PayByPhone takes you back in time

your previous car perhaps?

A local resident has contacted Mr Mustard about an event that might amuse or terrify him. He was neither but he was deeply perturbed.

This public spirited motorist, let us call him Mr Capri, paid using Verrus PayByPhone for his one and only car, let us say the registration number is LB55XYZ, and having done what many people don't, and why should they when they only have the one vehicle, he looked closely at the receipt and saw that is was for his previous car MN55ABC which he had sold the previous year and deleted off his account. Thus he avoided getting a PCN.

He contacted the helpdesk by email and PayByPhone have confirmed the following:

1.  it was a system error

2.  they have no idea how it happened but are investigating

3.  it hasn't happened to anyone else (Mr Mustard doubts this last statement).

What this event does tell you, apart from the fact that the council are relying on software which is not as perfect as they might think it is, is that when you delete a vehicle from your PayByPhone record you are not deleting it at all, you are simply hiding it from view and that is probable based upon a field in a database which has a 1 for live and a 2 for deleted in it. Mr Mustard can understand why the old vehicle is not deleted straightaway as there might be queries raised which would need this information but under the Data Protection Act the information should only be kept for a reasonable time once you have removed the vehicle from the list of vehicles. The software does not say delete but says "remove from list" but that is equivalent in most minds to delete. It also says "license" plate which rankles with Mr Mustard as it should say "licence" plate.

Mr Mustard recommends that you log in to your PayByPhone account and check if any of your sold vehicles have re-appeared on your list of live vehicles as it could avoid you getting a PCN. Whilst you are logged in you might as well remove any sold vehicles you haven't yet got around to removing.

If this happens to you, do please send an email to mrmustard@zoho.com.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Parking ticket software

Mr Mustard visited when the towpath was visible

Mr Mustard recently helped a resident of Richmond with her pavement parking PCN and was victorious thanks to the council muddling up its signs and lines which confused residents into parking in the "wrong" place, except it was correct once the arguments were properly presented. The resident was organised and understood her road signs and Mr Mustard had to do little other than provide moral support at the adjudicators.

One thing he did like about Richmond, apart from the lovely riverside walk he went on after he surveyed the road, and the good food and beer at The Anglers, was that the council software provides a clear view of the progress of the PCN, as below

This useful screen should be extended to show the progress all the way to the end of the road and include the formal representations stage and the PATAS stage in so far as the PATAS appeal has been logged and that the council's evidence has been filed. Mr Mustard would prefer the oldest item at the top but that is a minor criticism.

Mr Mustard has suggested the same facility would be most useful in Barnet for motorists to follow the progress of their PCN and it would probably cut down calls to the call centre to find out what is going on, that the council have received your letter etc.

The parking manager was amenable to the idea and it will go off to the ICES software people as a user suggestion. It will be at least 12 months though before fruition even if the idea was accepted today as a good one.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

To you madam, not £110, not even £55 but £nil

and the onus on the council is to apply some common sense

Mr Mustard is helping a lady who accidentally found herself in a section of the Lodge Lane car park at 5.05pm and became the lucky owner of a yellow plastic envelope containing a PCN.

Now the market is, of course, long gone at 5pm with most markets packing up about 3pm. The traffic wardens know the usual finish time and the wardens in North Finchley probably all set their watches for 3.30pm on a Friday afternoon in order to do some easy parking ticket issuing and avoid any management pressure for not having given out sufficient PCN (no, of course there aren't targets but go back to base without having issued any PCN and see how big the rollocking is).

Is it clear where you can and can't park? The PATAS case that Mr Mustard made a note of some months ago says not, so he is confident that after the council have paid the £40 PATAS hearing fee and he presents his arguments that the adjudicator will find in his favour. Thus the motorist is not going to pay the £110 value of the PCN within 28 days or even avail herself of the "generous" offer to pay £55 within 14 days as she hasn't done anything wrong and Mr Mustard can prove it.

In about 3 months, if it goes that far, Mr Mustard will bring you the result.

If you have a PCN issued in the red zone of the Lodge Lane Car park, don't pay it, email mrmustard@zoho.com and watch the PCN magically get cancelled (very slow trick which takes 3 to 6 months).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Top Secret Board Meetings at Barnet Homes & Your Choice

Regular readers will recall the mantra of the Chief Operating Officer of Barnet Council that the default position of the council is to be open and transparent a phrase that gets thrust back at him every time the council fail to reveal or partially reveal something of interest. If a council was completely open and transparent there would be no need for bloggers to root around for information and Barnet is a hotbed of bloggers (and activists) which tells you all you need to know about the actual transparency achieved, or not, by the council.

Barnet Council owns 100% of the Barnet Group, an umbrella body created to hold shareholdings on its behalf in Barnet Homes (who "manage" all of the council's social housing stock) and Your Choice (a misnomer of a company) for providing vital social care and which thinks the best way to balance its is to cut the pay of its not highly paid workforce by originally 9.5% and now 8.31% (both of which threatened cuts have led to ballots for strike action which have had votes in favour of 90%) rather than charge the council the actual cost of the services provided.

