Nutsville explain about parking tickets on private land

As you know Mr Mustard helps people with their Barnet Council parking woes and the appeal process. When friends get a private parking ticket he simply tells them to throw it in the bin. Here in this guest blog by Nutsville, visit their website for this particular post here (on Mr Mustard's visit to the home page all of the youtube clips played at once which is an assault on ones ears and he will mention it to the anonymous author of Nutsville) and then why not look back through their other very interesting and accurate blog posts.

Solicitor (S): Good morning Mr Weasel. What can I do for you today?

Parking Weasel Ltd’s Chairman (PWC): I would like to get my hands on the money Nutsville owes me for overstaying in a private car park where me and my company run the parking enforcement.

S: Ok. Just a couple of questions. Are you or your company the land owner?

PWC: No.

S: Do you have permission from the land owner to enforce on their land?

PWC: Yes

S: Do you have a contract with the land owner that establishes their loss?

PWC: It’s not their loss I’m worried about, it’s mine. That Nutsville bloke took me through the whole of that poxy Popla procedure, which incidentally cost me £27 + VAT that I will never see again, and even though his appeal was disallowed by Popla and he was ordered to pay me, he is now ignoring me and telling me that I should sue him in the courts to recover my money.

I’ve sent him loads of letters with BIG, RED SCARY WRITING on, and he still insists that I need to sue him. What I want to know is, now I’ve got my Popla judgment, why can’t I just register it with the court like the local authorities do with their Patas and TPT judgments, and then send my bailiff mates round to threaten him with menaces and make him cough up?

S: Unfortunately for you, Mr Nutsville is right. I will explain. You see, the ADJUDICATORS at Patas and the TPT draw their powers to make judgments on parking issues fom the Traffic Management Act 2004. Under that Act they can effectively make the equivalent of a judgment that a county court judge might make in civil proceedings. It is these equivalent county court judgments that are then registered with the county court (the TEC in Northampton) and which makes them enforceable, normally by way of sending the bailiffs round.

However, no such powers devolve from any Act of Parliament when it comes to Popla. Therefore the Popla ASSESSORS, (who incidentally the No To Mob have found out are actually 4 law students doing a bit of moonlighting) cannot order you to do anything. If someone like Mr Nutsville loses an appeal to Popla there will be a decision that says something like “In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £80 parking charge SHOULD be made within 14 days.

PWC: That’s right! That’s exactly the decision we got from Popla in the Nuts case, but he won’t pay up and insists I take him to court. So what exactly did I pay all that money to Popla for then?

S: Well nothing really. You see any Popla decision in the operator’s favour isn’t worth the paper it’s written on because it cannot be enforced in a court of law, either against Mr Nutsville, or anyone else come to that. However, if Popla had allowed Mr Nutsville’s appeal then you, like every other BPA Ltd operator in the Approved Operator Scheme, have no other right of appeal and you are bound by the decision of the law student that gave it.

PWC: So basically, what you’re saying is that Popla is just a smoke screen put up by the BPA Ltd in the hope that we can bully people into paying up, and that it has no real power?

S: That about sums it up.

PWC: So what did I pay £27 + VAT for then?

S: Perhaps you should ask the BPA Ltd about that. But anyway, all is not lost. You can still sue Mr Nutsville in the county court provided you can prove you have incurred a loss.

PWC: Now you’re talking! How do I do that then?

S: Well since you are not the land owner, you have to have a contract in place that proves that the land owner has lost money as a result of breaching the contract Mr Nutsville entered into with the land owner when he agreed to pay a Parking Charge for overstaying in the land owner’s car park.

PWC: And for those of us who speak English?

S: (Sigh). Right. Let’s break this down. Who is the landowner?

PWC: Morritesclidainsbury

S: Do you have a contract with them to enforce parking on their land?

PWC: Yes

S: In short, what are the terms of that contract?

PWC: They let my company dish out as many tickets as we want, then we get to keep most of the profits, and give them the rest.

S: In that case you can’t sue Mr Nutsville.

PWC: Why not?

