Saracens - loan repayment costs

All the facts about this loan are top secret with Mr Mustard not even being trusted, as a member of the public, to be told the planned drawdown dates (as it will be in staged payments as the build progresses) or the frequency of the repayments or even the type of loan i.e. is the capital going to be repaid as we go along or will it be left to the end to repay in one lump sum (Mr Mustard is currently managing a multi-million euro portfolio of Spanish mortgages which have loan terms of up to 30 years on an interest only basis. Some were made to people as old as him so when they hit the ripe old age of 91 they will suddenly have to find £100,000 out of nowhere, their only 'asset' being a Spanish villa worth half what they paid for it and on which they borrowed 70%).

The repayment figures therefore are only indicative of likely repayments if you were to borrow £22.9m in one lump sum and then start repaying even instalments, including the capital, from month 1 all the way through to month 360.

Saracens will have to find £137,297 every month, even when there aren't any matches.

They will repay £49.4m in total (if they manage to) as interest comes to more than the loan. Given that Barnet Council were the lender of last resort, the only body foolish enough to put our (borrowed) money where their mouth is, they should have been charging at least 10% as this loan is, on Mr Mustard's risk rating index, somewhere between reckless Richard and crazy Cornelius.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

aka Dismal Derek (copyright Richard, allegedly cautious, Cornelius)

Loan to Saracens - sum per household

Mr Mustard happened to ask recently a question about the number of households in Barnet

This was the contentious item on the agenda

Yesterday evening at the Reckless Policy Committee of Barnet Council (though they call it the Policy & Resources Committee) three members of the public were sufficiently concerned as to ask to comment (speak) for 3 minutes on the subject of the proposed loan to Saracens Copthall LLP. What Mr Mustard said is recorded in the previous blog. Mrs Angry and Barbara Jacobson also gave the idea a thorough kicking.

Due to a conflict and there being a councillor not in attendance and not substituted (this will be checked when the minutes are published) the vote was tied 5-5 with Labour councillors voting against and Conservative Councillors voting for. Richard Cornelius used his casting vote in favour of the loan.

Barnet Council will now proceed to lend £22.9m to Saracens Copthall LLP and to borrow as required from the Public Works Loan Board (not that this is a public work and PWLB don't care about that as they know that a council has to repay them whatever happens).

There are more blogs to come but Mr Mustard just wanted to point out that every household in Barnet is lending, via its council, which exists in order to provide public services (a fine theory if not what is actually happening) the following sum to Saracens.

£155.71

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Comment to Policy & Resources Committee 23 October

Here are the words that Mr Mustard will utter this evening shortly after 7pm

Reckless, Richard, is what this loan would be.

For 31 years I have collected debts and provided credit consultancy. I regularly deal in millions. I didn't know when I started in 1987 that I would still be in business today.

Saracens Copthall LLP has accumulated massive losses.

Saracens Ltd has accumulated massive losses.

Ironically, the latest Saracens Sports Foundation accounts show reserves of a quarter million pounds. I admire their good works which take place in Chorleywood, Harrow, Harpenden, Feltham Young Offenders Institute, Hertford, Welwyn and loads of other locations. Those works will continue whether Barnet Council makes this reckless loan or not.

It is reckless Richard to lower the prudency requirements in the Treasury management strategy.

It is reckless Richard to lend for 30 years, a distance into the future that you cannot foretell.

It is reckless Richard to borrow in order to lend.

It is reckless Richard to fail to consult the public about this radical plan.

It is reckless Richard to borrow such a vast sum other than for the provision of local services.

It is reckless Richard to think that Barnet Council know better than commercial banks. The council's history with banks isn't a good one. The Icelandic bank investments didn't turn the expected profit.

It is reckless Richard not to have due regard for the sage advice of CIPFA to 'avoid exposing public funds to unnecessary risk'.

It is reckless Richard not to think of good value viable alternatives, why not just pay Saracens to provide the community benefits you desire rather than this huge risky loan?

There is little doubt in my mind but that my words will be futile and the loan may well get repaid at the start but I seriously doubt that it will endure for 30 years. I will be berating you later if it doesn't.

As I think you should be asking yourself the questions and not me, I will return to my seat.

Please don't be reckless Richard.

Pedant of the week - Barnet Council

Note the PCN wording, not clearly displaying a (visitor) voucher.

Note also the statement 'no voucher was displayed in the windscreen'. That is the requirement but the helpful workman who received the PCN whilst working for a resident, placed the voucher in the side window, on the pavement side, so that it was much easier for the traffic warden to read & has done it like this for 30 years. Being helpful means Barnet Council want £110 from you.

Here is the visitor voucher, in close up. The scratched items were correct.

Here is one of the photographs taken by the traffic warden, whose reflection can be seen to the left of picture. They must have seen the voucher and issued a PCN regardless.

Anyone think that the actions of the traffic warden were fair and reasonable? (no not you, a council parking or NSL employee, your judgment is suspect).

Anyone think that revenue raising is the name of the game?

Anyone got any idea why Barnet's parking 'service' scores so lowly in resident perception surveys? That isn't going to change whilst ludicrously petty PCNs like this one keep being issued.

Mr Mustard will fight this to the bitter end which will cost the council a £30 tribunal fee. He has a card or two up his sleeve.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Harrow Council - also suffer from 'no but yes' syndrome

Station Parade, Canons Park

In the road in front of the shops which has a name, Station Parade, the two sides have different purposes for parking. The shop side is for people who pay to park. The opposite side is for residents with permits. Needless to say quite often people pay to park and are actually parked on the wrong side. Such was the fate of Ms J. She contacted Mr Mustard. He looked at the PCN and here is the relevant part.

Mr Mustard having worked out that the description of the PCN is wrong it is invalid for want of stating the contravention accurately. The car was not in Whitchurch Lane, that being the main road that the red car was on.

Mr Mustard made the informal challenge (the one in response to the PCN) on line in the name of Ms J. It was short & simple.

A copy of the payment receipt was also sent in, to show that it wasn't a question of a motorist seeking to avoid payment. Despite being factually true the challenge was rejected.

Note that Harrow Council dance round the actual challenge, that the road name is wrong. They decide it is actually the Whitchurch Lane service road. Paf. Harrow Council decided that the PCN had been correctly issued, but they were marking their own homework incorrectly. Note the implied threat that this is going to cost you if you fight on which puts the willies up many folk.

Mr Mustard advised Ms J to sit tight and await the Notice to Owner. It arrived and the identical challenge was made, again in the name of Ms J

All of a sudden the wind had shifted.

The PCN was not correctly given as if it had been it would have said the car was in Station Parade. Councils just have to try and save face but look even more idiotic in doing so. Accepting honest errors stands you in better stead.

So here we are again, the same as the blog post of yesterday, whereby a council, Harrow this time, have rejected a perfectly good challenge and then accepted the identical one made at the next stage of the process.

The first rejection thus looks like a cynical ploy to obtain payment which is not due. They know that most people either:

- can't face the 3 rounds of the fight (the tribunal would have followed in this case if a second rejection had arrived), or 

- are afraid of losing the discount, or 

- just want a quiet life, or

- don't really understand the system, or

- assume the council tell the truth,

and so pay up. Mr Mustard isn't most people.

The same advice is offered as in the last blog. If you are fairly sure of your position, stand your ground and fight to the end.

There should be some redress available, a financial penalty worth 50% of the PCN say, if councils reject challenges made in response to an on street PCN and then accept the same challenge in response to the Notice to Owner.

Anyone would think councils were strapped for cash and were trying to revenue raise from PCNs. Perish the thought.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Dropped kerb - woeful rejection

A lovely dropped kerb serving just the one property (you can't park across a shared one)

One of the residents of this property received a PCN for being parked adjacent to a verge lowered to meet the carriageway. She was upset by it and accordingly she wrote to the council pointing out the lack of PCNs despite 30 years of parking this way and that she was the resident and did not request any enforcement. She expected there would be a rapid cancellation. No such luck. Here was the response she received.

Rule 243 of the Highway Code isn't a statement of the law, just some not very exact guidance. What the council forgot to say was that the 2003 Act which they quoted has a caveat, that an occupier of the premises must request enforcement, which had not been requested. The CEO (traffic warden) had gone native. (A white line across the drop means nothing legally, it is just a hint there is a dropped kerb. A double yellow means you can't park across your own drive & a single yellow that you can't park on the line when it is in operation which may be the cpz hours if you live within one - be careful).

Luckily at this juncture a friend suggested she contact Mr Mustard and once the Notice to owner was received it was Mr Mustard who made the formal representations. They were the same as the lady in question had made some weeks previously. This time the response was exactly opposite to the previous one, a no had magically become yes.

The lady in question correctly pointed out to Mr Mustard how she could have been out of pocket in this case, if she had believed what the council said first of all.

You are right - they have cancelled the parking ticket.

I cannot thank you enough.

The fact I said all the same in my original response except I did not know the specific Act and legislation yet they declined my appeal makes me really mad.

If I hadn’t been recommended to you - I would have ended up paying £110 or more if it went to court I am outraged and relieved at the same time.

Thank you so so much.

I am going to make a donation to North London Hospice today as agreed for my appreciation for all your help.

Mr Mustard has noticed a fall in the quality standard of written correspondence this year and a complete lack of understanding of parking law. This seems to have happened at the same time as NSL moved the back office work, undertaken under contract for Barnet Council, to their office in Dingwall, presumably because the staff are cheaper up there. Cheaper isn't better.

If you think the council are wrong, research on the Internet, and if you are sure of your ground, fight them to the end. Barnet Council write a lot of words which are utter nonsense.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Millbrook Park School honey trap zone

it is usual to put the words outside the bay so they can be read when cars are parked

Mr Mustard has been asked for help at this location. Private tickets aren't his thing but he will give some pointers.

It is a nightmare. The lady in question was collecting her daughter from a dance class when it was dark. She parked in the pick up bay briefly, at 8.03pm when, basically, you can't pick up or drop off and the nearest you could park would be Bittacy Hill about 800m away which is ridiculous. Needless to say a parking charge notice was issued.

Why would you choose to do anything at the school given the parking problems?

These from the school's website so they know about the parking problems.

It isn't cricket to suggest Waitrose's car park as an alternative, suggesting you teach your kids that parking and not using the shop is ok?

Mr Mustard has emailed the school to see if they have tried to get the times changed and what the response was.

One reason why people go wrong on private estates is they look like any other estate containing council adopted roads. In this case the road will be adopted later on which is probably why it has double yellow lines and a zebra crossing with belisha beacons.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update #1

It has been suggested that Mr Mustard refer motorists in difficulty to one of two on line help forums, which Mr Mustard is delighted to do

MoneySavingExpert 

and

Pepipoo

Update #2

The evidence pack of the parking operator has arrived. It says that the yellow sign within the bay (except for pick up and drop off) was not erected by them, how would you know? & why would you look for another sign when that one looks official?