Newham Council are helpful - #1

 

The above image is the exit from Gallions Roundabout onto Royal Albert Way. It is quite near to London Docklands Airport and is only restricted (there is a poor image of the 'no entry' sign at the top left) from 10pm to 3am and that was because boy races used to blast up and down the road. Mr Mustard doesn't think this was the optimal solution or if that problem has gone away, as it might have, Mr Mustard goes along the roads very sedately so doesn't inhabit the car meeting world, then the restriction could be removed. 

The main problem with this restriction is that if you normally work days you will see instead a 40 mph limit sign as the sign is digital and so changes. It is also hard to change your mind when you have half exited the roundabout.

Anyway, a 'black cab' driver who Mr Mustard will call Mr White, given his cab colour, make the mistake of driving that way on a Saturday night. He duly received a PCN and challenged it. On 2 July 2025 a Notice of Rejection was generated but did not reach Mr White. The PCN process rumbled on and a Charge Certificate was next followed by an Order for Recovery. Mr White duly filed a sworn Statutory Declaration and the PCN was rowed back to £160.

Newham did what they should then do which was to send a copy of the Notice of Rejection which was not served and invite Mr White to either pay £80 (the 50% amount) or start an Appeal at London Tribunals.

Mr White decided to start an Appeal. He used the verification code he was given of 98G542 but didn't know that contains a hidden date of 2 July. 2+98 = 100 and G is the 7th letter of the alphabet and equals July, the 7th month, the 5 is for 2025, the 4 is the type of alleged contravention and the 2 is a check digit.

That led London Tribunals to reject the Appeal, made within 28 days of the renewed invitation to be thought to be out of time. Mr Mustard suspects that Newham Council hadn't put the tribunal on notice of an possible Appeal, as they should have done or the proper officer at the tribunal could have missed it.

Mr White queried the rejection with London Tribunals and they can't have studied the papers properly as they again rejected the Appeal as out of time. technically having been refused a review the opportunity to Appeal was at an end. At this point Mr Mustard was contacted by a cab drivers' umbrella body and Mr Mustard took over.

He set out a short chronology for the tribunal and explained that a failure to allow an Appeal to be fought would be a miscarriage of justice. The alternative if the tribunal said no a third time would be to start a judicial review but that would cost thousands and would be unfair. The advantage for Mr White is that Mr Mustard is well known at the tribunal for his exacting work and knowledge of the rules so if he says something is going wrong it probably is. To help the proper officer correct their decision he pointed out that Newham Council should have provided a new code, probably 89K512 and thus the tribunal could blame Newham Council and change their mind.

When Mr Mustard hits something going wrong in a blanket way he often emails parking managers. On this case he emailed the man who he thought was the parking manager of Newham Council but he was a manager of only one area which wasn't this one. However, he was a good sort, pointed out it wasn't his job but helpfully passed the email on to the generic email of the team that could help.

All this was going on over the Christmas and New Year festivities when things slow down a bit so Mr Mustard was a bit worried that the PCN might get sent to bailiffs but instead it took a sudden turn to the better.

All that Mr Mustard had asked for was for Newham Council to tell the tribunal that the Appeal was in time. Instead, they looked at the papers and cancelled the PCN. They wrote that there was an error in the 2 July Notice of Rejection. They didn't say what exactly. However, there was something curious which was in the Notice of Rejection. Newham Council wrote that black cabs were exempt from this restriction but Mr Mustard found that odd for two reasons. The first one is that they are not exempted in the traffic order and the second was that the exemption, if it exists, is not on the sign. The same letter also said there were no exemptions.

Mr Mustard doesn't start stupid arguments when things are going his way, he stopped the rot and told the tribunal they didn't need to open an Appeal after all, thus saving Newham Council c.£32.

Well done Newham Council, did the decent thing and saved themselves a lot of time fighting an Appeal based upon their own letter and signage being inadequate.

The end. 

  

Well done parking client side

Mr Mustard is about to do a rare thing and dish out some praise. He knows he is a nuisance to the parking client side and in the past he has criticised them (mostly anonymously he hopes although now he thinks about it he did name the Parking Manager, who is an interim, and suggest he really ought to leave and let a permanent staff person take over but that was before they had met and now the name of redacted won't again appear in the blog) but roughty toughty parking staff can look after themselves OK as they are cut from the same block as Mr Mustard, a former tax officer and currently a debt collector. 

Mr Mustard thinks that they are starting to get the hang of him. Last year Mr Mustard was disappointed when they didn't send flowers to the bereaved lady who they had unfairly ticketed outside of the hospice and they are now perhaps coming round to the view of the leader when he is approached by Mr Mustard on parking matters "but you'll be right Mr Mustard won't you" although he was then persuaded the opposite on that occasion by his staff. Actually Richard, Mr Mustard thinks he is right on the question of parking tickets from 2011 but perhaps for the wrong reason. Mr Mustard will correct that before the Ombudsman gets involved.

Anyway, Mr Mustard is sure that he told you about the "client" (friend, acquaintance, whatever) who had picked up 13 parking tickets and 7 of them were with bailiffs who could have set up a camp outside her property. They couldn't clamp the car because it belonged to Motability which tells you that the person gets the higher level of payment for her disabilities and given that the accommodation is rented and the client was under strict instructions to make sure sure the bailiff couldn't get in (and they can't break in for parking debt) the whole problem was going to go away within 12 months if his client kept her nerve.

Mr Mustard only found out yesterday that the bailiffs had been called off in mid-August when he first complained to the leader and the parking team about a PCN from 2010 still being chased, and there were also six from 2011, two from 2012 and four from 2013. The PCN included ones that simply should not have been issued including two for being more than 50cm from the kerb when the car clearly wasn't.

Anyway, on Wednesday something went wrong and a bailiff from Newlyn (in the news on the Mr Reasonable blog) clamped the Motability car in the Lodge Lane Car Park. He was also rude to the person concerned when she pointed out he couldn't clamp a car that wasn't hers and she had a physio appointment to get to. Mr Mustard got on the blower, the bailiff rang his own office and probably got told to remove the clamp sharpish, as that is what happened.

Now Mr Mustard was going to file a formal complaint to the council as they are responsible for the actions of bailiffs contracted by NSL on their behalf and stick the bailiff himself in front of the judge who issued his licence in the hope that it might get torn up but he had a pleasant surprise. The parking client side felt bad about what had happened, they had caused stress and inconvenience to a disabled motorist. They were under the cosh from Mr Mustard for the old PCN and he was busy appealing every in-time ticket to PATAS which costs the council £40 out of their budget each time (97% of the time Mr Mustard wins) and so they very generously chucked the towel in on every outstanding parking ticket perhaps because the bailiff gave them the opportunity to do so. It looks like Newlyn management and NSL will be having some discussions very soon about their behaviour and may have to pay for some of the tickets.

They also recognised that Mr Mustard was also providing a valuable advice service to transgressing motorists by educating them about where they have gone wrong and trying to stop it happening again (this is not as easy as it seems). Mr Mustard has suggested to the council many times that they should be running courses on how to park legally but that sits ill-at-ease with the budget requirement to make £7million nett from parking.

Anyone, well done parking client side (you know who you are and have had Mr Mustard's word that your name will not appear in this blog unless you want it to), pat yourselves on the back for a good decision.

Now Mr Mustard must go and continue with business as usual. He has a PATAS form to complete for someone who drove away before the PCN had started to be issued. A favourite trick of traffic wardens to claim otherwise.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Slam dunk

a slam dunk, not a dank slum

Mr Mustard is more likely to write about dank slums than slam dunks in terms of Barnet Council but they sat up and took notice and must get full credit for it.

Avid readers may recall that he was pestered by local teenagers to see if he could get a basketball hoop and a skate park in High Barnet ( as otherwise occasionally he has to help out and bus them to Potters Bar, St Albans etc i.e. not Barnet ).

Mr Mustard wrote about this on 16 April and sent an email to Pam Wharfe. Pam delegated to Mrs Bishop (Mr Mustard has met Mrs Bishop and she looks like she would be as comfortable on a skate board as Mr Mustard i.e. not all all; far too dangerous, Mr Mustard will stick to high speed motorcycling) and Mrs Bishop then passed the matter down to JW, a greenspaces manager ( not sure JW if you are above or below the senior office pay threshold so have left your name out for now. As Mr Mustard is going to say nice things about you you might want your full name here so just let him know if you do), who gave the matter some thought.

Here is the reply which Mr Mustard forwarded to J, 14 who was amazed and said he must ring L, also 14. Mr Mustard has cautioned the boys that this will still take some time.

Dear Mr Mustard

Thank you for your email to Pam Wharfe which has been re-directed to me to review and respond, please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

The concept of a basket ball hoop in Old Court House is certainly something that we would give due consideration to, indeed in 2007 some of the six tennis courts were earmarked for basketball and football, however due to opposition to the proposals this was not followed through at the time.

We are now some years on and there is an apparent demand for this facility, and we would therefore propose that one tennis court (the first one that you arrive at when leaving the main body of the park into the tennis court area) is changed to a multi-sport court for basketball and football. This proposal would need to be put forward for consultation with the Friends of the park, Ward Councillors, park users, and neighbours and we will commit to undertaking this exercise.

With regards to a skateboard park this is not something that would fit with Old Court House Recreation Ground; an alternative location would need to be identified along with funding for any proposals, which would then be subject to consultation depending upon the scale of the proposals. A more fitting location for a skateboard park within this area would be Barnet Playing Fields, Duck's Island or part of the Dollis Valley Greenwalk at the bottom of Leeside. There is funding that can be secured for facilities such as this that the Council would welcome the opportunity to work with local community groups to develop proposals and secure funding to facilitate their delivery.

I trust the above answers your query.

Regards

JW

Local teenagers are delighted at the prospect of the possibility of some sports facilities which are not too far from home and Mr Mustard hopes that local people will embrace the idea. Mr Mustard will give the consultation some publicity at the appropriate time.

 

Well done Barnet Council for listening and for starting the process. Mr Mustard hopes that no-one will object to a neglected sports facility being given a new lease of life. The kids have got to play somewhere and they don't stop existing just because you object to their presence. It is far better that they use their energy on basketball or skating than roam the streets aimlessly.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard