The Friday Joke

http://www.redclaysoul.com/?p=1354

Finding a woman sobbing that she had locked her keys in her car, a passing soldier assures her that he can help.

She looks on amazed as he removes his trousers, ..... Rolls them into a tight ball and rubs them against the car door.

Magically it opens.......

"That's so clever," the woman gasps. "How did you do it?"
 
… "Easy," replies the man. "These are my khakis".

Parking in Barnet - Focus group messages

Focus

Although the Questions to and answers from the Leader of the council (not all answered by him, just what they are called) are full of pointless petty political point scoring (The Barnet Council chamber is not the House of Commons) the odd sensible question and answer do appear, like this one from Tuesday 6 April 14:

Question 26 Councillor Alan Schneiderman

Has the Cabinet Member now had time to identify the key messages coming out of the parking focus groups held in December and January; and if so what are they?

Answer by Councillor Dean Cohen

Yes and the key messages are as follows:

1. That we should relax enforcement – Civil Enforcement Officers are considered to be “ruthless and inflexible” (Absolutely no surprise there)

2. Free or cheap parking – free parking for 15-30 minutes are suggested in shopping streets and centres (what a good idea)

3. Straightforward payment methods (by which people probably meant cash)

4. Level of fines – it is suggested that there should be reduced car parking fines (but this is not under the Council’s control.) (Actually it is, the council could choose to accept the 50% rate at any time as they have a wide discretion. It would be an interesting experiment to see if compliance improved and payment collection percentages increased)

5. Council Policy and Engagement – This supports the development of a comprehensive parking policy and further engagement but suggested that residents would also like to have reviews of all controls and that we should provide additional parking.

6. Controlled parking – residents are concerned about the “myriad of variations in restrictions” so clearly we need to better explain the need for locally appropriate controls (or have less myriad variations)

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Taking TASK to task

a PCN bailiff cannot do this

On 25 March 2014, Mr Mustard received a rather nervous phone call from a disabled man in a bit of a panic, who Mr Mustard will call Mr K. He had the following letter.

So Mr Mustard had a mere 3 days to stop the rot. This was a bit of a challenge. Mr K, being disabled, could not afford to lose his car which he needed to get to work.

On 26 March, Mr Mustard made a house call to Mr K. He looked at the site of the supposed offence and it wasn't correct. Mr K had parked in the same place as he had for years in a residents bay and had properly displayed his blue badge. The bay he was accused of parking in was a joint loading bay - free bay. The former had a single yellow line behind it and the joint bay had a double yellow line behind it. Looking at the council's photographs proved the contravention did not occur thanks to the single yellow line. When told that fact, the challenge, handled by an NSL employee on behalf of the council, was rejected. Amazing, awful, but not unusual, Mr Mustard thinks that Notice Processing Officers have money blindness.

In between the PCN being issue in October 13 and the bailiff letter, Mr K had moved. He had told the council early on although was a little slow updating the V5 (vehicle registration details - Mr Mustard advises you to tell DVLA of your new address for your vehicle and for your driving licence on the day after you move as that will save you loads of grief). The bailiff letter was sent to the old address. That meant that the warrant of execution (sounds pretty serious but not fatal) was invalid as it has to be reapplied for at the new address.

Fees claimed of £457 were excessive as although a visit had been made to the old address there was no point in the bailiff attending again as he was told that Mr K had moved and this could be confirmed by a database check or by asking the council. It was completely impossible even with 3 visits for the total amount due to reach that level. If a bailiff demands money you are entitled to a breakdown and to see the warrant. It is more transparent from now on as bailiff charges are being simplified.

Mr Mustard hastened back to his office and emailed the parking manager. They are on good terms and perfectly civil to each other even when they disagree.

Mr Mustard made the following 4 points:

1. Warrant invalid as to address.

2. Excessive fees demanded.

3. Contravention did not occur.

4. Council don't have a vulnerable individuals policy.

Less than 2 hours later the PCN was history and the matter had been added to the agenda for the next meeting with NSL. Of course, TASK are owned by the NSL group and clearly NSL PCN processing are not properly monitoring the behaviour of their in-house bailiff. NSL should be banned from using their own bailiff on the Barnet contract as there is a clear conflict of interest.

It was lucky for Mr K that he knew Helen Michael of Cafe Buzz (do go there when you are at Tally Ho, Finchley, N12 as the food is really rather good) and that she was able to introduce Mr Mustard to Mr K. Mr Mustard could see the stress that the bailiff's letters were causing and if Mr Mustard didn't have the knowledge that he does, and the ability to cut through the system, Mr K would have paid the £457 before that Friday, 28 March.

Instead he is making a donation to the North London Hospice. He is a peaceable law-abiding citizen who had done no wrong and did not deserve to be treated this way. Mr Mustard has yet to see a bailiff case that has been 100% correctly enforced. He doesn't yet see Barnet Council undertaking their duty of care to ensure that bailiffs follow the rules. They are lucky not to have featured on Panorama, the footage was in the can (but is now on the cutting room floor).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Oh dear me Richard (Cornelius)

Blind man's bluff

Let's go back in time.

On 8 November 2012 Mr Mustard was in the audience at the One Barnet Question Time organised by the Barnet Alliance for Public Services

---

Sent: 09 November 2012 18:04

To: Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative

Subject: NSL now working (my ref #1401)

Dear Cllr Cornelius

Last night you said "NSL is generating savings now" (based on my manuscript notes but it will be on film)

You know how I like to armchair audit this sort of thing.

Please send me the figures which justify your claim. Please make sure this includes how much overtime has been paid to get them up to the expected level of PCN and the number of CEO (traffic wardens) now assigned to the contract as opposed to the number at contract start (number of posts not people in post) which I do believe has increased.

By the way, based upon what happens at PATAS (the independent adjudicator ) the contract still isn't going very well.

On Tuesday 6th November the hearings went as follows, and every single parking ticket was cancelled:

1. Allowed by Order of Adjudicator (this usually means no evidence filed by Barnet council)

2. TMO wrong.

3. No copy PCN filed.

4. Council failed to deal properly with correspondence.

5. By Order.

6. By Order.

7. Inadequate evidence from council.

8. By Order.

9. By Order

NSL are still not covering you in glory. Imagine this sort of mess in month 7 on DRS and NCSCO. Don't say later that I didn't warn you.

Thank you

Best regards

Mr Mustard

---

From: Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative

Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:34 PM

To: Mr Mustard

Subject: RE: NSL now working (my ref #1401)

I did say it whether its on film or not. I will get the info to back up .

regards

Richard

---

28 November 12

Dear Mr Cornelius

It is over 2 weeks since your email as below. Do you have the info now please.

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

---

23 January 2013

Dear Mr Cornelius

Oh dear it seems that the simplest factual question takes 10 weeks to not be answered.

On what date will I have an answer please?

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

At this point Mr Mustard concluded that Richard didn't have any evidence to support his statement and waited for proof to come out of its own accord.

---

Mr Mustard has now obtained the minutes of meetings between NSL and the council thin client parking team for 2012/13. Here are some of the entries from the 23 November 12 meeting;

* Council raised concerns regarding RR Donnelley, as several issues arose concerning scanning, banking of cheques made out to Barnet and unallocated process.

* Council raised concerns regarding PATAS performance - NSL to provide full commentary and action plan on how performance will improve - NSL to ensure quality of appeal packs moving forward are of a high standard, NSL to arrange more training and visit to PATAS.

* Civil Enforcement Officer notes in relation to cases of where PCN handed to driver needs to be more robust as several cases lost at PATAS.

* Council advised NSL now had contract for 6 months, expect a turnaround in relation to how contract is performing.

---

So what do we see from this. On 8 November Richard Cornelius, the Leader of the council said the contract is making savings which was his way of saying this One Barnet contract is working but the same month it is clear that the contract has never performed as it should have done. Problems have not gone away either. There are more blog posts to follow.

Mr Mustard has been concerned for some time that councillors generally don't get into the nitty gritty of council functions and then vote in seconds on long, complex and important committee reports. This is a classic example of a lack of in-depth understanding.

Either Corny was bluffing, or ignorant or worse, that he was making a carefully worded statement (he only spoke about savings, not about performance and left the audience to equate the two) which could be construed as a lie (I don't think Corny is a liar but he certainly didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about how well the contract was performing).

One Barnet isn't working.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Holly Park Primary School Barnet - A Shocking Food Hygiene Report - A Joint Blog

Holly Park School Reports by MisterMustard

We all have an expectation that our children will be cared for when they are at school, and we rely on our local council to ensure their safety, with a rigorous enforcement of the regulations regarding food hygiene. Young children are at a higher risk from the consequences of failing to uphold the high standards expected in these areas, and the result of such failures could be devastating for pupils.

On 12 December 2013 Holly Park Primary School kitchen was inspected  by an Environmental Health Officer from Barnet Council. They gave the school a zero rating, the lowest possible, citing amongst other things:

• Cobwebs and insects over food preparation areas;
• Flaking paint from the ceiling;
• Windows that don’t shut allowing in rain, leaves and insects;
• Leaking pipe;
• Damaged floor tiles;
• Broken ventilation allowing pests into the kitchen;
• No pest control contract;
• Work surfaces and storage areas which cannot be properly cleaned;
• Mould and condensation to the skylight and ceiling in the dry store where food is stored;
• Kitchen staff using broken electrical sockets and extension leads because other electrical sockets were not working;
• No evidence of a current electrical safety certificate;
• Broken lights ;
• Broken and disused kitchen equipment which were difficult to clean behind;
• Kitchen staff WC with holes in the walls and ceiling;
• Leak in the kitchen floor;
• An insecticutor  (one of those blue light machines  you see in kitchens that zap flies and insects) full of dead insects;
• Inadequate and overflowing bins.

Having read the food hygiene inspection report at Holly Park, as well as the follow up visits report, it is clear that something has gone very badly wrong at this school, and that this matter needs to be brought to public attention.

In total there were 21 contraventions of law listed with timescales for remedy ranging from immediately to 28 days. Bear in mind this inspection took place a week before the school broke up for Christmas but, as far as we are aware, parents were not informed of this situation and food continued to be served from this kitchen.

On 14 January 2014 a follow up visit was made by the Environmental Health Officer. Given that this was more than 28 days after the first visit, all of the contraventions of law should have been remedied. Sadly that wasn’t the case and the follow up report reveals the following:

• The walls and ceiling had not been cleaned and there were still cobwebs and insects in the kitchen;
• The floor had only been given a temporary repair but the Environmental  Health Officer required them to monitor the leak;
• Pests could still get in through the windows because they could not be shut – it was suggested that this was because the windows could not take the weight of the roof and had bowed out of shape.
• The work surfaces and shelves that could not be properly cleaned had still not been replaced;
• The electrical safety certificate had still not been produced;
• The flaking paint had not been dealt with.

 This visit took place a week after the children had gone back to school and food was still being served out of the kitchen. You can read the full report here.

What is apparent is that most of these issues are structural and denote a total lack of investment in this school kitchen. Barnet are always ready to claim credit for the excellent standards in schools but this indicates they have completely overlooked essential safety in the kitchen of this school.

We would also note that two there are two other schools in the Borough that achieved inadequate food hygiene ratings, Deansbrook Junior School in Hale Drive which scored just one point (Major improvement necessary) and Underhill Infants School  which scored two points (Improvement necessary).

You can read the food hygiene ratings for all Barnet schools here:

http://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/

Serious questions about the situation at Holly Park must be addressed. 

1.  Have the problems now been completely resolved and if not why not?
2.  Were parents fully informed of these problems? If not, why not? Surely they had a right to know -especially those parents whose children have school dinners?
3. Were the governors of the school, including Cllr Brian Salinger made aware of this report? If not, why not, and if they were, did they not think parents had a right to be informed of the situation?
4.  Why did Barnet Council allow a kitchen in such a poor state of repair continue to operate, and why, when they were given a zero rating, did they fail to remedy so many of the contraventions within the timescale set by the Environmental Health Officer?
5.  Were there any conflicts of interest between Re, the council’s contractor  who now operates Environmental Health, and the Council over the role of the Environmental Health Officer, given that  the Officer now has two employers – Capita, before they enter and after they leave the premises, and the Council, whilst they carry out the inspection?

 In the best interests of all families with children at Barnet’s schools, we ask Barnet Council to respond in full to the concerns raised here, as soon as possible, so as to reassure residents that the privatisation of council services and management of statutory roles in the One Barnet programme is not placing children or any other residents at risk.

John Dix
Derek Dishman
Teresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

KPI target too hard to meet? then get an easier one

Key Performance Indicator 5 (KPI5) in the parking enforcement contract with NSL is the following:

The Service provider will be required to ensure that staff turnover shall not exceed an annual mean of 10% (A mean is an average). This will include all staff employed on the contract ...

Some variance is allowed, as the contract also says:

There is a tolerance level of 5% which is likely to be adjusted during the life of the Contract:

which Mr Mustard reads as up to 10.5% is allowed (not 10+5 = 15% as that would make a mockery of the target. The contract also requires monthly reports of staff in post at the end of each month.

Mr Mustard had asked to see the actual KPI measurements for the year to 31 March 13 as part of the annual audit process which invites the public to visit the council and look at paperwork. Mr Mustard discovered last June that there were no actual KPI measurements for 2012/13.

Mr Mustard doesn't think there is a hope in hell of NSL ever meeting this KPI although it didn't become part of the performance pay structure until month 13 which is May 13. The point of the KPI is to to try and get stability in the workforce which leads to better teamwork and a greater understanding of the client's needs and of Barnet's parking enforcement.

How long did NSL last before, it seems, they decided they wanted out of this KPI? Until 10 September 13. This is the note from the meeting:

Suggested replacing this KPI with one linked to PATAS performance. Redacted to offer proposal for new KPI.

If Mr Mustard was the contract manager the request (and the assumption is that NSL requested this change and not the council, as why would they?) would be rejected outright. NSL are supposedly the number 1 parking enforcement company (how bad the number 2 must be Mr Mustard can't begin to imagine) and are a large company who have sufficient market experience to know what type of contract they have freely entered into. Negotiation of a different KPI should have taken place during the tender process if this one didn't suit them.

The provision of paperwork on time and for all cases to PATAS forms part of KPI9 (Processing Services) or KPI 10 (Response services) which hilariously NSL reported no problems with meeting. Mr Mustard could provide dozens of cases where processing and/or responses have gone wrong.

Thus the only criteria he could see for measuring PATAS performance are the Appeal success rate or the percentage of PCN which are Appealed to PATAS and both measures make him feel uncomfortable.

Why?

Because the Appeal success rate is affected by many other factors such as the state of signs and lines or the fact that the Traffic Management Order is faulty thanks to someone in Highways or even which adjudicator hears a case.

If the percentage appealed to PATAS is used where does one set the bar? It needs to be at the level that used to prevail before NSL took over or at the average for London (excluding the City and TfL as they are special cases).

Best leave KPI5 as it is. Mr Mustard will remain vigilant on KPIs. Doubtless Capita will want to do the same if they have trouble meeting any of the KPI in their much larger contract.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Oops - NSL - same mistake twice

oops

Following on from Sunday's post about NSL failing to send out 864 Bus Lane PCN (minuted on 24 May 12) you would probably expect that failure to not happen again? Oh dear, it has.

When it comes to parking, zero tolerance is show by the council, 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 18 January 13 it was minuted that 235 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 £13,720 or 8 days 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  except that it would have worked if it had been configured correctly).

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard