Author Topic: Barnet woman in late seventies pays parking ticket but still gets clamped  (Read 4574 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 774
Reported by Mr Mustard here

http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/you-pay-your-parking-ticket-and-then.html

-------------------------------------------------


You pay your parking ticket and then the bailiff clamps your car!

This story simply shouldn't have happened.

23 September 2013 - The Chipping Barnet 'D' CPZ zone, near High Barnet tube, was extended. The lady in question, Miss H, a lady in her late seventies, applied twice for a permit but partly due to the judicial review result her applications didn't get processed as her cheque was for too much money. This left her without a permit when the zone started. A dispensation was issued but no-one told Miss H that it would expire.

3 October 13 - A permit was issued but not put in the car immediately.

9 October 13 - A second PCN was issued, for £110 (the first one was paid in full).

11 October 13 - An informal challenge was made.

11 November 13 - A Notice to Owner (NtO) was issued.

?? November 13  - Formal representations were made in response to the NtO.

28 November 13 - The council (NSL) reject the representations but said £55 would be accepted if paid within 14 days of the letter (no time allowed for delivery as is customary).

6 December 13 - A cheque for £55 is sent by Special Delivery at a cost of £6.22

11 December 13 - The cheque is cleared.

18 December 13 - A Charge Certificate is issued for £165 less a credit for the £55 paid. This is a blunder of the first water and is an illegal demand for money and threatens to register the non-existent debt at the county court and then send in the bailiffs. Miss H was abroad on holiday. This was one reason why she had paid up (she wouldn't have paid anything if she had been introduced to Mr Mustard sooner than she was).

9 January 2014 - An Order for Recovery is issued.

24 January 14 - TASK bailiffs write to say they are investigating and will respond within 28 days. Mr Mustard doesn't know what prompted this letter from TASK apart from some correspondence from Miss H that was probably sent to the council (which means NSL who own TASK).

18 February 14 - The Warrant of Execution is issued.

18 February 14 - The standard first letter is sent by TASK bailiffs.

20 February 14 - Miss H phones the bailiffs and is asked to send proof of payment (which Miss H will have sent off.)

14 April 14 - A bailiff arrives at the home of Miss H, clamps her car and then knocks and asks for £408.52 which she pays as she needs her car to get about.

16 April 14 - Mr Mustard visits Miss H at home at the request of a charity who happen to know of his expertise. Miss H is upset, shocked, annoyed, seriously out of pocket and innocent of any wrongdoing.

16 April 14 - Mr Mustard emails the Parking Manager at Barnet Council (thus cutting out NSL) and outlines the above. His email includes the following paragraphs:

What should happen now is that the sum paid to the bailiff of £408.52 is refunded as it was not due for payment and in compensation the PCN value paid, of £55, should be refunded. A letter of apology should also be sent by NSL Ltd to Miss h as she has had the worry of this to deal with and can ill afford to be without the funds paid to the bailiff.

This whole mess has come about because permits were dealt with in one place (I have not studied it in detail but Miss H did try to get a permit in good time and had two applications returned by the looks of it, probably due to the judicial review of the price), customer service calls in another and enforcement in a third. The system that is in existence in Barnet is simply not fit for purpose. I know it is not your decision to be set up in this way but it isn't properly serving the residents of Barnet.

Our senior citizens should not have to suffer the attentions of bailiffs as a result of the administrative incompetence of NSL Ltd, the parking enforcement contractor of the council.

30 April 14 - Mr Mustard reminds the parking manager that he is waiting.

30 April 14 - The parking manager says he is awaiting feedback (presumably from NSL who must now be in a right sweat - this event isn't going to do their KPI any good)

20 May 14 - Mr Mustard reminds the parking manager that he is waiting.

20 May 14 - Mr Mustard receives a full reply.

Dear Mr Mustard

I apologise for the lateness of my reply. I had again been called away unexpectedly.

Miss H should not have been subjected to the Bailiffs nor paid any additional money. I confirm that a full refund of all monies paid to the Bailiff will be refunded with immediate effect. I confirm that our service provider have internally identified why this error has occurred and will be taking appropriate action. An apology letter will be sent to Miss H confirming the refund.

I apologise on behalf of the Council for the poor level of customer service Miss H has experienced. As a means of making amends I have requested 40 visitors vouchers be sent to Miss H at her address in zone D, they should arrive by the end of the week.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to email me.

Kind regards

Parking Manager


So, there is the happy ending that you were promised.

What went wrong? Just about everything.

Permit issuance was in-house back in September (it is now being dealt with by Capita which won't make things any better) and instead of rejecting the application the council should have banked the larger cheque and then sent a refund. That way Miss H would have had her permit on the day the zone extension came into force. Why this was still a problem when the council had declared on 2 August that they would not contest the parking judicial review decision is unclear.

The council should have cancelled the PCN as they knew Miss H had been issued with a permit. The fact that it had not been put in her car within a few days is not a heinous crime and she should have been given the benefit of the doubt.

When the council sent their letter of 28 November 13 they probably didn't set the computer properly to stop all action if £55 was paid by 11 December 13.

When the payment of 6 December was banked no-one thought to stop all further processing as this was an agreed full and final settlement. This is probably because cheques were sent, at that time, to Worthing and that is the offices of RR Donnelley and their job probably finished at the point of banking. It would be up to someone at NSL in Croydon to review the list of receipts and then update the processing software. That probably wasn't anyone's job either.

It looks like TASK, who shouldn't even have been involved at 24 January 14, as there isn't a Warrant in existence at that date, didn't properly follow up the promise made in their letter. NSL should not have given the query to their sister company TASK to investigate and really shouldn't use their own group company bailiff at all as there isn't sufficient scrutiny of what the bailiff does or enough independence.

It looks like the proof of payment sent in by Miss H didn't get looked at properly.

The amount charged by the bailiff was excessive (this one was under the old pre 6 April rules) even if the £117 was owing, which it wasn't.

So this is what you get when you outsource your parking enforcement to NSL and TASK. The mistreatment of pensioners. That is what One Barnet means. Remember this when you vote tomorrow. You didn't find this One Barnet outsourcing in the 2010 Conservative manifesto. What has been left out of the 2014 one? more of the same but worse?

Mr Mustard will see the apology. It had better be a good one.

At least he hasn't got to send this case to the Local Government Ombudsman, unlike Harrow Council who haven't yet twigged that when Mr Mustard sends them a complaint, that there will be plenty to complain about which they should take seriously. In Harrow they (the Newlyn employed bailiff) have removed a car that doesn't belong to the person named on the warrant which is a big no no. The compensation due will be sizeable. Mr Mustard gave them every chance to return the car and be reasonable.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
If it hadn't been for Mr Mustard the bastards would have got away with this! :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

NSL Ltd and their sister company Task Ltd should be answering some serious questions about whether they are fit for purpose, not only in Barnet, but in every other authority where they have effectively been handed control of whole parking departments and put in charge of enforcement/recovery of debts.

The whole thing is spiraling out of control as is demonstrated by the case above (well done for exposing this abuse/oppression btw Mr M), with local authorities apparently turning a blind eye to this type of thing so long as the cash keeps rolling in to fill their coffers.

I am so maddened by this that my first reaction was to want to find whoever was responsible for terrorising and robbing (because it was effectively robbery until Mr M stepped in) this old lady, and to take matters into my own hands. I have now calmed down sufficiently to realise that this is entirely the wrong way to go about things, but I have to say that if the person responsible had been there while I read the story, I may very well be behind bars by now.

@Mr Mustard. Keep after them mate and push for sanctions by Barnet council against the bastards at NSL Ltd and their sister company Task Ltd. If I can help in any way please let me know. These bastards have to be put in their place before they cause someone like this innocent little old lady to have a heart attack.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Absolutely agree with BE.

Keep it up Mr Mustard  :aplude: :aplude:
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
May I remind everyone of why we set up our group.

"We are a Campaign Group dedicated to regaining the voice of the Individual.

Initially we are taking on the so called Parking "Industry", but our remit will not stop there.

We want to open the public's eyes to the likes of the oppression we have already encountered at local and central Government level, and will explore in an open forum any lawful ways of fighting oppression, greed and corruption at all levels of Business and Government.

We will do this by direct action.

We need an army of volunteers, armchair or otherwise to join us and stand as one to simply say ENOUGH!

People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people

Join us now."
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline «THÖMÅS®©™»

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • Dohlman.net
For this horrible experience this individual has had with the utter incompetence and theft of ones money...  If I had the experience and knowledge, I would be having them answer a court judge for this outrage in what I would describe as close to robbery.  She paid the £55 but still, the council went after more.  Had I been in the situation, I would have told the bailiffs to leave in strong, no uncertain terms.

I agree with BE, the individual should get a full refund and be issued a full, unreserved apology.  What are the vouchers for?  Another way to keep her money perhaps?
It's not "enforcement", it's "extortionate"!

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
Dr Belinda Webb is head of communications at NSL Ltd.

There are many ways to communicate with Ms Webb and I am sure that Google will provide sufficient contact details to enable anyone to communicate to her their legitimate concerns over the way that NSL Ltd (Dr Webb's employers) run their business.

For some reason the No To Mob are barred from contacting either Ms Webb on Twitter @BWebbNSL or her employers @NSLConnect. <_>

Perhaps you want want to contact Ms Webb to voice your concerns?

Personally speaking, I look forward to making Ms Webb's acquaintance at Parkex 2014.


 
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline «THÖMÅS®©™»

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • Dohlman.net
That would be an interesting video to watch.

Does it stand to reason that NTM was barred from contacting them because they know that you are right in this campaign?

It certainly makes sense as it would be the only logical conclusion I can find.
It's not "enforcement", it's "extortionate"!

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
I agree with BE too, unfortunately, you can bet your bottom dollar that the contract between Barnet and NSL is very heavily skewed in NSLs favour, and that any damages awarded would end up being bourne by Barnet residents :-(
« Last Edit: 23 May, 2014, 04:35:44 PM by DastardlyDick »

Offline «THÖMÅS®©™»

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • Dohlman.net
I agree with BE too, unfortunately, you can bet your bottom dollar that the contract between Barney and NSL is very heavily skewed in NSLs favour, and that any damages awarded would end up being Bourne by Barnet residents :-(
I am not sure I understand how... via parking extortions perhaps?
It's not "enforcement", it's "extortionate"!

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
I agree with BE too, unfortunately, you can bet your bottom dollar that the contract between Barney and NSL is very heavily skewed in NSLs favour, and that any damages awarded would end up being Bourne by Barnet residents :-(
I am not sure I understand how... via parking extortions perhaps?

Because NSL are agents of the Council, and the Council is liable for the 'Acts and Omissions' of it's agents/employees.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
Who said anything about damages?

The way to hold NSL Ltd accountable is to fully enforce the the relevant penalty clauses in the contract between NSL Ltd and Barnet council.

I'm sure Mr Mustard will be reminding Barnet's parking manager of said penalty clauses. ;)
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline «THÖMÅS®©™»

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • Dohlman.net
I'm sure Mr Mustard will be reminding Barnet's parking manager of said penalty clauses. ;)

Don't count on it.  I am of the opinion that it will be infinitely more likely that they will be ignored, without a care in the world.
It's not "enforcement", it's "extortionate"!

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
I have been advised by my local council (when complaining about one of their services) that they have no penalty clauses in their contracts because penalty clauses are illegal.

Offline «THÖMÅS®©™»

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • Dohlman.net
With that logic, would it not make parking fines ("bribes") illegal then?
It's not "enforcement", it's "extortionate"!

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
I have been advised by my local council (when complaining about one of their services) that they have no penalty clauses in their contracts because penalty clauses are illegal.


Ok, so strictly speaking they can't use the WORD penalty in a contract.

But I remind you of the words HHJ Maloney when hearing a case in Cambridge County Court recently.

"If it walks like a penalty, swims like a penalty and quacks like a penalty, then it's a penalty"

And if you want to see an extreme example of this, click on the link below. If that ain't a penalty, I don't know what is.

http://notomob.co.uk/documents/Bromley/Bromley%20parking%20contract%20Conditions.pdf
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player