Do I or don't I ? help, that is.

 

So here we see some double yellow lines which are there to try and maintain good sight lines for all traffic, this is entirely sensible.

Here, and in the dark, is a car parked in an unwise way (Mr Mustard doesn't think the driver had a blue badge and there is no sign of one in the windscreen) 

Mr Mustard didn't have much sympathy for the driver but he looked at the PCN. The alleged contravention was:

There were no kerb marks, even if there should have been, and therefore the PCN was wrong and would get cancelled at some point, at the tribunal if necessary.

Mr Mustard then has to decide what he liked the least, the awful parking or the motorist giving the council £160 that wasn't due to them (the discount period having gone). This time, he chose to fight the PCN.

Brief precise representations are a good thing:

The response was equally succinct:

Mr Mustard won't always make that choice. He may well also tell you how bad your parking is. He declined to help with a PCN given out to this motorist who received a (correct) PCN for the double yellow lines:

Mr Mustard told the driver they were entitled and couldn't park just anywhere. They didn't like it and told him he was wide of the mark and they had successfully applied (appealed presumably) this sort of thing before. Good luck with that, you are on your own. Mr Mustard isn't going to spend all of his free time helping the selfish. He never parks anywhere dodgy, being a boring conformist saves money.

The end. 

 

Indifferent Islington Council

More than a tweet required in Islington

Mr Mustard has been consulted about a PCN debt problem in Islington. A vehicle owner was being chased for £662 for 4 PCNs which had all been registered as debts at the TEC (Traffic & Enforcement Cetre located at Northampton County Court) which is always followed by bailiffs being instructed.

He decided to find out what the theory was in order to compare it to actual practice. This was it as obtained under Freedom of Information legislation.

This is what Islington Council were told about the debtor (the vehicle owner & also the driver on the 4 occasions in question) by a concerned family member (Mr Mustard isn't certain they had any authority to get involved). Let us call the vehicle owner 'C'

- the address the council have for C is out of date by many months

- he moved to another borough for a while

- he was made homeless

- he slept in his car for some weeks

- he slept on the floor of a church charity for a while

- the car has been scrapped

- he is mentally ill

- he has paranoia & psychosis

- he was sectioned for 4 weeks

- he is not yet fully recovered.

Islington Council were asked to 'look into the matter'. You, dear reader, faced with this awful situation would either close the PCNs if you believed the account or if sceptical you would ask to see a hospital report to evidence the sectioning and then write off the debt, would you not? Well, you might, but Islington Council didn't.

They said:

- all statutory notices were sent to the known address as per the DVLA.

- they made offers to settle at the 50% rate which were not taken up for one PCN.

- none of the letters for the other 3 PCN were returned

- the comments were noted

- all the PCNs were correctly issued and must be paid in full

- £452 will be accepted in settlement (100% + £8 for each PCN)

 - this is the very last opportunity

- if unpaid after dd/mm/yy bailiffs will be instructed

- further fees will be added.

You will be shocked and appalled by the callous inhumanity and indifference shown by the council but sadly Mr Mustard isn't. He sees this sort of thing all the time and is inured to it but hopes that one day the repeated exposure in his blog will do some good and bring about change. He can't of course suggest putting the affected people in the newspapers as their medical condition makes it unfair on them.

He advised the family member thus:

- it is not their debt so do not pay a penny

- the bailiff will search for the car & not find it

- goods are rarely taken and C will not have any in any event

- the bailiff will not find C

- just forget about it and/or ask Islington Council what they are playing at.

The rather vague policy of Islington Council that each case will be decided upon its merits is just empty words & they wouldn't 'expect' to sent the case for warrant collection (i.e. to a bailiff) means they would expect to. The utter futility of Islington Council suggesting the use of bailiffs is obvious but what they are hoping for is to get some income from the concerned family member which is why they offered a reduced sum.

It really is all about the money in parking. PCNs are more important (to councils) than your mental health.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard