NCP Services employee wins unfair dismissal case following allegations of fraud
A former NCP Services Ltd employee who claimed he was unfairly dismissed after alleging that NCP Services Ltd had defrauded the DVLA of over £1m has won his case at an employment tribunal today (11 December).
Geoff Topliss, of Canterbury, Kent, was represented by Tony Bertin, of Employment Relations Solicitors, at the Central London Employment Tribunal. The tribunal has awarded him over £160,000 in compensation and costs.
Read more here
Sunday, July 05, 2009
More scandal in Camden. Report reveals mystery behind Parking Boss' departure
More spotlights being shone on Camden. Read the article below ...
‘Boss used role to bin parking tickets’
Council chief left over breach in rules
Camden New Journal
2nd July 2009
‘Boss used role to bin parking tickets’Council chief left over breach in rules
Camden New Journal
2nd July 2009
A COUNCIL boss used his high rank to award himself a permit for hassle-free parking outside his home, the Town Hall has confirmed. The member of staff also used his seniority in Camden Council’s hierachy to waive valid parking tickets. Both actions amounted to a “breach in regulations” according to the council.
A new report circulated at the Town Hall confirms the details of the complaints and warns that it may have led to “potential for reputational damage”. The report was discussed by councillors sitting on the Town Hall’s audit committee on Thursday night and confirms that the manager had left the council over the affair. It follows a difficult 12 months for the parking department which has seen several changes of personnel and complaints about its effectiveness. The contract of interim parking manager John Meyer was not renewed at Christmas amid council claims that he had made “errors of judgement”.
Following his sudden departure, officials said his actions were “not compatible with the public profile of the post”. Mr Meyer, a well-known face within the parking industry, was brought in to give the department a shake-up amid confusion as to why the council was raising £4million less than forecasted. He was expected to stay until this summer, and was also tasked with helping to guide the much-maligned department through the process of handing a new deal to private contractors aiming to run the borough’s uniformed warden service.
A supersized contract is expected to be awarded early next year. Mr Meyer declined to comment on his exit from the council did not expand on its statement, other than to say that no disciplinary action was taken against him despite one anonymous complaint.
A new report circulated at the Town Hall confirms the details of the complaints and warns that it may have led to “potential for reputational damage”. The report was discussed by councillors sitting on the Town Hall’s audit committee on Thursday night and confirms that the manager had left the council over the affair. It follows a difficult 12 months for the parking department which has seen several changes of personnel and complaints about its effectiveness. The contract of interim parking manager John Meyer was not renewed at Christmas amid council claims that he had made “errors of judgement”.
Following his sudden departure, officials said his actions were “not compatible with the public profile of the post”. Mr Meyer, a well-known face within the parking industry, was brought in to give the department a shake-up amid confusion as to why the council was raising £4million less than forecasted. He was expected to stay until this summer, and was also tasked with helping to guide the much-maligned department through the process of handing a new deal to private contractors aiming to run the borough’s uniformed warden service.
A supersized contract is expected to be awarded early next year. Mr Meyer declined to comment on his exit from the council did not expand on its statement, other than to say that no disciplinary action was taken against him despite one anonymous complaint.
The new council report said: “A senior member of temporary staff breached council regulations by using business parking dispensation to park at his private residence and used authority to get tickets waived.”A council spokesman said: “We take misconduct very seriously.“
In December 2008 a temporary member of staff was found to have misused the council’s business parking dispensation to park at his private residence. His services were therefore immediately terminated.”
Council report here
Council report here
District Auditor to investigate breach of council's own constitution
This investigation began with a spelling mistake. On 24th October 2007 I posted a story here about a hospital car park and used the logo of the company, who I believed was the hospital's enforcement contractor. Within minutes I had received an e-mail from NCP Services Head of Communications, Tim Cowen which stated:
"Neil,
You seem to be confused between NCP Services and NCP. They are two separate companies (used to be one and the same but were separated in March and are now separately owned).The hospital car parks in question are, I believe, run by NCP, so I would be obliged if you could remove the NCP Services logo. I work for NCP Services, which does not run any local services in Humberside. You spelt "indefensible" wrong as well
"Neil,
You seem to be confused between NCP Services and NCP. They are two separate companies (used to be one and the same but were separated in March and are now separately owned).The hospital car parks in question are, I believe, run by NCP, so I would be obliged if you could remove the NCP Services logo. I work for NCP Services, which does not run any local services in Humberside. You spelt "indefensible" wrong as well
Cheers.
Tim Cowen
Director of Communications
NCP Services
Tim Cowen
Director of Communications
NCP Services
With the NCP Services logo removed and replaced with that of National Car Parks Ltd. (and my spelling mistake corrected) an investigation began.
This resulted, around a year ago, in objections to the 2007-8 accounts in a number of council areas due to the fact that the original enforcement contracts (between the council and National Car Parks Ltd.) had been transferred to a newly formed company NCP Services Ltd. in what appeared, from the evidence obtained, to be a breach of the Councils' own constitutions.
The District Auditor is currently seeking counsel's opinion on the breach and Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Minister Norman Baker has raised the matter with his own council on the Isle of Wight.
For the avoidance of doubt, Andrew Potter, Chief Executive of National Car Parks Ltd. cleared up the point as to whether National Car Parks Ltd. and NCP Services Ltd. were the same company with the letter (below) to the Sunderland Echo.
Sunderland did originally enter into a contract with National Car Parks Ltd. in January 2003 but after the BBC Inside Out programme was aired on 2nd October 2006 an internal investigation began which saw the sacking or resignation of 11 National Car Parks Parking Attendants and the eventual removal of the regime from the contract when the council took enforcement 'in-house' on 1st December 2007.
However, whilst all this furore was going on and the internal investigations were being conducted National Car Parks Ltd. 'de-merged' on 13th March 2007.
In Sunderland, the contract was simply transferred across by council officers without, as yet any evidence of anything in writing (in the form of minutes, legal advice, treasurer's advice) and without reference to the executive. This is in clear breach of the council's own constitution which clearly sets out Financial Procedures in such circumstances. and is now the subject of the investigation.
However, whilst all this furore was going on and the internal investigations were being conducted National Car Parks Ltd. 'de-merged' on 13th March 2007.
In Sunderland, the contract was simply transferred across by council officers without, as yet any evidence of anything in writing (in the form of minutes, legal advice, treasurer's advice) and without reference to the executive. This is in clear breach of the council's own constitution which clearly sets out Financial Procedures in such circumstances. and is now the subject of the investigation.
In other local authority areas legal advice led to 'novation agreements' hastily being put in place some time in 2008 but no such agreements were able to be put in place in Sunderland due to the fact that neither National Car Parks Ltd. or NCP Services Ltd. had any responsibility for on-street enforcement.
Once objections were lodged the District Auditor has a duty to investigate and they are now seeking counsel's opinion for the second time, this time specifically to decide on whether there has been a breach to the council's own constitution by 'an officer' who has acted without authority.
Documents released from the London Borough of Camden are quite revealing:
Wonder why this Parking Attendant tried to hide his uniform here
The story breaks in today's Sunday Sun
Sunderland Council in parking fines payback
Phil Doherty
Sunday Sun
5th July 2009
A NORTH council could be forced to pay back tens of thousands of pounds in parking fines because it failed to follow its own rules, according to campaigners.
They claim that Sunderland City Council failed to follow its own constitution and local government rules when NCP Parking Ltd was replaced by NCP Service Ltd in 2007/8.
More ...
Phil Doherty
Sunday Sun
5th July 2009
A NORTH council could be forced to pay back tens of thousands of pounds in parking fines because it failed to follow its own rules, according to campaigners.
They claim that Sunderland City Council failed to follow its own constitution and local government rules when NCP Parking Ltd was replaced by NCP Service Ltd in 2007/8.
More ...
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Newcastle City Council waste £10,000 of public money on a parking ticket case
Newcastle City Council again?
How many mistakes do they have to make before an investigation is lauched into their parking officials behaviour?
Remember Mr. Campoli? Read here ...
Remember the signing blunder? Read it here ...
There is a great deal more to come and a great deal yet to be exposed. Please keep the information coming ...
A stark warning to all other councils out there is the fact that more and more officials are realising that their actions may have been unlawful and as motorists get ready to bring individual and class actions then more and more will refuse to become patsies and fall guys for their council's systemic failings and deliberate misdemeanours.
It isn't just a parking ticket!
Judge questions disabled parking badge case
Newcastle Journal
1st July 2009
A JUDGE has branded the prosecution of a disabled former policeman for displaying an out-of-date parking badge a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.
David Athey was taken to court after not paying two parking fines imposed when he mistakenly displayed a disabled badge that had expired.
He appealed against the decision but it has taken four years for his case to come before a crown court judge and is estimated to have cost the taxpayer up to £10,000.
Today Mr Athey blasted Newcastle City Council, who he works for as a financial assistant, for taking him to court.
And Judge Esmond Faulks, sitting at Newcastle Crown Court, questioned the wisdom of pursuing the case against Mr Athey.
The judge said: “In no other country but the UK could this possibly happen.
“It is a huge amount of money. Is it worth further expenditure of thousands of pounds out of your pocket and my pocket?
“Why not just let him off to get on with his life?”
Mr Athey, 59, of Holywell, Whitley Bay, was fined £120 with £180 costs during a Newcastle Magistrates’ hearing in 2005.
But when the appeal against that conviction was before Judge Esmond Faulks yesterday he urged Newcastle City Council to re-consider its stance and allow Mr Athey’s appeal to go through unchallenged. More ...
How many mistakes do they have to make before an investigation is lauched into their parking officials behaviour?
Remember Mr. Campoli? Read here ...
Remember the signing blunder? Read it here ...
There is a great deal more to come and a great deal yet to be exposed. Please keep the information coming ...
A stark warning to all other councils out there is the fact that more and more officials are realising that their actions may have been unlawful and as motorists get ready to bring individual and class actions then more and more will refuse to become patsies and fall guys for their council's systemic failings and deliberate misdemeanours.
It isn't just a parking ticket!
Judge questions disabled parking badge caseNewcastle Journal
1st July 2009
A JUDGE has branded the prosecution of a disabled former policeman for displaying an out-of-date parking badge a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.
David Athey was taken to court after not paying two parking fines imposed when he mistakenly displayed a disabled badge that had expired.
He appealed against the decision but it has taken four years for his case to come before a crown court judge and is estimated to have cost the taxpayer up to £10,000.
Today Mr Athey blasted Newcastle City Council, who he works for as a financial assistant, for taking him to court.
And Judge Esmond Faulks, sitting at Newcastle Crown Court, questioned the wisdom of pursuing the case against Mr Athey.
The judge said: “In no other country but the UK could this possibly happen.
“It is a huge amount of money. Is it worth further expenditure of thousands of pounds out of your pocket and my pocket?
“Why not just let him off to get on with his life?”
Mr Athey, 59, of Holywell, Whitley Bay, was fined £120 with £180 costs during a Newcastle Magistrates’ hearing in 2005.
But when the appeal against that conviction was before Judge Esmond Faulks yesterday he urged Newcastle City Council to re-consider its stance and allow Mr Athey’s appeal to go through unchallenged. More ...
More errors more refunds. This time £20m and another speed camera issue
Sloppy practice and failure to follow the law. Yet another example, this time reported by the BBC and the Daily Mail. How many have lost their licences, lost their jobs?The solution is simple ... more Police Officers in vehicles stopping speeding motorists and ensuring the matter ends up in court with proper evidence rather than stealth taxing the motorist.
'Error' over speed camera notices
BBC Report 25th June 2009
A police force is investigating possible procedural errors in motoring cases dating back more than two years.
Essex Police is looking at section 20 notices it has issued since March 2007 - they summon motorists to court for speeding and red-light offences.
A national newspaper claims thousands of speed camera convictions could be overturned because of the error.
The paper claims it could cost the police more than £1m in refunds.
An Essex Police spokeswoman said: "We are currently looking into whether there is an issue with the section 20 notices we have served.
"It should be stressed that even if this does prove to be an issue it would only affect a proportion of cases where the person went to magistrates' court since March 2007.
"It would not affect the vast majority of the cases the bureau deals with, including fixed penalty notices or taking part in the driver improvement scheme, rider improvement scheme or speed awareness course."
On Thursday night, police refused to make any further comment.
BBC reports Camden's parking tickets unlawful
Is this the most expensive parking ticket blunder in history?
The ruling also applies to the London Boroughs of Merton, Kingston and Harrow.
How could 4 councils get it so wrong?