S: Because you have no loss.

PWC: There you go with that bloody “loss” thing again! I’ve told you, I’VE LOST EIGHTY BLOODY QUID!!!

S: Who did you lose it to?

PWC: I keep telling you. Nutsville!

S: And how did you lose it to him?

PWC: Right! Well he came to the car park and arrived at 11.00am. He admits he read our signs which say that there is free parking for one hour and that if he stays longer he will contract with my company to pay an £80 Parking Charge. Nutsville stayed until 12.30pm and we are now enforcing that contract.

S: So far, so good. Now, if you want to sue Mr Nutsville for recovery in the county court you have to prove in your claim that you have actually lost something. You can’t have lost anything because you are not the landowner. Only the land owner can say they have lost something. You have lost nothing so you can’t sue Mr Nutsville. QED.

PWC: What about if I take him to court anyway, cos I still reckon Nutsville owes me under the contract terms?

S: (Sigh). Ok. Where’s your “genuine pre estimate of loss”.

PWC: There you go with all that legal mumbo jumbo again. What are you on about now?

S: Have you read the BPA Ltd’s code of practice?

PWC: Course I have! I had to sign up to it before I could get access to the DVLA database, which is where I get all those lovely vehicle keeper’s details which allow me to send my scary debt collection agency and solicitor’s letters with BIG, RED SCARY WRITING on.

S: Then because you have read it, you will know that at rule 19.5 of the code of practice it says “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.” Obviously the BPA Ltd are aware of this issue or they wouldn’t have put it in their code of practice and then make you sign up to it. So I repeat, where’s your “genuine pre estimate of loss”?

PWC: I dunno. Maybe we ain’t got one.

S: Oh dear! It would seem that YOU are the one in trouble then. I have just proved to you that you cannot prove that you have suffered a loss, and yet the BPA Ltd have made you sign up to the BPA Ltd code that says you have genuinely estimated a figure of £80 as your provable loss. If the DVLA find out about this you will be struck off immediately.

PWC: What! Do the BPA Ltd know about this!?!?

S: Well obviously they do, otherwise they wouldn’t have covered their backs by putting it in their code of conduct. Wait a minute though! There is something the BPA Ltd and you could do to remedy this.

PWC: Please, please tell me what it is. I can’t lose my livelihood.

S: Well I can’t say that it will save your livelihood, but it might help save other BPA Ltd members from making the same mistakes as you.

PWC: Well I do have a load of mates in the industry, so if there is anything I can do to help them, I’m sure it would be much appreciated.

S: In that case, this is what you do. You fess up to the BPA Ltd that you have made a mistake, and tell them that you are trying to rectify it. I hear the No To Mob have a few good ideas about this and that they are already advising some other BPA Ltd members about setting up an alternative to the BPA Ltd. You will have to take your medicine, and hope that because you have owned up, the DVLA will allow you to access the database again once you have cleaned up your act.

PWC: Ok. What then?

S: Then you lobby the BPA Ltd and ask them to invoke their powers to audit each of its members in order to establish whether they have a proper and genuine pre estimate of loss. They could do this by invoking rule 19.8 of their code of practice which states: “If you are asked, you must be able to justify the level of parking charges to the AOS Board, a member of our compliance team or to their specified agent.”

PWC: But what if the auditors find out that none of the BPA Ltd’s members can prove a loss? What happens then?

S: Well then the BPA Ltd would have to report this to the DVLA, and they would have no choice but to suspend any offenders from using their database.

PWC: But why didn’t the BPA Ltd warn me about this? What am I paying them for?

S: Those are questions for the BPA Ltd Mr Weasel, not for me.

PWC: Well how about I let Nutsville off, but continue to send out tickets to others in the full knowledge that some of them won’t be as smart as Nutsville and will pay up under threat of issuing court proceedings, even though I know that I can’t ever bring a successful prosecution in a court of law?

S: My professional opinion is that if someone were to find out, then such behaviour could very possibly be classified as committing a fraud and that you and others could end up going to prison, or at the very least paying a hefty fine.

PWC: Yeh, but you can’t tell them what advice you’ve given to me because of solicitor client privilege, so I can have plausible deniability for a while at least.

S: That’s true, but you have forgotten one thing. What if the BPA Ltd do a proper audit of your books and discover that you don’t have a genuine pre estimate of loss?

PWC: Are you ‘avin a laugh pal!?!? Why would they ever do that when they know that what they might find could result in the vast majority of its members being suspended, possibly permanently, both from the BPA Ltd and from using the DVLA database. Nah mate. Just send me your bill and keep your mouth shut. We just have to hope that Nutsville doesn’t get wind of this, or we’re all up a shit creek without a paddle.

————————————————————————————————-

If you have a story you think we would be interested in please email:

news@nutsville.com

Three cheers for Nutsville and their fab work.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Greeacre Writers - guest blog - Literary festival

Less than 2 weeks to the Fabulous Festival

Greenacre Writers are delighted to confirm the authors who will be appearing at the Greenacre Writers Literary Festival:

Fri 17th May 4.30-6.30pm Friern Barnet Community Library, Friern Barnet Road, N11 3DS.

Miriam Halahmy will be running a creative writing workshop:

'So you want to write for Kids!' Creative writing workshop with author and experienced facilitator Miriam Halahmy. Miriam will offer vital insights into the world of writing and publishing fiction for nine years to teens as well as offering some writing starters to get the creative juices flowing. All levels welcome, just bring pen, paper and the energy to write! Miriam's website  Tickets £10.50

Miriam Halahmy has published short and long fiction for children, adults and teens, as well as poetry, book reviews and articles. Her debut Y.A. novel, Hidden, Meadowside Books, was nominated for the 2012 CILIP Carnegie Medal. She has published a second Y.A. novel, Illegal, Meadowside Books, 2012 and a third one is on the way. Miriam has run creative writing workshops for many years and is a mentor with Apprenticeships in Fiction, appraising manuscripts and guiding developing writers. Click here to Book Workshop

Famous five Barnet Bloggers' open letter

Silence has been golden these last few months on the subject of the alleged assault of Helen Michael, a cafe owner (those words may come back to haunt you Richard Cornelius) which turned out, and no Barnet blogger ever doubted Helen for a moment, to be a real assault, if Brian had swng Helen around much more he could have been appearing in Dancing on Ice, and now finally disciplinary action is to be taken.

Barnet's Bloggers don't sit silent and we have written to the current "leader" of the council, Richard Cornelius demanding some action.You didn't show any leadership Richard last September did you?

This is what we wrote:

Dear Mr Cornelius

On Friday 3 May Councillor Brian Coleman pleaded guilty to the charge of common assault by beating of Helen Michael, in the High Road in North Finchley. Evidence from CCTV was shown in court and proved incontrovertibly that this incident was nothing less than an utterly indefensible act of aggression. It resulted from Councillor Coleman being caught parking in a loading bay, trying to evade the hugely controversial parking payment scheme he had imposed on residents in this borough.

Despite the fact that he has now been convicted of a criminal act of assault, Barnet Council has refused to comment, absurdly claiming that this is unnecessary as the attack did not take place while the Councillor was on council business.

Indeed local Tory members, including leader Richard Cornelius, openly continued to support their fellow member after he was charged, and were privately informing others that the story of the assault was false. Councillor Coleman was suspended from the party only after intervention from Conservative Central Office. Since the conviction, local Conservatives have issued no statement.
By his own actions Councillor Coleman has shown himself to be unfit for public office: such bullying behaviour, dishonesty and hypocrisy are not acceptable in an elected representative of the community. We demand therefore that he stand down from his seat in Totteridge, and that the Conservative Party expel him from membership.

We call on Richard Cornelius, as leader of Barnet Council, and on behalf of the Conservative Party in this borough, to apologise to Ms Michael, and to dissociate himself and his colleagues from this appalling incident. To remain silent is not an option: to remain silent is to condone an act of violence against a woman, and this was and must always be absolutely unacceptable.

Signed:

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Richard always seems to be on holiday when the proverbial hits the wotsit. Welcome back to Barnet, Richard.

Don't expect the pressure to relent between now and May 2014; will you bother standing?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

A moment of Madness

The Madness of the King of Bling

tarnished bling

From Brian's low rent flat (fancy thinking in Court that the whole world didn't know where he lives, you only have to follow the gritting lorry as it leaves the depot) to the cashpoint at HSBC in Finchley High Road is a mere 0.8 miles which one can walk, per google, in 16 minutes or cycle it in half of that. Why oh why did Brian feel the need to take the car that fateful day in September 2012 when he needed some cash for his handyman. Mr Mustard frequently walks from the junction between Etchingham Park Rd and Ballards Lane back to Cafe Buzz as it saves his pennies, being outside the CPZ, and gives him much needed exercise. It is probably how he got falsely accused of stalking councillors although the blogger bus having his name on the side makes it a bit obvious! Incidentally google streetmap was updated on the day the Olympic torch came through, there are cones everywhere.

History

First some history for non-Barnet Residents. In the spring of 2011 Brian Coleman was the Cabinet Member with responsibility for parking. Although he loves driving, badly it seems as he is always picking up points, 

(and we are all guilty of that occasionally. Mr Mustard took his road legal race track Aprilia Tuono V4 to Uxbridge as that gave him free parking in the residents' bays and he looked away from the road for a few seconds and when he looked back a car had stopped a bike length in front of him. Emergency application of the front brakes saw the front tyre bite into the road suface, thankfully better in the LB of Hillingdon than in the LB of Barnet, and the rear wheel lift of the ground! This is a trick known as a stoppie for those who don't ride. Don't try this at home. It puts your heart into your mouth. A collision was averted which is just as well as the bike cost as much as a medium sized car and would have probably been a write-off)

he wasn't averse to punishing the motorist with a massive hike in charges. The charge for parking all day on street was increased from £4 to £7 i.e. by 75% (no-one at the council knows anything about elasticity of demand) and visitor vouchers, which are meant to be concessionary, from £1 to £4 for a day, an increase of 300%. At the same time the price for a resident to park their first car within the CPZ was increased from £40 p.a. to £100 p.a. an increase of 150%. These changes are the subject of a Judicial Review which is expected to come before the High Court on or about 2 July (Mr Mustard is taking all of his annual holidays in Court this year). These changes were the first event to catapult Mr Mustard into blogging.

Although Brian was the lead councillor for parking, there is collective irresponsibility in the Cabinet who met on 14 February 2011 (The Valentines Day Massacre of motorists and businesses?) and agreed to the increases having plainly failed to apply any restraint to their over enthusiastic colleague. The entire Cabinet should be ashamed of their failure to act which has contributed to the enormous financial pressures piled onto the businesses of our High Streets and should have prevented Brian from pursuing an obviously bonkers policy. I doubt they had all read every line of the Cabinet papers as surely otherwise they would have moderated the worse excesses?

Then during the summer of 2011 Brian signed a Delegated Powers Report to remove all the parking meters in the whole of Barnet, approx 450 parking meters which each cost £4,000 to buy and install, hence about £1.8m worth and turned it into scrap for which less than £10,000 was recovered. Brian did have the power to sign the DPR as technically in the relevant legislation this was a minor amendment although it had major consequences. When the legislation was enacted pay-by-phone probably didn't exist.

Parking meters were removed in late 2011 and early 2012 and this left motorists without both a mobile phone and a credit or debit card at a huge disadvantage. Trade for businesses plummeted by 30% and has not been recovered.

Slowly, card only parking meters are being reintroduced but they do not fix the problem for the unbanked.

What history could have been like.

What could have happened that fateful day in September 2012 when Helen Michael of Cafe Buzz was tipped off by an observant friend that Brian Coleman had naughtily stopped his car in a loading bay in order to use the cashpoint.

Brian could have laughed, given Helen a wave, got back into his car with Tom and driven carefully away.

Helen is one of the team when it comes to bloggers and she would have given the footage to bloggers. It would have appeared on various blogs and for a day or two Brian would have been the centre of attention. Brian could have agreed to pay the equivalent of a Penalty Charge to the Lord Mayor's charity. Given his record for outrageous statements and behaviour the matter would have been just a small extra blot on his copybook.

Brian would then have had less of the Barnet blogosphere rowed up against him (red, blue, green, yellow supporters all got together and the ABC campaign, Anyone But Coleman, gathered momentum) and might not have lost his seat on the London Assembly. That would have allowed him to remain on the Fire Authority and there would have been no need for him to stand down as Chairman of the Budget & Performance Overview & Scrutiny Committee or lose his place on the NLWA. 

Mr Mustard went to the last meeting which he chaired, having asked Richard Cornelius why Brian was still being allowed to chair it after his arrest (rules of the council's due process apparently, the full council had to remove him as chair, although Mr Mustard thinks Richard was too frit to do anything) and one thing he will say for Brian is that he had clearly read all of the papers, knew what was in them and stood no nonsense from committee members although he was a horrible bully to members of the public.

Conclusion

So if Brian had walked away and paid £110 to charity he might not have lost about £110,000 off his annual income and would not now have a criminal offence on his record, look, it is already on Wikipedia.

It is reported in the Telegraph that Brian was hated by a section of the Barnet community, a large cross section Mr Mustard would hazard, however Mr Mustard reckons that Brian's biggest enemy is, himself.

The Future

Mr Mustard would expect any other person to do the honourable thing now and resign and leave public service (oh how we laughed when that old chestnut was advanced in Court, how Brian has dedicated himself) do some charity work (helping victims of crime perhaps?) and get a proper job and sink out of public sight.

As this is Brian we are talking about the future won't be that predictable.

Will bloggers still be writing about Brian in May 2014? Come back then and find out.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Dear Miss Michael, Mr Mustard is sorry.

Dear Miss Michael

Mr Mustard is sorry as he thinks he should accept a modicum of responsibility for what happened to you in the High Rd last September when you were the victim of a common assault by Cllr (acting in his private capacity per the council's smoke machine) Brian Coleman.

Mr Mustard emailed Brian when he lost his seat on the London Assembly in May 2012 (he lost his head locally!) and suggested, amongst other things, the following,

“I think you need a new approach.

It would involve:-

listening to others

treating them with respect

carefully considering their opinions

not forcing your own opinions on them

accepting that bloggers are part of the political landscape in 2012

reversing most of the decisions you have taken recently ( i.e. reduce CPZ charges and install parking meters, keeping public parks public and so on).

You need a complete change of mentality and image. You need to become Brian “Cuddly” Coleman or some other more people friendly image.”

Now when Mr Mustard wrote that advice he didn't think Brian would interpret it as meaning he should get all up close and personal with you in September 12 (keep your friends close and your enemies closer, he certainly couldn't have got much close) as the cctv shows (thank goodness he wasn't the cabinet member with responsibility for cctv and so this footage couldn't get lost)

Now that isn't at all like what Mr Mustard would call cuddling, it is better described as undignified grappling, conduct unbecoming of a gentleman and a councillor.

Brian was lucky he didn't get a parking ticket, there is never a traffic warden around when you really need one.

You Helen should be given the freedom of the borough but you can realistically expect nothing but silence and a refusal to accept what Brian did from amongst his former cabinet colleagues. Mr Mustard might be wrong, as soon as he is back from his holidays Richard Cornelius will be straight into Cafe Buzz to offer his personal and heartfelt apologies for failing to act with decision and honour and I know you will accept his apology with dignity, which is the whole way in which you have conducted yourself since you became the queen of the parking resistance.

For those readers who haven't been to North Finchley for some time, do please go there. There is free car parking in the car parks today (Lodge Lane is nearest to Cafe Buzz).  Mr Mustard doesn't drink coffee very often as he is a tea person, he can vouch for the tea being excellent (oops Mr Mustard left without paying for 2 cups yesterday) and others do enjoy the coffees (and Mrs Angry was consuming an enormous portion of chocolate cake yesterday which was self evidently excellent). He can vouch for the breakfasts which are served all day.

Free parking again tomorrow on the bank holiday. There are other good shops in N Finchley (Waterstones and Tally Ho fruit and veg to name but two - don't forget Mr Mustard's home of High Barnet either with Hopscotch Sweets being well worth a visit)

Sorry, once again for putting ideas into Brian's head.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

2023 - We are already there in Barnet?

Amuse yourself by deciding which Barnet councillors you would send to Mars. Only room at first for 4 sadly but we can send 4 more every 2 years after that.

Why is Mr Mustard writing about Mars? It is an illustration of how much the world, and Barnet, might have changed before the NCSCO and DRS contracts with Crapita (and A N Other but probably Crapita) come to the end of their initial 10 year terms. No-one at the council, whether councillor or officer, or any of their highly paid external consultants can possibly predict what changes will have happened to local services by 2023 and so for that reason alone the Judicial Review challenges are justified. We are stopping you Richard (Cornelius) from making a big fool of yourself. Mr Mustard predicts that in 2023 people will be saying Richard who? although Mr Mustard suspects that if he asked the man or woman in the street "Who is the leader of Barnet Council?" that 99% of the populace wouldn't know the answer in 2013.

Richard has got himself a little confused. In the papers in early March before the JR took place he was reported as having said "Everyone has a right to speak to the courts" and now after the council won on a time point (which will be going to appeal as it didn't seem to follow case law) and got mullered on not having consulted he is all in a lather about the cost and delay and has said "that she (Maria Nash) should “carefully consider” an appeal that will incur more costs to the taxpayer". Did Richard consider carefully the views of residents when pressing ahead on the One Barnet transformation with evangelical zeal? Er, no.

What Mr Mustard worries about is the effect this will have on the decision making freedom of councillors to be elected in May 2014, May 2018 and May 2022. Richard is in a pretty safe ward (or so he probably thinks) and probably hopes to be elected again and also to have a majority on the council and still be in charge.

He plans now to sign up for 10 years (120 months) a contract for which Crapita are mobilising for a 1 July start and so there will be 10 months of this current administration to run. Is it right and proper that a councillor who may not be in power after a mere 8% of a contract he signs up for has run its course, which he knows is the antithesis of what his opponents believe in, can tie us all in this way to an external supplier.

We don't of course want a system where every 4 years we could jockey from having an in-house provision of everything to an outsourced supplier of everything as that way lies madness and waste but maybe limiting the contract terms that can be signed to 5 years, with a no-fault, no compensation, cancellation option on 6 months notice at any time would be a practical method?

It might be acceptable for Richard top press on if he had a mandate from the people for this policy i.e. it was what he was elected to do. Did the words "One Barnet" figure in his election literature. Mr Mustard asked Richard months ago for a copy and guess what, answer came there none (Richard has a special sub-section of his inbox for the really hard questions and most of Mr Mustard's emails end up in there). Mr Mustard surmises that this means the words "One Barnet" were not mentioned as they weren't in East Barnet where one of the (do you know Mr Mustard really doesn't know what to call the 2 cabinet members who supposedly have responsibility for One Barnet so he won't call them anything official at all except) backers of One Barnet, stood for council.

It might also be acceptable to sign up for 10 years if a massive majority of residents had been consulted and thought that One Barnet was a great idea. As we know all too well that is why there has been a judicial review and why Maria Nash is right to go to appeal. Yes she has the benefit of legal aid but who has £300,000 sloshing around down the back of the sofa to spend on legal fees?

Mr Mustard reckons he knows who does have that level of savings; a Totteridge dwelling jeweller called Richard Cornelius, who will probably be sunning himself at his French holiday home instead of sitting avidly through the Court of Appeal hearing.

Finally a little note especially for the Crapita employee who happily chatted to the Barnet Bloggers (and they were happy to chat to him) . Mr Mustard promised the nice man 10 years of hell. Have you got the idea yet Mr Crapita? everything you do will be scrutinised and more Judicial reviews will follow if you change anything to the detriment of the populace. Mr Mustard hopes that you put the cost of defending judicial reviews into your bid. The bloggers are watching you, very closely.

Usual seats in the Royal Courts of Justice? Mr Mustard will stand you a beer at lunchtime.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

JR - the anticipated result - the council have no mandate for One Barnet

Mr Mustard sat through the entire JR proceedings and had predicted the result. Mr Mustard was very impressed with the Judge, who certainly isn't anything like the Judge Cocklecarrot of Private Eye fame. The result is a different matter but justice is a fickle beast.

The council have issued some of their standard flummery but an organisation with 3,000+ employees and annual revenues of £900m really shouldn't be going around not consulting with the disabled, whom they are meant to help, and mouthing off at what the process has cost. It is the price of democracy Richard (Cornelius) and Mr Mustard is sure it was not money well spent by the council. The cost of consultation would have been far lower and you didn't do it because you were doubtless afraid that the answer would be the opposite of what you were planning?

What were the chances of winning? The answer is in the Guardian here and shows us that it is rare indeed for a JR to succeed. In 2011 out of 2,213 (non criminal and non asylum) applications for Judicial Review only 527 were allowed to proceed. Of those just 87 were found in favour of the applicant and so that is a mere 4% of the applications make it across the winning line. Mr Mustard does believe he has heard Cllr Thomas saying how the council had so far won two JR as if this was a fantastic feat by the council and was a ringing endorsement of everything they have done. Mr Mustard wonders if anyone told him that succesfully defending a JR is the norm? Winning a JR is nothing for a council to be proud of, the opposite in fact as no-one puts themselves through the stress for nothing and the standard of decision-making is pretty poor if a hearing is granted.

Here is the judgment itself.

Nash v Barnet LBC

Mr Mustard has picked out a few snippets for you in case you don't want to read the entire judgment (and they are always hard work).

"Opponents....believe that private-sector organisations cannot evince the public service ethos which is so important in the delivery of the Council's service" (well said Judge Underhill).

"I will also follow the preferred usage of local authorities, though arguably it is not very apt, of describing the other party to an outsourcing arrangement as a 'partner'." (Bang on the money again)

"I am bound to say that I did not find this statement very helpfully structured or written." (This was in relation to a statement by Craig Cooper although he won't have written it all. His i.e. the council's, legal advisers must take most of the blame for this criticism)

The judge quoted from a 2008 Future Shape report. "Fundamentally, the Council should conduct those activities that only the Council can." (That wouldn't leave much).

"this is on any view outsourcing on a very large scale" (masterly understatement from the Judge who is very sharp).

"... the decision to outsource the functions.....have been controversial since they were first proposed."

"The reference to 'contracts with service providers' could be a reference to outsourcing, though it hardly leaps from the page"

"there is no real dispute that it did not constitute consultation about outsourcing as such."

"it is clear in the present case the Council did not make any attempt to consult on the specific question of whether the functions and services covered by the NSCSO and DRS contracts should be outsourced."

"Because here the Council never set out to consult about its outsourcing programme at all, the present case is not a good occasion to offer guidance on the form that such a consultation might have taken. The essential is simply that the representatives should have been given the opportunity to express views or concerns about outsourcing the functions or services in question..."

"It follows that if the application for judicial review had been made in time I would have held that the Council had not complied with its obligations under section 3(2) of the 199 Act in respect of the decisions taken in 2010/11 to outsource the performance of its functions and services, covered by the NSCSO and DRS contracts."

and now contrast what the judge had to say with what Amardeep Gill of Trowers & Hamlins had to say at the Business Management Overview & Scrutiny Committee of 13 December 2012. Mr Mustard has learnt how to fast forward to 07:45 as that is where it gets interesting.

Supposedly all statutory requirements have been adhered to. If Mr Mustard was buying legal advice for a local authority he would start looking around for a choice of legal advisors.

Round 2 is yet to come if leave to appeal is granted. We'll see.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard