not yet approved and it was for future publication (a  standard exemption under FOI). 

He has, of course, already seen 2 pages. It is all routine stuff and no harm would be done by the public seeing it all and it would save the time of FOI officers if this sort of document was released without question, it isn't the recipe for coca-cola (which Mr Mustard does not drink!). In fact they might even make free suggestions for improvement as the public will include real world procurement experts. That is called crowdsourcing.

Curious to know when the updated code would be available and thinking it must surely be very soon as procurement is still in such a mess ( RM Countryside Services! ) he asked the question. The verbatim answer from 16 December was:

the publication date is pending it is envisaged this will be achieved for the end of the financial year, March 2012.

Please note : This document is subject to authorisation prior to publication.

Procurement Manager

Now you would think, wouldn't you, that having right royally messed up procurement, that there would be a rush to get all the building blocks in place and not take a slothsome year to come up with an updated code and then also unwisely plan to update the website at the very time that is is being completely updated.

This sort of speed of inaction is what gives local authorities a bad name and you would think that Barnet Council might think that theirs was bad enough already and try to perform their duties speedily and impeccably.

You might think that but you would be wrong.

To make sure this sort of Code is in place is why Craig Cooper, the Commercial Director, is paid £132,480 p.a.

In the next 20 working days Mr Mustard also hopes to share the PCP with you. 

Yours, far from slothfully

Mr Mustard