Anyway, whilst Mr Mustard was thrashing about their dire websites he came across two Board meetings which he hadn't seen advertised anywhere so, rarely for him nowadays, he fired off a simple Freedom of Information request in the full expectation of a refusal. Here it is with the answer which was provided in 22 calendar days (Mr Mustard told Barnet homes off for always replying on working day 20 in the past and they have decided not to delay this time)

Good afternoon Mr Mustard

Thank you for your request for information received on 2 July 2014, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). I set out your request and Barnet Homes’ response as follows:

Please provide the following details for the Board Meetings of 18 December 13 (Barnet Homes) and 16 January 14 (Your Choice)

- the email or other notice in which notice invited persons were notified of the meetings
- names of persons invited
- any notice given to the public
- the agendas
- the minutes


The meetings held on 18 December 2013 and 16 January 2014 were both confidential meetings and therefore only the Board Members and appropriate officers were invited. In view of the fact that they were confidential meetings we did not issue any notices and there are no agendas or minutes available for public release.

The items discussed are exempt from publication under categories 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. This is because the report refers to information that is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and/or Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person.

In addition, the information about this meeting is withheld because it is considered that the absolute exemption under Section 40 (2) of the FOI Act applies to it.

In doing so, Barnet Homes is relying on the absolute exemption set out in section 40 (2) of the Act in regards to information that constitute personal data. We have applied the exemption because of the condition set out in Section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Act concerning data protection principles as stated in the Data Protection Act 1998.

I hope you find the information above useful.

How the Dickens could a lack of information be useful?

Mr Mustard notes the complete failure to issue any public notices of the upcoming meetings (these are private companies although ultimately council owned). Should the position have been that the meetings were advertised, the public could have attended and then as soon as the meeting opened it went into private session and the public were excluded?

Should the agenda have been published with the substance of the item to be discussed written without any personal data within it?

Should the names of the actual Board members who were invited have been released? The response says "the Board Members" but was the whole Board invited? how do we know?

Shouldn't the names of senior officers who attended be released?

Shouldn't there still be minutes showing the start and finish times, the matters discussed (without personal data) & any votes or decisions taken?

Should councils be allowed to hide things by the expedient of having wholly owned private companies?

Should I ask for a review or let the matter rest? Would suitable experts please comment below.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Harrow Council Bailiff's "special" offer - a 75% discount

First of all Mr Mustard is going to say something nice about Barnet Council, he realises he doesn't so it very often but he is all relaxed and happy, just back from 10 days in Sri Lanka being a guest at a wedding and seeing some of the sights. Also, haggling with Tuk Tuk drivers over a £2.50 fare when they were tyring to fleece him for £5 which looks very small beer when compared to a Newlyn bailiff acting on behalf of Harrow Council. This story simply would not happen in Barnet as Mr Mustard has good contacts with two of the in-house parking managers (he cuts out the middleman NSL as they don't really get him) and they would have realised that what had been done was wrong and sorted it out following amicable discussions.

Sadly we are dealing with Harrow Council who are a different kettle of (rotten) fish altogether.

Now you are going to have to concentrate here as I give you the time line. All names are fictional.

1 November 11 - John Johns buys a car, a small people carrier which is perfect for use as a mini-cab. He slightly naughtily registers the car at his work address, Maestro Minicabs.

5 March 12 - He sells the car to Harold Smith who registers the car to his home.

18 March 12 -  Harrow's cctv spots the car, at 2am, on a double yellow in a service road in front of shops. The driver has been to a late night shop.

28 March 12 - The vehicle record has not yet been changed at the DVLA and a postal PCN is sent to John Johns.

7 June 12 - The car is sold to John Smith (Harold & John are related but live at different addresses) who registers the car to his home.

31 July 12 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd is incorporated. It trades from the same shop unit as Maestro minicabs and there is also a beauty business in the same unit.

10 September 12 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd buy the car for £2,900 in cash and rent it out straight away to a taxi driver.

19 July 13 - Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd rent the car to Alan Alans for a year.

6 January 14 - The bailiff finds the car near to Maestro Minicabs (not surprising as Alan Alans gets his fares from there) and clamps it and doesn't believe there has been a genuine sale when there have been three. This is because a friend of Fred Brown's who is helping them is called John and the bailiff thinks this is John Johns when it is actually John Roberts.

So starts a long round of complaining to the council, Harrow councillors and a local MP, Matthew Offord, none of whom seem to be at all interested. Rather than spend money on legal fees Mr Mustard thought the Local Government Ombudsman would see how wrong the seizure was, but he was wrong. Legal action will have to be next.

There are some interesting aspects to this case.

Harrow Council told the Ombudsman that the law is that they can only ask DVLA once for keeper's details. The LGO accepted this. In Mr Mustard's view that is bunkum. He will catch them in future months doing just that on another case, for sure.

There was no action by Harrow Council after issuing the Charge Certificate in June 12 until the Order for Recovery in August 13. As John Johns was no longer working for Maestro Minicabs, and as they destroy driver's records 6 months after they leave, it is unsurprising that John Johns did not respond to any PCN paperwork. The undue delay of more than 6 months at any stage in the processing of a PCN is, per London Councils, reason to cancel the PCN and would almost certainly have lead to a cancellation at PATAS if the case could have got there.

The Ombudsman refused sight of the Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery to Fred Brown's Car Hire Ltd on the grounds of data protection, as they do not know John Johns. So their car can be taken without sight of any document about the relevant PCN and they have no rights of appeal. A right Catch 22 that one.

The DVLA supplied all the ownership dates. They show that the PCN was issued to the wrong keeper, it should have been to Harold Smith. The LGO, the bailiff and Harrow Council are not concerned by this.

In all this time the vehicle has not been sold by the bailiff which indicates a certain nervousness on their part. They are right. There is going to be one hell of a claim against them.

Why was the car taken in the first place when it was clearly tools of the trade?

The vehicle has now been in storage for over 200 days.

The bailiff has provided the following figures for the debt at 1 August 12; best take a deep breath here and sit down.

Item	£
150 days storage	7,200.00
Bailiff fees	963.02
PCN itself	172.00
Total	8,335.02

which is a storage rate of £48 a day (it must be at Heathrow Airport in the short term car park?) Why have only 150 days been charged for when the car has been in storage for over 200? Doesn't that 2p really hurt!

But, if Fred Brown's want to make payment to take the vehicle (note that the bailiff isn't planning to return it even though it won't be in a drivable state; it will be filthy, it will have flat tyres and the battery will be as flat as a pancake despite the bailiff's duty to take care of seized goods) then they can pay a mere £1,980 as follows:

 

Item	£
150 days storage	1,016.98
Bailiff fees	791.02
PCN itself	172.00
Total	1,980.00

So why is the bailiff offering a discount of 75% and doesn't that evidence the excessive nature of bailiff's fees?

The main reason, in Mr Mustard's opinion is that they know they are in the soup and they hope to negotiate their way out of it.

Imagine a bill for £8,335 for a vehicle which cost £2,900, what sort of idiot would pay that?

Even £1,980 is ridiculous as the vehicle has depreciated in the "care" of the bailiff. They will be lucky to get £500 for it at auction without a log book or keys so returning the car if they can get more for it that way from the owner than at auction makes for more profit for the bailiff.

Mr Mustard thinks that they are going to find themselves in front of a County Court judge explaining why they took a car away from a company that didn't even exist when the PCN was issued and who aren't liable for the PCN which is in any event in the wrong name. Mr Mustard is looking forward to the hearing when he will sit in the back row, smiling to himself, saying nothing, quietly taking notes and watching the bailiff sweat.

This story isn't over yet.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Finchley re-zoned as Hendon

Here is the text of a recently received email:

Dear Mr Mustard

You recently successfully appealed a PCN for my husband. I have today received a PCN on my car parked outside my house in Finchley, displaying its permit. What I didn’t realise until closely inspecting the permit is that although it is up to date the area is HC2 and not FN. I’ve had a permit for this car since they were introduced and have renewed it on time each year. I just didn’t notice that the zone was incorrect this time. I would hope that this is excellent grounds for a successful appeal…!

Can you advise me what to do?

Mr Mustard did advise what to do and the PCN was quickly cancelled as it was, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rollocks. The council issue the wrong permit to a resident of 23 years who has had the same car for 9 years so why should they check the council has done its job properly as that is the least one is entitled to expect and what the resident has paid for.

So now as well as checking your permit is in date you had better check it has the correct zone identification letters on it such that they are the same as the ones on the signs in your street. How a North Finchley resident (FN) got a permit with the letters HC2 (a sub section of Hendon central) is a complete mystery although this is the second time that Mr Mustard has come across the problem, the last time the resident did live in Hendon and simply received the wrong Hendon zone permit and it took months to sort out. Perhaps the council is getting better at sorting out its cock-ups given how many it makes?

Mr Mustard wonders if the permit zone defaults to a particular zone or to the last one used whereas it should default to null and force the processor to input one. Having been given the idea here, Mr Mustard is sure the council will sit up and take notice. There is zero tolerance on errors in parking so 100% of permits should be correctly issued.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The permit system is pants

Captain Underpants

The council wants to nudge everyone towards using the Internet to obtain whatever they need without any real thought that the main purpose of the council is to serve, not to force everyone to be served in the same way, which isn't suitable for the more elderly.

Here is what happened when a more senior member of society tried to renew his car permit on-line

My father tried to renew his Barnet residents permit on-line three times. Each time it failed saying it couldn't recognise his address. So he telephoned instead to be told that it had indeed been renewed on-line. So the computer was saying no instead of yes. Now he will need to check his account to make sure he hasn't been debited 3 times.

All the best

It is completely wrong for the council to force channel shift in the first place, they should offer a rage of methods including telephone, post and personal visit to accommodate all types of citizen including the elderly and those who are not computer literate. Having forced the one option upon us they could at least make sure it works properly.

We are being "managed" by an overpaid gang of incompetents, it would seem.

If you have permit problems, do let Mr Mustard know by email to mrmustard@zoho.com

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard