Catherine has some questions:

An audiologist came to fit Grandma’s new hearing aids. Grandma, 88, lives in Finchley, N2, and residents' parking is all day. So she gave the audiologist one of the old half-day permits. The lady went to put it in her car, having written 12.30pm as the starting time. The permits are valid for four hours.

A lady traffic warden was already at her car. “It’s ok, I have just got a permit,” said the audiologist. The traffic warden looked at it.

“This is not valid until 12.30pm. It is only 12.28pm so you will have to drive around for two minutes and come back,” she said.

Astonished, the audiologist explained she was from Finchley Memorial Hospital and there to fit hearing aids for an 88-year-old lady.

This made no difference, she was still told to drive around for two minutes, and come back. So she did.

Grandma stood at the door wondering why the audiologist had not returned.

So an unnecessary two minutes burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere and adding to the traffic on the road.

My questions for Mr Mustard are:

  • Was the traffic warden correct?
  • Why don't traffic wardens use some common sense?
  • Is this "putting the community first", as the council professes to do?

Mr Mustard says:

The rules are to be found on the back of the voucher. I haven't got one of the half-day vouchers but think that the rules were like this:

Times Series:

There is no mention of whether you go forward or back to the nearest five-minute interval. That makes me think the traffic warden was incorrect (and thoroughly miserable).

I found a set of parking voucher rules (by the way "parking vouchers" are sold or given out by businesses and "visitor vouchers" are provided by residents - a subtle naming distinction that may have passed you by) and they are below:

Times Series:

Logically the same rule should apply i.e. to scratch out the end of the five-minute time block that you are in otherwise you are not getting the promised 30 minutes (or whatever time period is concerned).

Therefore Mr Mustard thinks that the traffic warden was in error. They should have looked at the back of the voucher. We have to follow the rules, so should traffic wardens.

Traffic wardens simply aren't allowed to use any common-sense. This is what the council website says:

"We simply require that our officers, when on duty, issues (sic) penalties to vehicles observed in contravention."

I don't like the use of the word "require" as it leads to a wrongheaded way of thinking that that is the reason that traffic wardens exist. They lose sight of the whole point of restrictions being for traffic management and not a revenue-raising exercise.

What gets put first is the budget, not the community. The council has put £7.5 million in the budget for the year ahead and if it doesn't claw it in from parking it either has to raid reserves or make cuts elsewhere in the streetscene budget. Perhaps that is why there are so many potholes in Barnet?

This was both wrong and silly behaviour by the traffic warden. They have wasted the time of the audiologist, put her to extra fuel cost, caused pollution, which is already bad enough in London, and worried an old lady. What a great moment's work. Somehow we need to relieve traffic wardens of their power to terrorise innocent workers and residents going about their daily business. Making a formal complaint would be a good place to start. Send it to first.contact@barnet.gov.uk