Full council meetings / OBN / useless planning enforcement

The Swiss Chalet, Church Passage, Chipping Barnet, 4 April 14

With due deference to Private Eye Mr Mustard brings you the Order of the Brown Nose (OBN) which makes nauseating appearances at every full council meeting and is it any wonder that the average member of the public takes no part in civic affairs? Luckily, Mr Mustard is otherwise occupied this Tuesday evening, playing snooker so that then he doesn't have to listen to sycophantic questions from the Conservative councillors who haven't otherwise been heard or to condescending and dismissive answers to opposition questions.

Look at this OBN one:

Question 73 Councillor Lisa Rutter

Does the Cabinet Member agree that the transition of our planning function to Capita seems to have gone very smoothly? (appearances can be deceptive)

Did she manage to write this all by herself or was it suggested to her. Actually probably all by herself as it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The planning function of Barnet Council has not officially been transitioned to Capita, although it might have been in practice, but, according to the council website moved to the rather stupidly named Re (Regional Enterprise) Ltd (the abbreviation Re being so capable of misunderstanding that it has to be spelt out inside parentheses) which company has 99 shares of which 50 are held by Capita Symonds and the other 49 by Barnet (Holdings) Ltd on behalf of the Council, the Directors are Richard Cornelius and Andrew (Black Hole) Travers.

Answer by Councillor Joanna Tambourides:

Yes, the transition has been very smooth. In particular, the Planning Department has continued to maintain its high performance when making planning decisions and is now in the top four Local Planning Authorities in London (34 planning authorities in London) for speed of decision making (based on Communities and Local Government performance tables).

There has also been an extension to the scope of enforcement actions taken, in so far as, a number of direct planning enforcement actions have been taken against unauthorised development, subject to enforcement notices, where illegal developments have been physically removed by contractors employed by the Council (some of these actions were against “beds in sheds”).

The Planning Service has also been able to accelerate delivery of the Council’s regeneration and major developments programme.

Now let us look at what has happened on the ground. A property developer decided to make inappropriate changes to a building inside the conservation zone. There were howls of protests from locals who like their area as it is, including from the Barnet Society. The matter ended up with the planning inspector at Bristol who decided the building should be restored to its former state. Such a simple decision to implement.

Except that Barnet Planning can't seem to manage to, or don't want to, enforce the decision.

Instead of the straight removal we have this from the principal planning enforcement officer (who seems to be principal but not sufficiently principled)

As far as I understand a smooth render will be applied to the boards now in place. Other than there being a smooth rather than rough render the external appearance should be as previous. If the gaps in the boards are patently obvious or there is an uneasy relationship between neighbouring properties the owner will be asked to rethink. Essentially we would like this building to be rather inconspicuous so as not to compete with the old library or church, if this is achieved we might be able to overlook some variation from the previous form.

No, no, no. Put it back as it was. No shilly shallying. The planning inspector said to put it back as it was not something like it used to be. Like this.

credit: Barnet Society

No ifs, no buts, exactly as it was before the illegal works commenced. It is our town (Mr Mustard is a resident of High/Chipping Barnet and looked at this view out of his office window for 20 years). Listen to the Barnet Society who are trying to keep it as it should be.

Nothing else will do.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

One Barnet parking NSL contract failure

When it comes to parking, zero tolerance is show by the council (intolerance shurely, Ed), acting by their agents NSL, to a perceived parking contravention. Traffic wardens are required to issue a PCN to a vehicle seen in contravention. Is the same attitude displayed by the council when NSL are in contravention of the One Barnet parking enforcement contract?

On 24 May 12 it was minuted that 864 bus lane PCN had not been issued. At £130 each with an estimated 50% of the PCN paid at 50% and then 20% at full price the loss to the council would be £50,440 or one month of anticipated contract savings.

Mr Mustard went through the 2012/13 Accounts and no deductions were made from sums paid for that year and he wasn't made aware of any when he did the Audit Commission Act inspection as a member of the public.

NSL should be made to pay for any errors (and doubtless they will point the finger at Civica the software supplier).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Informal challenges and a new address

Mr Mustard has had some recent problems with his formal representations not being answered and has also had them in the past with informal challenges not being answered. He knows of 500 cases where correspondence was indexed to the wrong PCN in August/September 12. Let's have a quick look at both types of challenge:

Informal

An informal challenge is what you are making when you ask for a PCN, that has been put on your car in the last 28 days, to be cancelled. This stage is not laid down in statute but is offered on the PCN and as the council say they will consider any challenge then under their general duty at law to be fair (see Secretary of State for Homeland v ex parte Doody) they have to consider them. If your PCN reaches the PATAS stage without an informal challenge being considered the council (NSL) will argue that they don't have to. That is to ignore the Hackney Drives Association Ltd judicial review which found that they do have to be. 

The no-nonsense independent adjudicator at PATAS, Mr Anthony Chan, considered this point in PATAS case number 213043539A and found that it was a procedural impropriety not to consider the informal challenge. You can read the decision here (put 213043539A in the case reference box and then hit enter) and although it is not binding on other independent adjudicators Mr Mustard thinks they would follow his reasoning as he is much respected. Don't rely on this as your only appeal point, add all the rest that you can find.

Formal

The formal representations are the ones that you send in response to the Notice to Owner (you must send them within 28 days of receipt of the Notice to Owner). If these are not properly considered and responded to within 56 days the council are deemed to have accepted them although that won't stop the process unless you clearly tell the council they are going wrong. Tell them they are in breach of Regulation 5(5) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 in order to get their full attention.

New address

A new address for correspondence has been brought to Mr Mustard's attention (he personally prefers to email to barnet@nslservices.co.uk as that is quicker and there is an automatically generated proof of receipt or you could use the online system and printscreen as proof that you used it) and it is

Barnet Parking Services

PO Box 197
Lowton Way
Hellaby
Sheffield

S98 1LW

Did you know that you can find the physical address to which PO Box mail is delivered by asking the Royal Mail ? Well you can. It didn't help this time as the Royal Mail simply told Mr Mustard it was Lowton Way. He looked at Lowton Way on streetmap and couldn't see a branch of RR Donnelley. What he did find, by using google search, is that there is a company called PARSEQ there and that they handle mail and cheque payments for NSL. Mr Mustard will let the Royal Mail know where to deliver the post as they don't!

Mr Mustard recalls that the tender for the parking enforcement contract by NSL rowed in their "strategic partner" RR Donnelley and that there was a month's contract start delay whilst RR Donnelley applied for membership of the local authority pension scheme.

What has happened to RR Donnelley?

Why were they disposed of, was it a service quality problem?

Does this change need a contract amendment?

How are the up to 7 staff who were tuped across affected?

Keep an eye on the paperwork you receive from now on as you should probably be writing to this new Sheffield address (jobs being moved even further away from Barnet) rather than the Worthing one. Presumably there are some arrangements in place to make sure that mail sent to Worthing is still handled promptly and properly.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Your husband was in a coma - so what ("great" work by NSL)

Here is a report by an adjudicator who Mr Mustard happened to be in front of on Thursday morning for an Enfield PCN on a day when he also considered this one from Barnet.

The behaviour of NSL in sending this lady all the way to PATAS is repulsive and repugnant and reflects very badly on the borough.

It seems to me that most members of the public would share my astonishment that whatever the merits of the legality or otherwise of the parking the Council did not immediately exercise its discretion in the case of an 85 year old lady visiting her husband who was in a coma and just forgot to display her disabled badge. In the absence of any history of previous warnings or instances of non-display the Council should have cancelled the PCN with an appropriate reminder to be more careful in future.

As it transpires it is unnecessary to make a formal recommendation to that effect as the Appeal falls to be allowed on other grounds. The Council's statement in its rejection notice to the effect that the clock was required to be displayed in addition to the badge was not correct and could have misled the Appellant as to the true basis on which the PCN was issued. The issue of the rejection notice not having considered the representations in the light of the applicable legal provisions is a procedural impropriety and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

The One Barnet parking enforcement contract has been given to a company without a moral compass, NSL is their name.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Hang on a minute

Just a minute

Traffic wardens are in such a rush to issue PCNs that they can't find 5 minutes to actually do their job properly, of observing a vehicle for a reasonable time as the following independent adjudicator's decision (from the PATAS register) shows:

 

Mrs W does not dispute that her car was parked in this parking bay without displaying a permit. However she has maintained from the outset that she came to visit a resident in the street, and only left the car without a permit for the time it took to go to her house, obtain and complete a visitor's voucher and return to the car, a process she estimates as taking about 3 minutes. She points out that the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after only one minute's observation, and suggests that he/she must have actually seen her leave the car. Mrs W has now produced a letter from Miss A, the occupier of 7 Redacted Road, the person whom she was visiting, which confirms her account.

The Enforcement Authority have insisted throughout that a permit or voucher must be displayed from the moment the car is parked in such a bay, and that no period of grace is allowed. Mrs W contends, by contrast, that it is not possible for a visitor to a resident to have a visitor's voucher already in her possession; it is necessary to go to the resident's house to obtain it, and so a short time must be allowed for this to be done.

I am perplexed by the Authority's stance in this case. It is self-evident that a reasonable period must be allowed for a visitor to obtain and complete a visitor's voucher from a resident, for the reasons Mrs W has clearly set out. Had the CEO observed the vehicle for, say, five or more minutes, then it would have been reasonable to assume that the owner was not obtaining a visitor's voucher, but by allowing only one minute that assumption could not be safely made. In this case I am satisfied that it was in fact wrongly made.

I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, and so I allow this appeal. 

 

[I would respectfully suggest that the Authority give some thought to the instructions they give to their CEO's and to their decision-makers in relation to this issue.]

 

That final sentence is a typically understated hint from an adjudicator and if NSL, on behalf of the council don't do so, a costs award will inevitably arise on a future case.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Mr Mustard has just remembered he has a PATAS Appeal to attend in mid April which centres on the time it takes to get a blue badge from a resident and where the observation time was also only one minute. He will take this decision with him in support of his argument.

Costs of One Barnet outsourcing : parking

The One Barnet outsourcing is meant to save money.

The parking contract with NSL is a One Barnet contract.

It is meant to save £600,000 a year.

Some of that has been lost because of the way in which the staff were dealt with when NSL took over (NSL are innocent in this matter apart from their business decision to manage the Barnet back office from Croydon). The story is in the local paper, the Barnet Times. That expensive town hall tax dodging interim HR expert doesn't seem to have been worth the money they were paid.

The amount at issue which the council will have to pay out is in the region of £200,000 so that is 4 months out of the 60 the contract is scheduled for which won't show a saving.

There are more failings which Mr Mustard will tell you about soon.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

new NSL appeal strategy - give in (April Fool)

This post was an April Fool, in so far as it is in red type.

Mr Mustard has been making NSL look like fools when it comes to Appeals at PATAS and to PCN in general (for which NSL are the appointed One Barnet parking enforcement contractor of Barnet Council).

In 2013 Mr Mustard handled 102 PCN and 98 of them were cancelled.

So far in 2014 he has 34 cancelled PCN to his name (with 3 people told by Mr Mustard to pay up rather than fight). Of those 34 PCN, 20 have got as far as PATAS and each one costs the council £40 in fees whether they win or lose. So far, in 2014, the council have either lost every case at PATAS or in a few cases thrown in the towel without a hearing. That has cost the council £800 in fees to help run PATAS. They paid £14,400 out in January to run PATAS and want to get this cost back within budget.

A new manager has arrived at NSL and has carefully studied the cases that Mr Mustard has won. He has done a cost benefit analysis of the situation and given that Mr Mustard appeals at most 160 PCN a year out of 165,000, so is only messing up 0.1% of the PCN issued, the new manager has worked out that it is cheaper to let Mr Mustard win every case at the formal appeal stage (the representations that are made in response to the Notice to Owner) as that way the council doesn't lose £40 and doesn't have to spend 2 or 3 hours preparing an Evidence Pack which Mr Mustard then chops into little pieces.

Needless to say NSL were trying to keep this quiet (they haven't even told the council thin client side) but inevitably one of Mr Mustard's moles got to hear of this new policy, which has only come into force today on the start of the new council year, 1 April 2014, and told him. The simple fact is that all you have to do in order to get your PCN cancelled is to add to your representations:

"If my PCN is not cancelled I will be represented at PATAS by Mr Mustard".

To preserve face and to avoid complaint from other lesser known PCN representatives who abound on Pepipoo you also have to put in the other grounds under which you think your PCN should be cancelled (i.e. the sign was facing the wrong way, the lines were faint, you were unloading etc etc) so that NSL can choose one of those grounds and cite some vague processing error and the normal order of things will be preserved. NSL won't officially cancel the ticket just because Mr Mustard beats them hands down every time.

If for some bizarre foolish reason your request for cancellation is not met then do please email mrmustard@zoho.com for advice.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard