NSCSO JR appeal

News reaches Mr Mustard that a provisional, although highly probable, set of dates for the appeal of Maria Nash against the NSCSO Judicial Review judgement is 7 & 8 October 2013 (Mr Mustard will see you in court!)

The delay is in no way attributable to Maria Nash and her legal team who are ready to roll today.

Thus I don't want to hear Councillor Richard Cornelius droning on about how the delay is costing taxpayers £1m a month because:

- Mr Mustard is a council tax payer and would rather the appeal goes ahead

- many of the "savings" are only aspirational and in the fullness of time might just be shown to be smoke and mirrors

- the JR and the appeal have only been necessary because the council failed to consult

- the delay is entirely the fault of the council.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Well trained traffic wardens?

The parking enforcement contract with NSL requires every traffic warden to have a City & Guilds or BPA qualification. Mr Mustard thought he would take a look at the qualification to see how high a level the bar is set at. He found a sample City & Guilds examination paper for course 1889-501 of 40 multiple choice questions (4 answers to each) for which 60 minutes is allowed. Even without a list of PCN codes Mr Mustard was able to answer 28 of the questions correctly.

Here is a sample question:

24. Which make of vehicle does the badge pictured belong? (Mr Mustard thinks the word "to" has been omitted in error)

a   Chrysler
b   Volkswagen
c   Land Rover
d   Alfa Romeo

and another

39. Which one of the following best describes how a Civil Enforcement Officer should conduct themselves?

a   Politely.
b   Informally.
c   Persistently.
d   Leniently.

If "d" is followed your job as a CEO will not last very long.

Oh go on then, a final question, you are on 100% so far are you not?

1. A vehicle is parked on a double yellow line, under Civil Enforcement which of the following would be issued?

a   Notice of Intended Prosecution
b   Excess Charge Notice
c   Penalty Charge Notice
d   Fixed Penalty Notice

to which the blindingly obvious answer is "c" a PCN.

You are now as well qualified as the typical rookie traffic warden (yes, CEO, I know) which is not really very qualified at all. (There are some good ones but they tend to be the older, wiser, more experienced ones).

The level of knowledge that the contract requires is astonishingly basic. It is little wonder that so many doubtful parking tickets are issued.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Winging it

Annesley Ave

Do you live in one of Barnet Homes' estates, specifically Annesley Estate, Church End Estate or Fosters Estate? These 3 estates had parking enforced up until 30 April 2013 by Wing Parking and possibly still are being.

Thanks to another resident who asked the question, using the whatdotheyknow website, Mr Mustard is able to bring you a contract to look at, although the interesting sections have been redacted.

Wing Parking Contract with Barnet Homes by MisterMustard

 

It isn't exactly efficient or very businesslike to be signing a contract, especially one that looks like it has been drawn up by the supplier, so long after it started and only 3 months before it automatically terminated. It makes Mr Mustard question whether any parking ticket issued before contract signature is even valid? He also wonders why a company that was only incorporated in December 10 was given a contract, except it wasn't signed, just 12 months later?

Rather than waiting to see if the redactions are subject to an FOI review, or sent to the ICO as a complaint, Mr Mustard decided to take the direct route. It isn't clear who is getting the money paid by motorists although it looks to be Wing Security rather than Barnet Homes despite the fact that parking is so profitable with Barnet Council making a net profit of £7m on a £12m turnover.

What he would like sent to him by email (mrmustard@zoho.com) is a copy of the permit application form and a copy of a parking charge notice (or whatever they decide to call a parking ticket) and he can then see many of the values which have been redacted.

If you do have such a ticket Mr Mustard doesn't recommend paying it. He recommends you visit the parking cowboys site as they are expert in dealing with private parking tickets.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Oxfordshire - Putting the Community First

Oxfordshire don't have a slogan which is empty words - they evidently believe in actions speaking louder, so Mr Mustard juxtaposed the hollow Barnet Council slogan.

Mr Mustard is lucky to have many dear friends and one of them, "AA" (you know who you are and you like to remain anonymous) returned from a trip with a little present for him and he was so excited, look, here it is:

(Mr M also received some artisan made Macaroons - all eaten, delicious)

Mr Mustard's friend thought this was a most useful voucher as it meant that for her overnight stay only one voucher was required which saves time and there was no waking up in a panic that you have forgotten to put out a permit for that day.

