Does Vicky Pollard work for Haringey Council?

You know Vicky Pollard, Yeah but no but yeah?

Let Mr Mustard tell you right from the off that Haringey Council have done something sensible. They have abolished a "Pre-Debt reminder letter" that they have doubtless issued by the shed load.

Here is the history. His client received a bus lane PCN. There is nothing in the relevant Regulations (the London Local Authorities Act 1996 as amended) that allows for a Bus Lane PCN to be challenged before the Enforcement Notice is issued (not to be confused with the Notice of Enforcement which the bailiff might send you later) and Mr Mustard was going to make the formal representations at that stage. Haringey invite earlier challenges which is probably a tactical offering as they know most people don't have staying power and so they don't then have to offer you the chance to Appeal to an independent adjudicator but do offer you the discount again as what they really want is for you to pay up. Whether at 100% or 50% both of which represent a lovely little income stream.

The Enforcement Notice did not arrive and Mr Mustard knew his reliable client had not received it as the balance had increased on the council computer from £130 to £195. He told his client the Order for Recovery would be next at which point he could rewind the process back to the Enforcement Notice. Instead, his client received a Pre-Debt reminder letter, this one in fact:

Mr Mustard was unhappy with this so he made a complaint to Haringey Council.

For brevity Mr Mustard has spared you the council's attempt to avoid his complaint about the specific PCN and the pasting he sent in return. Here is the substantive reply with comments by Mr Mustard in red.

Dear Mr Mustard

Your complaint about Penalty charge procedure not followed, our reference: LBH/*******

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to investigate your complaint. (You don't have a choice, it isn't an opportunity).

I note that you have raised concerns regarding London Borough of Haringey’s use of a pre-debt letter after a Charge Certificate has been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, in this case your client Mr H. (and in general for all motorists)

Our records do show that the Enforcement Notice was sent on the 21 July 2015 to the same address as to where the Charge Certificate was sent on the 26 August 2015 which Mr H clearly received. (Mr Mustard said the Charge Certificate was received but not the Enforcement Notice. Why repeat him?) The Charge Certificate clearly states if we do not receive payment before the end of the 14 day period we may register the charge as a debt at the County Court and ultimately we may pass the case to an Enforcement Agent to recover the debt. From your complaint it would seem that you must be equally unhappy and discontent with the prescribed content of the Charge Certificate, as this makes no mention of the witness procedure either and in particular no mention that your client could be sent a second enforcement notice. (Mr Mustard is grateful to Haringey for pointing out that the statutory document does not mention the Order for Recovery but that was not his complaint) Therefore your argument that the “pre debt reminder” is “procedurally unfair” must be questionable. (Not all all. The pre-debt reminder letter is as one-sided as a Mobius strip)

The statutory guidance, which the borough does give due regard to, does not state that we cannot enter into any additional communication with a debtor (indeed but if there is a statutory process with a number of pre-ordained steps then there needs to be a pretty good reason to depart from it which Mr Mustard has yet to hear.) The pre-debt reminder letter is in addition to the statutory process and is designed to allow people in a similar situation to Mr H the opportunity to avoid the penalty charge notice moving to the next stage and possibly paying an additional £7 (but not to tell them that if the process has gone wrong in certain ways that they can wind the process back). Therefore your suggestion that the Council is merely seeking to save itself £7 is incorrect s someone who simply wanted to pay the £195 and forgot has another chance (but those like his client who want to file a witness statement are being caused delay and stress whilst they wait). It’s therefore disappointing that you seem to be advocating something that may cost some people more. (One could only decide this if you have some statistics to show how many more people save £7 than needlessly pay £195)

I am sorry to hear that Mr H was upset by the receipt of the letter (who wouldn't be upset at having a debt registered against them in the County Court when they intend to fight the PCN to the end) but in general it has been found beneficial to send a pre-debt letter after the Charge Certificate (to whom? the council or the motorist?). Not only is this good customer relations practice but also experience is that a proportion of recipients will pay in response (which is why we send it. Has any research been done as to what motivated people to pay? Mr Mustard will ask). If a pre-debt letter generates a response from the owner, in accordance with best practice (what best practice?) the borough handles a response at this stage as if it were post Charge Certificate correspondence (Which is the stage the process is at so there isn't any other choice. What Mr Mustard sees all the time in response to post charge certificate correspondence from motorists is a letter from the council saying that you can't do anything now but await the Order for Recovery).

The ‘DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER’ heading and, I am sorry if you feel this is biased advice (Mr Mustard doesn't feel it is biased, it is biased), is merely designed to act as a prompt to encourage the registered keeper to contact the authority (the only phone number supplied is for making payment on; there is no number to discuss any possible error that may have occurred) or to make payment of the outstanding penalty charge bearing in mind that previous statutory documents had already been sent to Mr H (but not necessarily received. Mr H has written to the Royal Mail about his postal problems).

Notwithstanding the above, at the point of receiving your letter the service was already in the process of reviewing the very matter of the “pre debt reminder” (Well strike Mr Mustard down with a feather, what a co-incidence). I can tell you that the outcome of that review is to no longer use the letter (despite it being so disappointing that Mr Mustard advocated just that!). Arrangements are already in hand to discontinue it. (Not hard to not do something is it?)

We will not be cancelling the Penalty Charge Notice at this stage and our records show the order for recovery is being processed and sent out to your client today. (It has been received and will be sent to the TEC very shortly)

I hope that I have resolved your concerns to your satisfaction. (Perversely by abandoning something which the council clearly thought was wonderful, yes, in so far as no more motorists will be bullied by the receipt of the misleading pre-debt reminder letter but not in his client's case but that will be raised at London Tribunals).

A good end to the week. The Haringey PCN process is now fairer than it was.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Highways fork the signs up

Hot on the heels of Mr Mustard spotting an impossible combination of signs in Harrow, he noticed quite a few closer to home that are wrong. There are two at the junction of St Albans Rd and the High St, one outside Barnet College near Barnet Church and one in Station Rd near the Everyman Cinema (was the Odeon). There will be others at other points where a car can quite correctly pass either side of a traffic island, like this one

The left fork takes you towards St Albans and the right towards Potters Bar and although you can pass either side of the double arrowed sign it is not the correct sign as this sign indicates two choices which allow you to reach the same destination (they are usually used to indicate that in a multi lane carriageway with pedestrian refuges, that you truly can pass either side.

Mr Mustard presumes that these shiny new signs (you have seen them appearing like mushrooms all over the borough? - Mr Mustard quite likes them and they have the advantage of not needing an electricity supply so are replaced more quickly and easily after an accident) have been installed by the stupidly named Re (Regional Enterprise) Ltd, the joint venture between the council and Capita in which the council have gifted Capita a 51% majority shareholding despite its opening business all being sourced from Barnet Council to start with. Maybe they could appoint a Highways Engineer who knows their traffic signs and replace all of the misleadingly incorrect ones free of charge.

By the way Re:, the correct sign would be one which is plain.

If only Barnet Council didn't keep outsourcing services to companies that don't know what they are doing.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

 

Harrow Highways sign fiasco

Mr Mustard had to go to Christchurch Avenue to look at a route restricted to "buses and cycles only" where a client had transgressed by driving past the blue signs that you can see below. This location is just along the road from the Harrow Leisure Centre.

Whilst standing there studying the signs with Bald Eagle of NoToMob fame Mr Mustard realised that every bus driver on the H9 route is, whilst following the route set by London Sovereign buses and which doubtless has to be agreed with the council and the police, driving straight past a "No Motor Vehicles" sign (the access is for local residents just past the bus stop, you can see their cars behind the bus stop). A bus is, of course, a "motor vehicle".

Luckily for bus drivers everywhere the No Motor Vehicles sign is not enforced. If it were the fiasco would have been spotted sooner. Isn't it amazing though that there have been hundreds of contraventions at this location and no motorist, nor the council itself, appears to have spotted the anomaly.

How can Harrow Council penalise any driver for contravening a "No Motor Vehicles" sign somewhere else in the borough when the Highways Department have in place such a sign at this location which clearly does not apply. Mr Mustard wonders if they used to be there on their own before the blue signs were erected?

Furthermore, cars can't drive more than a few yards past the Controlled Parking Zone sign and buses are not likely to stop on a single yellow to park, so they are also superfluous. The CPZ sign coming towards you is necessary (you can't see it but it is visible as you exit the roundabout) as taxis are allowed to exit the roundabout but not to enter it for a reason which is beyond Mr Mustard.

The whole buses & cycles only restriction looks to be completely irrelevant as the natural route is via Masons Avenue (although the Tchibo coffee delivery van man's satnav took him down Christchurch Ave. He had a lucky escape as Mr Mustard flagged him down and he was grateful). Mr Mustard and Bald Eagle must have been there for 30 minutes or so and that van was the only vehicle which tried to get it wrong.

Photographs of other impossible sign combinations are always welcome at this email address.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Parking team bringing home the bacon in Brent

Bacon Lane, NW9

What a lovely green road (in part of the jewel of Brent, Roe Green Village) and cleverly designed such that the tree roots are less likely to cause damage to foundations. However, one by-product of this arrangement is that you cannot park on either side of the road. For the last 25 years local residents have parked as you see them here, down the middle without receiving PCNs and it looks to be entirely sensible. However, a traffic warden has recently decided to issue a PCN for the contravention of being more than 50cm from the edge of the carriageway and not in a marked bay. That contravention was brought in to prevent double parking which isn't, as you can see, the problem here but the contravention has undoubtedly occurred. The informal challenge has been rejected.

The council could paint bays in the middle of the road to legitimise the current parking system. Mr Mustard has suggested his client approach their local councillor to see what can be done whilst he contests their PCN on the grounds of reasonable expectation that they would not be ticketed.

If you know anything about PCN issue at this location do please email Mr Mustard.

There is always a new challenge in the world of PCNs.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

An update from the parking manager, prompted by a councillor. Both seem to be responsive and sensible.

The Council is aware of the issues surrounding parking on Bacon Lane. We recognise that Bacon Lane is an unusual location, in that there are trees situated in the middle of the carriageway. There is therefore the potential for traffic to be obstructed if cars were to park next to the kerb in the normal manner.

Nevertheless there is no formal exemption in place allowing vehicles to park in the middle of the road and no road markings to suggest that they are permitted to do so. Because of this, Bacon Lane is currently being reviewed by my colleagues in the Transportation team with the aim of formalising the parking arrangements for the benefit of residents and other motorists. We have temporarily suspended enforcement action in Bacon Lane against vehicles parked in the middle of the road while this review is undertaken.

Residents who have received PCNs for being parked in the middle of the road are urged to challenge their PCN in line with the statutory process. However, I can confirm that the Notice Processing Team are aware of the current situation and therefore can make an informed decision on any challenges or representations received in relation to Bacon Lane. (Hint, we will probably cancel?)

Once the review process is complete, residents will be advised of the outcome of the review, to avoid any confusion in future. (Excellent, communicating as they should)

I trust that this information has answered your query, but if you do have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.