Questions have to be asked of the Parking Service Managers and Legal Departments who allowed this to happen especially when the Operational Guidance for Local Authorities is so explicit ...
The ruling also applies to the London Boroughs of Merton, Kingston and Harrow.
How could 4 councils get it so wrong?
Questions have to be asked of the Parking Service Managers and Legal Departments who allowed this to happen especially when the Operational Guidance for Local Authorities is so explicit ...
Saturday, June 27, 2009
This why signing MUST comply with the law ... the clock is ticking
When it comes to signing law nearly is not good enough. Stephen Sauvain QC representing Sunderland recently stated in the High Court in relation to another signing issue, that 'no-one could be misled by the meaning of a restriction.'
Adjudicators have also repeatedly chanted the mantra that 'it looks like a road sign or a bay and it is clear in its meaning therefore no-one could have been misled as to its intent.'
If we look at the series of photographs (left and below) it shows a loading bay and also zig-zags. Applying the philosophy and argument from those described above one would think that it is okay to park where indicated for the purposes of loading. No-one could be misled.
However, the zig-zag restriction runs from middle of the road to the building line meaning that motorists are being actively encouraged to park on the zig-zags and in doing so obstruct the field of vision for pedestrian and motorist alike. Now who is being misled?
The Department for Transport have confirmed that this is not allowed (not to mention the fact that the Loading Only bay is also incorrectly marked).
We have signing law for a reason ... and must it take a serious accident or fatality before Sunderland City Council officers reckless indifference to their legal responsibilities strikes home? This is the tip of the iceberg in Sunderland but perhaps the most serious example of their disregard for the law and failure to act.
The Department for Transport despite repeated requests have been indifferent to say the least. Ward councillors and the Leader of the Council have been put on notice as has local MPs Bill Etherington and Chris Mullin.The photograph on the left shows a near miss and many more incidents involving pedestrians and motorists occur on a regular basis.
Minister reads plea for safety
Sunderland Echo
Published Date: 25 June 2009
By James Johnston
A parking campaigner has written to new Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in a bid to boost safety on a Sunderland road.
Neil Herron took the step after he learnt of a series of near misses in Sea Road, Fulwell, in recent months. The businessman, of The Westlands, said it was a matter of time before there was a fatality there. Children regularly using a crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind zig-zag lines, he said, and the vision of both pedestrians and the drivers can be severely restricted.
In the letter to the Department for Transport (DfT), Mr Herron writes: "A situation exists where non-prescribed loading bays have been placed behind the zig-zags."It is something which continues to cause real concern and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the highway authority, it is still being ignored."Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location, but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene."
Adjudicators have also repeatedly chanted the mantra that 'it looks like a road sign or a bay and it is clear in its meaning therefore no-one could have been misled as to its intent.'If we look at the series of photographs (left and below) it shows a loading bay and also zig-zags. Applying the philosophy and argument from those described above one would think that it is okay to park where indicated for the purposes of loading. No-one could be misled.
However, the zig-zag restriction runs from middle of the road to the building line meaning that motorists are being actively encouraged to park on the zig-zags and in doing so obstruct the field of vision for pedestrian and motorist alike. Now who is being misled?
The Department for Transport have confirmed that this is not allowed (not to mention the fact that the Loading Only bay is also incorrectly marked).We have signing law for a reason ... and must it take a serious accident or fatality before Sunderland City Council officers reckless indifference to their legal responsibilities strikes home? This is the tip of the iceberg in Sunderland but perhaps the most serious example of their disregard for the law and failure to act.
The Department for Transport despite repeated requests have been indifferent to say the least. Ward councillors and the Leader of the Council have been put on notice as has local MPs Bill Etherington and Chris Mullin.However, Lord Adonis now has the matter sitting on his desk and the Sunderland Echo have made the issue very public indeed.
Let us hope that nothing serious happens as the clock ticks ...
A copy of the letter is shown below the article.
Minister reads plea for safety
Sunderland Echo
Published Date: 25 June 2009
By James Johnston
A parking campaigner has written to new Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in a bid to boost safety on a Sunderland road.
Neil Herron took the step after he learnt of a series of near misses in Sea Road, Fulwell, in recent months. The businessman, of The Westlands, said it was a matter of time before there was a fatality there. Children regularly using a crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind zig-zag lines, he said, and the vision of both pedestrians and the drivers can be severely restricted.
In the letter to the Department for Transport (DfT), Mr Herron writes: "A situation exists where non-prescribed loading bays have been placed behind the zig-zags."It is something which continues to cause real concern and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the highway authority, it is still being ignored."Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location, but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene."
Mr Herron is also fighting a personal battle against a number of parking fines. He runs Boldon-based Parking Appeals Ltd, a company which helps those who feel they have been on the wrong end of a parking attendant's decision.
In the letter to former rail minister Lord Adonis, who was promoted to Transport Secretary earlier this month, Mr Herron added: "I wish to place the Sea Road matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency."
Mr Herron says he is due to hold a meeting with the DfT to discuss the issue.
THE LETTER TO LORD ADONIS
Lord Adonis Secretary of State for Transport
House of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW
22nd June 2009
Lord Adonis Secretary of State for Transport
House of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW
22nd June 2009
Subject: URGENT ... Safety Hazard at Sea Road, Sunderland
Dear Lord Adonis,
A situation exists at the above location where non-prescribed Loading Bays have been placed behind the zig-zags. It is something which continues to cause real concern, and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the Highway Authority (Sunderland City Council) it is still being ignored. Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene. John Munns at the Department for Transport has however confirmed that there has been no authorisation for the use of the road markings and plates at this restriction (see attached).
Therefore, I wish to place the matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency, and wish for the Highway Authority (SCC) to be informed without delay that the restriction is unlawful and that it must be removed from the highway forthwith.The restriction at this location is not prescribed in law and it has been confirmed that it has not been authorised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to draw to your attention the following (my emphasis):
Chapter 1 Traffic Signs Manual - Use of Non-prescribed ‘Illegal’ signs.Part 3. Legal Aspects and Responsibilities for Signs1.18 The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, is illegal and Authorities who so use unauthorised signs act beyond their powers. Additionally, an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction. The possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions may be severe and those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages……
Dear Lord Adonis,
A situation exists at the above location where non-prescribed Loading Bays have been placed behind the zig-zags. It is something which continues to cause real concern, and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the Highway Authority (Sunderland City Council) it is still being ignored. Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene. John Munns at the Department for Transport has however confirmed that there has been no authorisation for the use of the road markings and plates at this restriction (see attached).
Therefore, I wish to place the matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency, and wish for the Highway Authority (SCC) to be informed without delay that the restriction is unlawful and that it must be removed from the highway forthwith.The restriction at this location is not prescribed in law and it has been confirmed that it has not been authorised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to draw to your attention the following (my emphasis):
Chapter 1 Traffic Signs Manual - Use of Non-prescribed ‘Illegal’ signs.Part 3. Legal Aspects and Responsibilities for Signs1.18 The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, is illegal and Authorities who so use unauthorised signs act beyond their powers. Additionally, an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction. The possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions may be severe and those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages……
1.20 Authorities should consider requiring the removal of any object or device erected privately on land adjacent to their roads which has the apparent or express intention of guiding, warning or directing road users. In addition, private advertisements should not resemble or incorporate prescribed traffic signs on their symbols. United Kingdom signs are crown copyright and may not be reproduced without permission. In no circumstances will the Department permit the use of traffic signs on advertisements at roadside locations. When prescribed traffic signs are used illegally action should be taken to secure their removal.
I am aware of a number of near misses and it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality at this unlawfully signed location. The frustration is that certain officers at Sunderland City Council appear to think that signing law does not apply to them and this cavalier attitude and reckless indifference to their legal duties applies to other areas in the City, but it can be seen from Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Part 3 1.18 that not only are they acting unlawfully they are doing so in the full knowledge that their actions are unlawful.
Meanwhile, school children regularly using this crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind the zig-zags. Both the pedestrians and the drivers view can be obstructed by vehicles ‘encouraged’ to park behind zig-zags.
I would appreciate your intervention and have copied this in to the press and media to make the public fully aware before someone is killed at this unlawfully marked location. I am sure that you will be aware that under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 if a person to whom a duty of care is owed (member of the public who relies on Council Officers and the Highway Authority to ensure that restrictions placed on the highway are lawful) is killed then that death could be seen to be due to management failures which amount to a gross breach of the “relevant duty of care”. I wish for you, as the Secretary of State to be fully aware of Sunderland’s repeated avoidance of my requests and refusal to act and therefore fully responsible for any consequences of that failure to act, and that responsibility also resides with you as the Secretary of State.
I have also copied in senior executives at the City Council in order for them to be fully aware of the potential corporate and personal consequences for failing to act, as well as various elected representatives both locally and nationally.
I will make available all communications on this matter on request should you require them.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Tel. 0191 5195932
I am aware of a number of near misses and it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality at this unlawfully signed location. The frustration is that certain officers at Sunderland City Council appear to think that signing law does not apply to them and this cavalier attitude and reckless indifference to their legal duties applies to other areas in the City, but it can be seen from Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Part 3 1.18 that not only are they acting unlawfully they are doing so in the full knowledge that their actions are unlawful.
Meanwhile, school children regularly using this crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind the zig-zags. Both the pedestrians and the drivers view can be obstructed by vehicles ‘encouraged’ to park behind zig-zags.
I would appreciate your intervention and have copied this in to the press and media to make the public fully aware before someone is killed at this unlawfully marked location. I am sure that you will be aware that under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 if a person to whom a duty of care is owed (member of the public who relies on Council Officers and the Highway Authority to ensure that restrictions placed on the highway are lawful) is killed then that death could be seen to be due to management failures which amount to a gross breach of the “relevant duty of care”. I wish for you, as the Secretary of State to be fully aware of Sunderland’s repeated avoidance of my requests and refusal to act and therefore fully responsible for any consequences of that failure to act, and that responsibility also resides with you as the Secretary of State.
I have also copied in senior executives at the City Council in order for them to be fully aware of the potential corporate and personal consequences for failing to act, as well as various elected representatives both locally and nationally.
I will make available all communications on this matter on request should you require them.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Tel. 0191 5195932
Mob. 07776202045
cc. Chris Mullin MPcc. Bill Etherington MP
cc. Chris Mullin MPcc. Bill Etherington MP
cc. Lord Lucas
cc. Dave Smith, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Dave Smith, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Paul Watson, Leader
cc. Councillor Colin Wakefield
cc. Councillor Colin Wakefield
cc. Councillor George Howe
cc. Councillor Bob Francis
cc. Councillor John Walton
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Burney Johnson, Head of Transport and Engineering.
cc. Councillor Bob Francis
cc. Councillor John Walton
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Burney Johnson, Head of Transport and Engineering.
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Richard Bentley RMB Consulting
cc. John Munns, Graham Hanson Department for Transport
cc. Oliver Mishcon, barrister
cc. James Johnston, Peter Jeffrey, Ross Robertson, Sunderland Echo
cc. Richard Bentley RMB Consulting
cc. John Munns, Graham Hanson Department for Transport
cc. Oliver Mishcon, barrister
cc. James Johnston, Peter Jeffrey, Ross Robertson, Sunderland Echo
cc. Sara Nichol, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. BBC North East News
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. BBC North East News
More refunds to come ... this time Leicester City Council
If they are marking the bays 'so that they are clearer' according to the council's statement then there should be no alteration to the format. Anyone with pre and post photographs please forward them. We are building up evidence against many authorities.
Thanks also to council officials and Civil Enforcement Officers who continue to forward information of deliberate misconduct by colleagues. We can reassure you and others that such matters will be treated in the strictest confidence.
Drivers may get tickets refund over parking bay errors
Leicester Mercury
Wednesday, June 24, 2009,
Drivers given parking tickets may be able to claim a refund after it emerged the wrong measurements had been used for parking bays.
Leicester City Council workers are remarking many of the 240 bays in the city centre.
However, the authority has insisted it is only doing the work to make the bays clearer, and not because they are wrong.
It comes after a driver successfully appealed against a ticket he was given in a loading bay in the city because, he said, the dimensions of the space did not meet legal requirements.
The Leicester Mercury carried out its own checks on five random bays in the St George's area and found all were incorrectly marked out.
Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, lines marking out a pay-and-display bay must be 60cm long.
However, a slight leeway is allowed with gaps of a minimum of 60cm and maximum of 90cm between each one. However, in the city centre, several are not marked out in that way, which experts say makes them unenforceable. Therefore, tickets handed out are invalid.
See measures for Pay and Display bays
Measures for Disabled bays
Measures for split Pay and display bays
The council. however, said if the experts' comments led people to believe they could get their parking fines overturned, that would be "raising expectations which will almost certainly prove to be unreasonable".
Richard Bentley, a former North Yorkshire police officer, is now an expert witness on the issue.
He said: "The format for parking bays is set out in law and those laws cannot be ignored.
"A mistake in law means any money they have taken in those bays has to be repaid. Any tickets issued must also be repaid.
"Put simply, if the lines are wrong the fine is wrong."
Mr Bentley said there was no time limited on appealing against tickets handed out in incorrect bays.
It is not known how many people might be able to claim refunds on tickets given since the city took over parking from the police in January, 2007, but it could be thousands.
Between July 2007 and July 2008, the latest figures show more than 62,000 fines were issued in the city and drivers handed over about £2.7m.
It is also not clear how many of the bays are incorrectly marked, but the council said it was repainting up to 95 per cent.
The bays in question are disabled spaces, loading bays and on-street pay-and-display spaces.
City council traffic manager Andy Thomas said: "A person argued a loading bay was incorrectly marked. It was not contested because the issue was ambiguous and not because we recognised we were wrong.
"This work has not been prompted by any appeal.
"My main concern is all bays are clearly and accurately marked. While we are repainting, we will also check they are correct."
Mr Thomas said if any bay was wrong – adding he did not know of any – the council could rebuff appeals because there was "clear intent" to police parking.
Parking rule expert Barrie Segal, founder of AppealNow.com which has successfully appealed 50,000 parking tickets across the country, said that argument was "rubbish".
He said: "This argument that because there is intent to police bays, even if they are wrong, is the same rubbish councils trot out in these situations."
Mr Segal said the fact the council did not contest the appeal against the loading bay ticket "shows there is clearly something a miss".
He said: "They are measuring and
remarking all of them, which suggests to me they are not sure if they are right.''
When the Mercury put its measurements and the arguments of the parking experts to the council, a spokesman said: "If people feel they have been harshly treated, our advice is that they should register a complaint via the council's normal complaints procedure."
PAID A PCN in an incorrectly marked bay?
ASSISTANCE
Click on here to open up a Leicester City Council complaint form
Complaint text:
It appears that the bay in which I received my Penalty Charge Notice was not marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The use of non-prescribed signs is unlawful and therefore all monies derived from such a mistake in law are recoverable under the principle established in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993].
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would like copies of any internal communications the council holds with regard to the enforcement of non-prescribed bays and the instructions (including copies of any TSRGD 2002 drawings) given to contractors detailing what 'corrections' are to be undertaken.
Under the Data Protection Act I would like details of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s) including any Parking Attendant or Civil Enforcement Officer notes, and any information the council holds on known signing deficiencies in the areas where my PCN(s) was/were issued.
Resolution text:
I would like a full refund of all monies paid for all PCNs issued to vehicle registration number...................(insert vehicle reg in bays which were not marked in accordance with TSRGD 2002 details)
Thanks also to council officials and Civil Enforcement Officers who continue to forward information of deliberate misconduct by colleagues. We can reassure you and others that such matters will be treated in the strictest confidence.
Drivers may get tickets refund over parking bay errors
Leicester Mercury
Wednesday, June 24, 2009,
Drivers given parking tickets may be able to claim a refund after it emerged the wrong measurements had been used for parking bays.
Leicester City Council workers are remarking many of the 240 bays in the city centre.
However, the authority has insisted it is only doing the work to make the bays clearer, and not because they are wrong.
It comes after a driver successfully appealed against a ticket he was given in a loading bay in the city because, he said, the dimensions of the space did not meet legal requirements.
The Leicester Mercury carried out its own checks on five random bays in the St George's area and found all were incorrectly marked out.
Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, lines marking out a pay-and-display bay must be 60cm long.
However, a slight leeway is allowed with gaps of a minimum of 60cm and maximum of 90cm between each one. However, in the city centre, several are not marked out in that way, which experts say makes them unenforceable. Therefore, tickets handed out are invalid.
See measures for Pay and Display bays
Measures for Disabled bays
Measures for split Pay and display bays
The council. however, said if the experts' comments led people to believe they could get their parking fines overturned, that would be "raising expectations which will almost certainly prove to be unreasonable".
Richard Bentley, a former North Yorkshire police officer, is now an expert witness on the issue.
He said: "The format for parking bays is set out in law and those laws cannot be ignored.
"A mistake in law means any money they have taken in those bays has to be repaid. Any tickets issued must also be repaid.
"Put simply, if the lines are wrong the fine is wrong."
Mr Bentley said there was no time limited on appealing against tickets handed out in incorrect bays.
It is not known how many people might be able to claim refunds on tickets given since the city took over parking from the police in January, 2007, but it could be thousands.
Between July 2007 and July 2008, the latest figures show more than 62,000 fines were issued in the city and drivers handed over about £2.7m.
It is also not clear how many of the bays are incorrectly marked, but the council said it was repainting up to 95 per cent.
The bays in question are disabled spaces, loading bays and on-street pay-and-display spaces.
City council traffic manager Andy Thomas said: "A person argued a loading bay was incorrectly marked. It was not contested because the issue was ambiguous and not because we recognised we were wrong.
"This work has not been prompted by any appeal.
"My main concern is all bays are clearly and accurately marked. While we are repainting, we will also check they are correct."
Mr Thomas said if any bay was wrong – adding he did not know of any – the council could rebuff appeals because there was "clear intent" to police parking.
Parking rule expert Barrie Segal, founder of AppealNow.com which has successfully appealed 50,000 parking tickets across the country, said that argument was "rubbish".
He said: "This argument that because there is intent to police bays, even if they are wrong, is the same rubbish councils trot out in these situations."
Mr Segal said the fact the council did not contest the appeal against the loading bay ticket "shows there is clearly something a miss".
He said: "They are measuring and
remarking all of them, which suggests to me they are not sure if they are right.''When the Mercury put its measurements and the arguments of the parking experts to the council, a spokesman said: "If people feel they have been harshly treated, our advice is that they should register a complaint via the council's normal complaints procedure."
PAID A PCN in an incorrectly marked bay?
ASSISTANCE
Click on here to open up a Leicester City Council complaint form
Complaint text:
It appears that the bay in which I received my Penalty Charge Notice was not marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The use of non-prescribed signs is unlawful and therefore all monies derived from such a mistake in law are recoverable under the principle established in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993].
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would like copies of any internal communications the council holds with regard to the enforcement of non-prescribed bays and the instructions (including copies of any TSRGD 2002 drawings) given to contractors detailing what 'corrections' are to be undertaken.
Under the Data Protection Act I would like details of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s) including any Parking Attendant or Civil Enforcement Officer notes, and any information the council holds on known signing deficiencies in the areas where my PCN(s) was/were issued.
Resolution text:
I would like a full refund of all monies paid for all PCNs issued to vehicle registration number...................(insert vehicle reg in bays which were not marked in accordance with TSRGD 2002 details)
Monday, June 22, 2009
Motorists are about to bite back ... as predicted.
...and as they prepare to do so more evidence is coming in from council officers and parking enforcement personnel detailing what can only be described as unlawful activity. We can accept people making mistakes ... but as soon as that mistake is spotted and covered up to allow unlawful enforcement to continue then that is when it becomes criminal.
We understand that a number of Police forces are going to be forced to initiate criminal investigations once evidence is placed before them.
Refunds to come in Camden, Kingston, Harrow and Merton for motorists who have been penalised with unlawful PCNs.
All of this was forecast in the last Tonight Special we did following the introduction of the 2004 Traffic Management Act on 31st March 2008. All the councils who have thought that they were above the law need to think again.
Whistleblowers ... keep the information coming.
On the unlawful credit card charges issued by the four London Boroughs named above ... it is understood that London Council's Nick Lester has reminded councils that they must not levy such charges. It follows that if such charges are unlawful then, according to Mr. Lester
Another one bites the dust ...now Merton Council
Another Council guilty of adding an unlawful Credit Card surcharge to their Penalty Charge Notice. We will help you get you money back for any PCNs paid in Camden, Merton, Harrow and Kingston. Just e-mail enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk for more information.
Meanwhile, since we went live on the BBC last week another council has confirmed that it has suspended its credit card charge. Merton Council's press release is below (seems that they have missed a bit ... the bit about how you get your money back!) :
Merton Council suspends credit card surcharges
12 June 2009
Merton Council has suspended its credit card surcharges on Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking and bus lane offences. This follows concerns raised by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) about the legality of a 1.35% surcharge added to all credit card payments of PCNs. The council introduced credit card surcharges on the 15 April this year to recover costs imposed by the credit card companies. In addition to using a credit card, those looking to pay their Penalty Charge Notice can also pay with cash, cheque or debit card.
Paying within 14 days of receiving the penalty charge notice reduces the charge by half.
Information on paying parking Penalty Charge Notices can be found at: www.merton.gov.uk/living/transport-streets/parking/pcn/paying_pcn.htm
Merton Council's cabinet member for finance and regeneration Councillor Diane Neil Mills said: "As soon as we learned of the potential problem concerning the surcharges, we took action and suspended surcharges on credit card payments for Penalty Charge Notices for parking and bus lane offences. We are investigating the situation with urgency and would ask everyone to bear with us as we work on the necessary next steps.'
Meanwhile, since we went live on the BBC last week another council has confirmed that it has suspended its credit card charge. Merton Council's press release is below (seems that they have missed a bit ... the bit about how you get your money back!) :
Merton Council suspends credit card surcharges
12 June 2009
Merton Council has suspended its credit card surcharges on Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking and bus lane offences. This follows concerns raised by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) about the legality of a 1.35% surcharge added to all credit card payments of PCNs. The council introduced credit card surcharges on the 15 April this year to recover costs imposed by the credit card companies. In addition to using a credit card, those looking to pay their Penalty Charge Notice can also pay with cash, cheque or debit card.
Paying within 14 days of receiving the penalty charge notice reduces the charge by half.
Information on paying parking Penalty Charge Notices can be found at: www.merton.gov.uk/living/transport-streets/parking/pcn/paying_pcn.htm
Merton Council's cabinet member for finance and regeneration Councillor Diane Neil Mills said: "As soon as we learned of the potential problem concerning the surcharges, we took action and suspended surcharges on credit card payments for Penalty Charge Notices for parking and bus lane offences. We are investigating the situation with urgency and would ask everyone to bear with us as we work on the necessary next steps.'
Chideock Speed Camera Refunds
For all those who think that you are not entitled to refunds when a Traffic Order is defective read the press release below ...Meanwhile, just a reminder to all those councils who regularly read this blog ... Regulation 18 Local Authority Traffic Order Procedures ... if your signs are not correct then your traffic order is not in force. All monies derived from unlawfully marked locations will have to be refunded. The Chideock case wipes out the myth that is chanted regularly by Council press officers and Nick Lester of London Councils ... 'that if you paid the ticket you accepted the contravention.'
WRONG ... and more and more motorists are ready to start legal actions for restitution.
Chideock Speed Camera Partnership Update
Chideock Update - 19th June 2009
****PRESS RELEASE****
Technicality in the Traffic Regulation Order Relating
to the A35 in Chideock, West Dorset
This announcement follows the case of Regina v Dawe (see ‘Notes to Editors’ for details) and the Crown Court judgment that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock in West Dorset was defective due to a historical clerical error in the street name in the TRO.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) can confirm that it has secured agreement regarding dealing with speeding offences detected by the safety camera monitoring westbound traffic on the A35 in Chideock prior to 2007.
Each case will be reviewed individually and may result in motorists detected travelling over 30mph on the westbound safety camera in Chideock, prior to 2007, having the fixed penalty payment from this offence refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence, if still valid.
Adrian Whiting, Assistant Chief Constable for Dorset Police and the Chair of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, comments:
"Chideock is a small rural community with a main road running through the middle of the village and we are reassured that no one has tried to suggest that the speed limit should be anything other than 30mph.
"During the period this safety camera has been in operation it will have reduced drivers’ speeds through the village by acting as a deterrent, which will have helped to safeguard the safety of the people who live in Chideock and other road users. The public should be reassured by the fact that a new TRO is in place and the DSCP has recommenced enforcement there."
The DSCP will be writing to all drivers affected, to inform them of the situation and outline the process to follow if they wish to have their fixed penalty refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence if still valid. Details of the process to follow if drivers think their offence is affected are available on the DSCP website – http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership remains focused on working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed.
Media Enquiries - please contact Nikki Haine or Matt McKenna on 01425 472330 or email
emily@mckennatownsendpr.com
NOTES TO EDITORS
Background information on the issues relating to the A35 westbound in Chideock and the Crown Court case of Regina v Dawe:
1. In 1997 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock, West Dorset was arranged. The order defined a length of the A35 westbound as subject to a 30mph speed limit. This was necessary as that stretch of road does not have a system of street lighting.
2. The text of the order referred to the A35 junction with "Seatown Road". This was a mistake as the road was then, and still is, correctly named "Duck Street".
3. At approximately 23:15hrs on the 27th October 2005 Mr Dawe was detected speeding by a fixed safety camera, travelling west in the village of Chideock. He was travelling at 41mph in a lorry, passing the houses where the safety camera is located and approaching the village Pubs. He has never disputed this speed, nor suggested it was sensible to drive that fast in the built-up area of the village.
4. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the 30mph speed limit signs were not of the proper form. On the 26th October 2007 the Crown Court sitting at Dorchester found that the TRO was defective due to the road name issue, and thus the 30mph speed limit could not be enforced at that point on the A35 westbound. Accordingly the Court did not need to assess Mr Dawe’s actual grounds for appeal, and no finding on them was made.
5. Following the Crown Court judgement the organisations which make up the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership have been working with the appropriate Government departments to determine whether this judgement applies to other cases and agree an appropriate process for dealing with these offences.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, which was set up in August 2002, constitutes a partnership between Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset Police, NHS South West, Highways Agency, Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Partnership, through a combination of measures including education, engineering and enforcement, is working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed. It is responsible for the operation and maintenance of fixed site, mobile and red-light junction cameras throughout Dorset.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Massive boost for motorists against unlawful parking fines
High Court boost for Sunderland parking campaignerSunderland Echo ... 16 June 2009
By Jane O'Neill
Parking campaigner Neil Herron has been given a boost in his legal battle.
The Sunderland businessman claims parking restrictions in Sunderland city centre are unlawful and has taken the matter to London's High Court.Mr Herron, of The Westlands, is fighting a personal battle against a number of parking fines.He also
runs Parking Appeals Ltd, a company which helps those who feel they have been on the wrong end of a parking attendant's decision.
Now a High Court judge has given him permission to continue his fight against what he claims are illegal parking restrictions. Speaking after the hearing, Mr Herron said he was ready for a "David and Goliath" struggle. "This is fantastic news, not just for Sunderland, but for UK motorists who are facing an uphill struggle against local authorities." Finally we have this matter before the highest court in the land and we are looking forward to a judicial ruling on matters that many, many motorists have complained about."
Lawyers for Mr Herron – whose company has registered the personalised number plate F1 NED – yesterday argued that Sunderland city centre's Controlled Parking Zone was unlawful.
Barrister Oliver Mischon, for Mr Herron, also said that the National Parking Appeals Service, where Mr Herron has attempted to have decisions of Sunderland City Council overturned, has the "appearance of bias". He said that Mr Herron's right to a fair trial – as enshrined by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act – had been violated. Mr Mischon told the court that, under the strict letter of the law, controlled parking zones are not allowed to have certain line markings or signage. It is Mr Mischon's case that, because those "signs and lines" are in place in Sunderland, parking restrictions governed by the use of single yellow lines are "unenforceable". Describing controlled parking zones as "extremely confusing", Mr Mischon added that they have been put in place all over the country in a bid to tackle cars being parked in residential areas, but have left many motorists fuming because restrictions are not clearly set out. The barrister added that the National Parking Appeals Service was not "independent and impartial" because it represented every local authority with controlled parking zones, including Sunderland City Council.
Expressing "real doubts" about its independence, Mr Mischon added that it was funded by money raised by parking fines.Mr Justice Keith agreed that Mr Herron had an "arguable" case and granted him permission to pursue his judicial review challenge at a more in-depth hearing, a date for which has yet to be set.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
CAMDEN ...Many parking tickets 'unlawful' BBC reports
Many parking tickets 'unlawful'BBC News24
Thursday 11th June 2009
Thousands of drivers in London may be affected by the ruling
Thousands of parking tickets paid by credit card could be cancelled after a council's charges were ruled unlawful.
Camden Council has been charging 1.3% extra for tickets paid by credit card.
But a firm claimed the extra charge is unfair - and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (Patas) agreed, saying the entire ticket should be cancelled.
The ruling could also affect the boroughs of Harrow and Merton, which also charge extra to pay tickets by credit card. Camden Council may appeal.
Harrow has been charging people extra to use credit card for 18 months.
Camden Council are behaving like the Sherriff of Nottingham
Richard Chaumerton, driver
In January, London General Transport Services Limited was given a £120 penalty charge notice by Camden Council.
But the company appealed, claiming it was unfair to charge an extra 1.3% for a ticket that they had no choice but to pay.
Patas adjudicator Henry Greenslade agreed.
Referring to the rules by which councils must abide, he said: "The words 'authorities cannot justify applying surcharges in relation to credit cards' could not be clearer.
"Authorities cannot justify applying surcharges for their use."
'Could be challenged'
He added: "I find the penalty charge in this case did exceed the amount applicable - accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."
If Camden Council is unsuccessful with its appeal, every fine paid by credit card since the 1.3% charge began in January could be challenged.
The council has given out £26m in parking fines this year.
Neil Herron (left) says Camden Council's "greed" may cost them dear.Builder Richard Chaumerton, 46, from Kentish Town, north west London, is challenging five tickets which he paid by credit card.
He said: "It's a disgusting, vexatious state of affairs.
"Camden Council are behaving like the Sherriff of Nottingham - they think they can make up all these charges, regardless of what the law says."
Parking campaigner Neil Herron, also battling tickets on grounds of the credit card charge, said: "Out of greed this council has been charging an extra 1.3% - it could end up costing them £12.5 million."
A Camden Council spokeswoman said: "We sought independent legal advice when introducing credit card charges and we remain satisfied this is sound advice.
"The detail will be reviewed by our lawyers and the council will take a decision once we have received advice.
"In the interim, Camden has stopped the credit card fee."
STOP PRESS
Camden, Merton, Kingston and Harrow have now withhdrawn the Credit Card Surcharge. If you have had a Penalty Charge Notice in any of these boroughs and want to know more and want to know whether you can get a refund just drop us an e-mail at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk
NB. You need not have paid by credit card to seek a refund.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Car parking fiasco...want your money back?
Anybody who has been fined and wants more information contact enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk
The Comet
A PARKING attendant firm has continued to charge fees and issue fines at a town centre car park despite their contractors going bust six months ago.
The car park at the back of Woolworths in Hitchin has continued to be run by Euro Car Parks (ECP) despite the former retailer going into administration in January and closing the store. Deloitte, Woolworths' administrators, said ECP no longer has a contract to operate on the site. Deloitte spokesman, Harry Cazi, said: "I spoke to Euro Car Parks today (Tuesday). We have certainly not instructed them to do this. I told them that we don't require their services." Angry Hitchin worker, Wayne Scott, contacted The Comet after his fiancée was asked by an attendant whether she had a ticket.
He said he saw two other people being fined and asked the attendant whether the company still had a contract to work there.
He said: "They are basically scamming people. They shouldn't be working there at all. They are lining their pockets at a time when people can't afford it."
Jim Hunter, director at Gatwards jewellery shop in Market Place, said his colleague Lisa Gatward was fined £50 by ECP in April after not buying a ticket.
He said: "We thought because Woolworths had gone there would be nobody taking money. If they are taking money illegally they should give it back. It is morally wrong, if nothing else." Les Knight, business director at ECP, said he was not aware that parking attendants were still enforcing the regulations, despite acknowledging they still had a working ticket machine and enforcement signs across the car park.
He said: "The agreement with Woolworths was never terminated. We never got an official order to close. We only received an email from the administrators this morning (Wednesday).
"I remember I had a conversation with a colleague, as the new owners are not agreeing anything. I'm a bit surprised actually - it's not what you'd call a big earner anyway.
"We certainly don't have a constant site presence. But we are in business to make money - as all businesses are - I'm not ashamed to say that."
When asked if there was a way drivers could get their money back, Mr Knight said: "No, not really. There are terms and conditions displayed."
The Comet was asked for a breakdown of how much money ECP had taken from the site since Woolworths closed, but we had not received this before going to press.
The company said it had ceased operations on the site as of yesterday (Wednesday) and will remove the ticket machine and signs as a matter of priority.
The Comet
A PARKING attendant firm has continued to charge fees and issue fines at a town centre car park despite their contractors going bust six months ago.
The car park at the back of Woolworths in Hitchin has continued to be run by Euro Car Parks (ECP) despite the former retailer going into administration in January and closing the store. Deloitte, Woolworths' administrators, said ECP no longer has a contract to operate on the site. Deloitte spokesman, Harry Cazi, said: "I spoke to Euro Car Parks today (Tuesday). We have certainly not instructed them to do this. I told them that we don't require their services." Angry Hitchin worker, Wayne Scott, contacted The Comet after his fiancée was asked by an attendant whether she had a ticket.
He said he saw two other people being fined and asked the attendant whether the company still had a contract to work there.
He said: "They are basically scamming people. They shouldn't be working there at all. They are lining their pockets at a time when people can't afford it."
Jim Hunter, director at Gatwards jewellery shop in Market Place, said his colleague Lisa Gatward was fined £50 by ECP in April after not buying a ticket.
He said: "We thought because Woolworths had gone there would be nobody taking money. If they are taking money illegally they should give it back. It is morally wrong, if nothing else." Les Knight, business director at ECP, said he was not aware that parking attendants were still enforcing the regulations, despite acknowledging they still had a working ticket machine and enforcement signs across the car park.
He said: "The agreement with Woolworths was never terminated. We never got an official order to close. We only received an email from the administrators this morning (Wednesday).
"I remember I had a conversation with a colleague, as the new owners are not agreeing anything. I'm a bit surprised actually - it's not what you'd call a big earner anyway.
"We certainly don't have a constant site presence. But we are in business to make money - as all businesses are - I'm not ashamed to say that."
When asked if there was a way drivers could get their money back, Mr Knight said: "No, not really. There are terms and conditions displayed."
The Comet was asked for a breakdown of how much money ECP had taken from the site since Woolworths closed, but we had not received this before going to press.
The company said it had ceased operations on the site as of yesterday (Wednesday) and will remove the ticket machine and signs as a matter of priority.
Over 25,000 parking fines overturned
BBC News
More than 25,000 parking tickets have been successfully challenged since NCP (now known as NSL) took over parking enforcement in NI, it has emerged.
The figure equates to 7.8% of the 327,267 tickets given out between November 2006 and December 2008.
Almost 39,000 of these tickets were challenged and the challenge was accepted in 25,484 cases.
The most common reasons for successful challenges were the production of a valid parking ticket or a Blue-Badge.
The figures were released by Regional Development Minister Conor Murphy in response to an Assembly question tabled by DUP MLA Simon Hamilton.
The Strangford representative said people should be aware of their right to appeal a parking ticket.
"Through constituency experience and working with people in the local area, I encouraged many of them who I felt had been unfairly treated to challenge, and was noticing a fair few were actually having their appeals upheld," he said.
"I find it interesting that just quite so many people who are challenging are actually finding that the ticket is overturned."
Tim Cowen of NSL said the vast vast majority of successful appeals concerned mitigating circumstances that attendants couldn't have known about.
He added that Roads Service, who run the appeals process, show "a great deal of discretion."
More than 25,000 parking tickets have been successfully challenged since NCP (now known as NSL) took over parking enforcement in NI, it has emerged.
The figure equates to 7.8% of the 327,267 tickets given out between November 2006 and December 2008.
Almost 39,000 of these tickets were challenged and the challenge was accepted in 25,484 cases.
The most common reasons for successful challenges were the production of a valid parking ticket or a Blue-Badge.
The figures were released by Regional Development Minister Conor Murphy in response to an Assembly question tabled by DUP MLA Simon Hamilton.
The Strangford representative said people should be aware of their right to appeal a parking ticket.
"Through constituency experience and working with people in the local area, I encouraged many of them who I felt had been unfairly treated to challenge, and was noticing a fair few were actually having their appeals upheld," he said.
"I find it interesting that just quite so many people who are challenging are actually finding that the ticket is overturned."
Tim Cowen of NSL said the vast vast majority of successful appeals concerned mitigating circumstances that attendants couldn't have known about.
He added that Roads Service, who run the appeals process, show "a great deal of discretion."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