The price of the voucher wasn't known as his friend was a guest. Mr Mustard surfed across to Oxfordshire and looked up the answer. He was very pleased with the answer he found.

The first 25 visitor vouchers in each 12 month period were the princely sum of 

£ nothing at all.

The next 25 were only £16 for the lot which is a mere 64p each. Now that is what you can describe as "Putting the Community First".

It isn't as if the council make up for it in the price of the resident's permit either. That is only £50 for the first car.

Mr Mustard is going to write to the Cabinet Member whose responsibilities include parking, Dean Cohen, and suggest we have some of these vouchers. If you agree, email him at cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Saracens (Copthall) Event Day CPZ - Confused Parking Zone

Map of Saracens Event Day CPZ by MisterMustard

In the space of 10 days Mr Mustard has been consulted about 4 parking tickets given to 3 residents who live within the Event Day CPZ and didn't apply for an Event Day permit because they already had a Resident Permit.

In his operational guidance the Secretary of State wrote "motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets."

So, how extensive is the Saracens CPZ? Here is a plan of it.

Map of Saracens Event Day CPZ by MisterMustard

 

From Stanhope Gardens in the NW of the zone, to Garrick Way in the south of it, is a distance of 2.5 miles. This is self evidently not an area of about a dozen streets but a blatant disregard of the guidance for a CPZ zone. Every vehicle owner within the red dotted boundary needs an ED permit (ED stands for Event Day). They are free as Saracens pay for them and for up to 88 visitor vouchers each year to cover the 16 match days + 2 other days. (You are allowed 4.8 visitors per day. Mr Mustard doesn't suppose there is any rule that stops you providing them as gifts to your rugby loving friends who want to go to a match).

Why is it that a number of residents, out of the 7,500 who are estimated to live within the zone, have not realised they need to have at least 1 and possibly 2 permits in their car. Mr Mustard doesn't know the full extent of the communications with affected residents but he does have the information sent out in November 12. Here is the envelope that the letter was in.

Mr Mustard can imagine how this landed in amongst pizza leaflets and other junk mail and got thrown away. It is 2013 and databases abound everywhere. Surely it wouldn't have been that hard a job to run a search of the existing CPZ permit holders and the council tax payers within the affected roads and then write personally addressed letters?

According to the Delegated Powers Report concerning this CPZ, there are about 7,500 residences within the zone (although a recent FOI said 9,000 and if you are wondering why Mr Mustard asked a question he knew the answer to the answer is he hadn't stumbled upon the 7,500 at the time he asked).

Here is the letter that was inside The Occupier envelope

Barnet Council - Saracens CPZ by MisterMustard

Having read the whole two pages Mr Mustard concludes it is not the best bit of writing that Mr Richardson has ever issued (he is a helpful officer and probably pretty pressed so let us not be hard on him but instead be lenient on those who make an error) and he may not have actually written it. In an attempt to be thorough there is a lot of information but, like Craig Cooper's statement to the High Court on the NSCSO Judicial Review which the judge gave a kicking for being unhelpfully laid out, this letter suffers from a lack of headings and structure. The information would have been much better presented in a booklet with pages headed Why, Where, When, How to apply, Costs etc

What doesn't this letter say?

The zone is labelled the ED zone.

Even if you have a residents permit for, say, zone E, you need another one, issued free, for zone ED.

What it does say, and what has probably led many people astray is: 

"Any person wishing to park on roads within the CPZ when an event is taking place will need to display either a residents permit or a visitor voucher in their vehicle."

which means that a resident with a zone E permit might not have read any further as they did have "a residents permit". This would be one of Mr Mustard's defences to a parking ticket.

How many people have already obtained an ED permit? Only 3,449 so possibly 4,000 people are at risk of a parking ticket.

If you know anyone inside this monster CPZ zone please ask them if they have a free ED permit so that they are not at risk of getting a PCN (if you are unlucky enough to get one please ask Mr Mustard for help. He is building up a lot of expertise in appealing). If they need a permit they can apply on-line here or telephone 020 8359 7446.

Don't be shy to ask for visitor vouchers either. 269,743 have been issued so far. They are free.

Maybe the council should now follow up by putting an explanatory leaflet on every car found in breach on an Event Day rather than a PCN?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Motto: Don't get caught; if you get caught - appeal!

Has a parking ticket got your goat?

http://www.nannygoatsinpanties.com

During the last 2 years Mr Mustard has read some appeals which went to the independent adjudicator PATAS in which parking tickets were issued in absurd, ridiculous and downright unreasonable circumstances. These parking tickets cause anger, confusion and a feeling of helplessness when dealing with a pedantic and intransigent public official.

Now is the time to have your say.

Century Films, the makers of Parking Mad, are making another film about parking and it will feature some footage shot in Barnet (it being a hotbed of stupid decision making such as removing cash parking meters) so if you have a bonkers parking ticket, and the madder the better, please email liz.allen@centuryfilmsltd.com with the briefest of summaries of the problem ticket and what has happened. If the story is still continuing then so much the better.

You could be a film star.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

FOI all over the place & records destroyed rather early?

Back in September 12, before Barnet Council lost their rag somewhat with Mr Mustard and made question after question vexatious, he was helping a friend who had received a parking ticket in the snow (it has now been cancelled by the independent adjudicator) Mr Mustard started to muse upon the enforcement pattern during times of snow. The safety of traffic wardens ought to be put before the council's grubby revenue gathering. Thus, he sent in the above question.

Here is the answer he received.

This answer was given in deployed hours rather than shifts which was probably because shift lengths varied and so that was sensible. However the average PCNs per deployed CEO was of no use at all as the number of deployed CEO (traffic wardens) was not stated. Mr Mustard asked for clarification in September 12.

Thank you for the reply which doesn't quite answer my question which was the number of PCN issued each day although is helpful as the CEO were not working similar length shifts by the looks of it so the number of hours worked is a better measure.

Could you please also supply the number of PCN issued each day as originally requested.

In January 13 he wrote the following:

I note that an answer to this email remains outstanding. Please now provide an answer as soon as possible.

The council's response was:

Thank you for your request for a review of the civil enforcement officer shifts received on 14 January 2013. I’m sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the council’s response to your information request.

We will now conduct an internal review.

Did Mr Mustard ask for an internal review? not really. He simply pointed out the failure to answer the original question. A response to the question would have sufficed.

The review arrived. The first part surprised Mr Mustard, a former payroll manager.

We are unable to provide this information regarding the number of shifts worked by Civil Enforcement Officers during the period specified as those records were not retained following the transfer the Parking Service on 01/05/2012.

Why not? If there was any query about hours paid then it could not be answered. It is normal to keep payroll backup records for at least a year and preferably 3 (certain records have to be kept longer in case of government inspection). Mr Mustard thought that the records would have been kept in the SAP system and there was no good business reason to destroy them. Doubtless this was a breach of the council data protection policy.

The second part of the answer was:

Mr Mustard looked at the numbers supplied and thought it odd that the number of PCNs issued was remarkably similar to the number of deployed hours and in some cases identical. He didn't believe for one moment that traffic wardens only issue 1 parking ticket per hour so he guessed that Barnet Council had, once again, erred. The answer should have failed the sniff test, it was self evidently and glaringly wrong. Mr Mustard asked for the review to be reviewed. The council responded in due course.

Thank you for your email, and my apologies for the delay in replying.

I have asked the service area to double check the figures they provided and their answer is as follows:

I can confirm that the PCN numbers cited in the email below is correct. This was obtained from a report from the Civica system. There was an error in the previous email where the PCN numbers were incorrectly calculated as being deployed hours. We are unable to provide actual figures pertaining to deployed hours as these are no longer available to us as a result of the transfer of the service.

Therefore the information provided to you in the Internal Review was correct and the previous information provided in the original FOI response was incorrect. I can reiterate the previous apologies for this error. ("I can" is pretty feeble as apologies go because it doesn't say that you do reiterate the apologies.)


I trust that this resolves this issue. 

The "issue" isn't really resolved. Mr Mustard still has no idea what happens about parking enforcement when it snows. Next time it snows he will get his questions in before it thaws.

Barnet Council wonder why they are on the naughty step at the Information Commissioner. Given the speed and quality of their answers, one can't be surprised.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard