Governors in Barnet Schools are unhappy about the hurried budget consultation

School governors are selfless people who give up many of their evenings for free in the interests of society.

Don't hack them off Barnet Council or they might leave.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Reject but then accept the same argument - why?

Not the best ever photo but double yellows clearly visible

Mr Mustard's motorist friend spends some of his working life delivering meals for UberEats including from McDonalds (yuk). The delivery in question on this occasion was to Gloucester Rd in New Barnet and the charge for that was £5.42. The motorist told Mr Mustard that he had delivered to Mr Mustard's road which is a 10 minute walk from McDonalds, no wonder fast food makes you fat & apparently lazy as well.

Anyway Mr U as we shall call the motorist drove up in his car, parked outside on the double yellow lines outside McDonalds which is fine as he is a courier and as it was after 6.30pm when the loading restriction at that location comes to an end, nipped into McDonalds and when he came out he found a PCN on his car. The traffic warden had done a ticket and run having observed the car for a mere minute.

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge on behalf of Mr U. Here it is.

 Here is the informal rejection.

'Carefully' possibly means 'for 2 seconds' .

No loading/unloading was seen as the CEO (traffic warden) didn't hang around to see what was happening. That does not mean that loading was not in progress only that the CEO did not see it.

Yes you can wait (=park) on double yellows if any of the following apply:

* loading or unloading something heavy or bulky

* boarding or alighting passengers, including accompanying them if necessary

* told to stop there by a policeman

* broken down

* medical emergency

so what the council wrote is not strictly accurate.

At this point many people worry about the discount, £55 in this case, and the difference between £55 and £110 if you are in the gig economy is huge. Mr Mustard explained the odds to Mr U who trusted Mr Mustard's judgment and so on we went.

The Notice to Owner arrived and the formal rejections were made, in identical form to the previous challenge.

This time the response was completely different

The unanswered question is why it was only at the second time of asking that the challenge was accepted or more importantly, why the first challenge was emphatically rejected along with the 'education' that the council rather self-importantly think they provide to motorists in their rejections, even when they are talking utter tosh.

Possible reasons are:

- lack of knowledge

- lack of application of the rules

- experience, i.e. many people pay at this stage if rejected

- the realisation that if they reject twice Mr Mustard always takes the council to the tribunal where, more often than not, they get found out & every case costs them £30, so they had best accept

- change of person considering the challenge from an NSL one to a council one.

This is wrong though. This is as clear an example as you could find of an informal challenge which has been wrongly rejected. Until such time as there is some sanction against councils for rejecting informal challenges when they should be accepted, the current biased system will continue.

Longer observation periods are also required.

If you are correct, do fight to the end.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Double trouble

The sometime loading bay, sometime short term fee parking bay

This story has been in the Barnet Times who Mr Mustard helps with technical PCN matters. A traffic warden will make a mistake from time to time, that is fine, it is how you deal with it that matters.

Quick story:

1. PCN issued (in error as it happens)

2. Motorist writes in expecting immediate cancellation & you never know, an apology, a bottle of wine, flowers, a box of chocolates ...something.

3. Council write back and say he should have paid to park.

4. Motorist writes back as he can't believe the second error.

5. Council write again and tell him to go away and wait until the Notice to Owner is issued, which will not be for a month.

6. Motorist contacts local newspaper which checks with Mr Mustard & then asks the council to comment.

7. PCN gets cancelled very soon thereafter.

Firstly what clues did the traffic warden (who only issued their first PCN on 6 August 2018 so is inexperienced and probably under-trained and/or not up to the job) miss? The obvious one is the sign on the pole, the one that is at a jaunty angle at the back of the car. The second one is that the bay is wide enough for a lorry as this is a part time loading bay so probably not a bay in which you have to pay. The third one is the transverse line at the end of the bay marking where the pay bay starts (although for clarity the two bays should be separated by a short stretch of yellow line). 

Why did it go wrong at the informal challenge stage? (informal just means a challenge in response to a PCN issued on street). This Freedom of Information response holds the answers.

Informal challenges are responded to by NSL Ltd. Their office deal with these is in Dingwall. Where the heck is Dingwall, Mr Mustard hears you cry. Dingwall is where the red pin is.

Dingwall is nearer to the Faroe Islands than it is to Finchley. Scots are great travellers but Mr Mustard doesn't suppose that any of the NSL employees in that office have been on familiarisation trips to Finchley. What tools do the employees have at their disposal? They have the photographs taken by the traffic wardens, eight of them in this case including the recommended one of the car and sign in the same shot but sadly the standard close up shot of the sign was of the wrong sign. The clues were still in the photos as the sign at the back of the car was on a thin grey pole and the pay by phone sign was mounted on a thick black pole.

Google street view would have answered the layout question.

The council's map based Traffic Management Order would also have been indicative of there being two types of bay.

The pink bay is the loading & free parking bay. The green dotted line marks the pay bay.

The suspicion is that NSL reject, on behalf of the council, pretty much all informal challenges without really troubling to read them (another blog is coming with an example) and it is only at the next stage when representations are made in response to the Notice to Owner that a council officer, who works within the borough and so is more likely to live in and travel about the borough, can then apply any local knowledge he/she has to the situation. In this case when the motorist wrote back to point out rejection was wrong instead of a different NSL person looking to see if the motorist might just be right, as he lives nearby, the contact was rejected out of hand. That was unhelpful & dim. It also doesn't help that the council have apparently not given NSL any guidance or policies.

Let's look at Mr Mustard's statistics for 2018. So far in 2018 he has fought 103 Barnet PCNs (+ 80 outside the borough).

He has lost 17 times so that is how many times the council were correct to fight to the end. (These include cases where people came to Mr Mustard with no available argument but were already at the stage of having missed the discount period so they may as well fight to the end as sometimes the council give up anyway).

On just 12 occasions the council, probably decided by NSL, have accepted informal challenges.

On 15 occasions the council, probably itself, have accepted formal representations. Mr Mustard usually puts in the same arguments at both stages so that means informal challenges were wrongly rejected 15 times.

On 3 occasions the council decided not to bother once a referral had been made by witness statement to the county court after a document was lost.

On 23 occasions Mr Mustard took his rejected arguments to the independent adjudicators at London Tribunals and the council threw in the towel rather than produce the evidence and have the matter decided upon it. That means good representations were rejected 23 times as otherwise surely the council would have wanted the matter argued out?

On 36 occasions an adjudicator agreed with Mr Mustard's arguments, or the council made procedural errors. Those are another 36 cases that should have seen the PCN cancelled at an earlier stage. It is also 36 fees of £30 paid to the tribunal by Barnet Council that they could have avoided.

The reason that so many informal challenges are rejected is because experience has shown councils, not just Barnet, that most people don't realise you can use the same argument at all three rounds of the process and they give up the fight. That, combined with apathy, a shortage of time & a lack of knowledge of parking law and PCN processes tilts the playing field towards the council. Mr Mustard grabs it and pushes it firmly back the other way and is always ready to trust his judgment and fight to the very end & in 2018 he has been shown to be right 83% of the time or to put it another way, 5 times out of 6.

Whatever you do, if you are sure of your ground, don't give in. Stick to the timetable and make firm but polite challenges at the relevant times. If your situation is patently absurd then do email the local paper and/or go to your local councillor. The council hate bad publicity and it is in their interests to cancel your PCN at the earliest possible stage if they aren't going to make any money from it. It can though be hard sometimes to get them to see the error of their ways.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council spout nonsense

Mr Mustard reads a lot of tribunal decisions, usually about 300 a month (sat in bed with his ipad and a cup of tea in the morning, bliss). He missed this one though and a vigilant reader brought it to his attention.

Adjudicators, being trained lawyers of at least 3 years call (qualified working time) tend to employ intelligent & indirect criticism. The most critical phrase Mr Mustard had seen up until now was 'This is an astounding decision' which was in relation to car drivers being expected to check the internet to see if there was a rugby match taking place that day rather than being notified by signs. Mr Mustard simply hasn't seen such a direct slap around the face with a wet cod nor such a warning to never say something again nor the use of the word 'nonsense' which leaves so little doubt about the concern for legality and procedural fairness in the mind of the adjudicator.

What worries Mr Mustard is that this is unlikely to be a one off event. Other people may have taken the council at their word, which we all should be able to do, but which Mr Mustard never accepts without verification, and paid the PCN for a car which was not theirs, an absolute miscarriage of justice.

Mr Mustard has noticed over the years that Barnet Council are more stubborn than most councils when it comes to accepting that cloning has taken place and it does happen a lot. When Mr Mustard gets a cloning case it is often the case that the car will incur penalties in more than one borough and drive away without paying for fuel. Other local authorities have proven themselves to be impartial and objective when it comes to accepting that cloning has taken place, not to Barnet Council, who insist motorists go to the tribunal even when faced with evidence from the DVLA, police and other authorities who have cancelled their PCNs. Mr Mustard doesn't know why they are stubborn in this area.

The above extract of a tribunal decision (number 2170150147 for experts who want to know) contains an important principle, the council have to prove that it is your vehicle. The registration plate does not make it your vehicle, just a vehicle bearing the number plate that has been allocated to a particular metal box. Best produce everything to the tribunal though that shows it isn't, starting with a 'spot the difference' set of photographs and prove you have told the police or DVLA of the cloning. When you tell the police they stick the number plates into their vehicles of interest database and keep stopping cars with that plate until they catch the rogue one.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Saracens Ltd - charitable donations

It used to be the case that companies had to declare within their published Accounts how much they had disbursed in charitable donations but that legal requirement ceased 5 years ago. Mr Mustard has though gone back through the Accounts of Saracens Ltd, the company which the rugby team income goes through, and found the following amounts.

Years to June

The trend was downhill

In 2014 the charitable contributions were 0.08% of turnover. That doesn't seem like much.

For money going the other way the Accounts of the Saracens Sports Foundation for 2017 reveal this information.

Charging £24,000 rent p.a. to the charity, now that does look a bit keen. Surely they should be given space at the ground free of charge?

Mr Mustard wonders if councillors knew any of this when they voted in favour of the funding for the West Stand & to answer his own question he doubts they really got into the details, just saw the word 'charity' & assumed that the rugby club were giving bundles of money to the charity arm, when that doesn't appear to be the case.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Greenacre Walk - St Albans

G Webber is a genius

That problem of council sub-contractors hiding their telephone number from you (and insisting you write or use a web-form) has been solved by G Webber (Mr Mustard does not know them).

G Webber asked the following question of Barnet Council

 and received the following response

Calls to a number starting 03 are the same as to numbers starting 01 or 02.

If you have an organisation that works for a council that you want to telephone, this is how you now get the number. It will take up to 20 working days for a response.

I expect someone will now ask for the telephone number of the NSL parking back office in Dingwall (not Mr Mustard as he is usually highlighting their shortcomings to council parking management and cuts out the middleman).

G Webber - you are a genius.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

This evening Mr Mustard was delighted to receive an email from G Webber.

I’m glad you found my FOI request useful! I read your blog regularly. I’m a Golders Green resident and have successfully had four Barnet PCNs issued to my car cancelled as unfounded, and one FPN for ‘fly-tipping’ (issued when either I or my partner left our flat’s rubbish on the street exactly where the council had told us to!) dropped in recent years. Always very impressed by your stamina on behalf of others.

Best wishes

G Webber