Neil Herron

Pay close attention to the increase in parking news stories from the South West

2011-09-02T15:05:00.008+01:00

A little bird tells me that we all should watch this space.
Robin B'stard (left)

Exeter Express and Echo
Thursday, September 01, 2011
The parking fines fiasco that drove motorists crazy

WHEN Chris Bragg received a parking fine for stopping in a loading bay he was incensed.
The 63-year-old had not seen a small sign attached to a building site hoarding which warned drivers that they should not stop in the bay – which was unmarked on the road.

Campaigner: Chris Bragg in Market Street,
Crediton where he received a parking fine
Mr Bragg, who runs a garage business in Crediton, where he received the fixed penalty notice, was convinced the signage was insufficient and appealed against the fine.
His appeal was rejected and the Copplestone resident reluctantly parted with £105.

But with the cheque he handed over Mr Bragg included a strongly worded letter, accusing Devon County Council and Mid Devon District Council of breaking the law in accepting the money.
Devon County Council spent several months defending its right to issue fines in the street before it emerged that parking officials had raised many concerns about the markings in the town square.

The county authority eventually admitted the markings on the "dual use" bay, which is a loading area in the morning and a restricted parking zone in the afternoon, had never been properly authorised by the Department of Transport.

The council apologised for the mistake, and the case opened the floodgates for motorists fined for parking there.
Between his unsuccessful appeal and paying the fine Mr Bragg had made contact with a small band of campaigners who have spent many hours researching and pointing out flaws in Devon County Council's enforcement of parking.

These individuals, two of whom are former policemen, say the Crediton case is just the tip of the iceberg, and the county council will be forced to refund more cash.
Some might accuse this group of trying to find technical ways of getting around legitimate fines, an allegation they would refute.

Peter Harry, from Dawlish, began investigating parking issues after a council official falsified documents to make it appear his car was illegally parked in Exeter.
The 68-year-old, who helped Mr Bragg with his fight against the fine, said the campaign was more about righting injustice and holding officials responsible for mistakes which have been made.
"Using the Freedom of Information Act we were able to show that Mid Devon District Council knew that it should not be enforcing restrictions in Market Street, but it continued handing out fixed penalty notices," he said.
"The markings had not been authorised and were unclear. The councils continued to take people's money, not out of malice but because of incompetence."

Mike Thompson, the former Mayor of Cullompton and an ex-police officer, is also working to expose areas where parking regulations have not been properly set up.
The Freedom of Information Act has proved invaluable to the group, which has used it to obtain internal council emails that have exposed mistakes made.
"We are just looking at some of the irregularities and we have found a massive amount of evidence," said Mr Thompson.
"The councils look at fixed penalty notices as a revenue stream but they do not realise the pain and anguish that these cause.
"I have spoken to pensioners who are genuinely worried when they receive a parking ticket. They have to weigh up whether it is worth appealing and risk the fine amount doubling.
"It is a scandal that the councils are not taking every measure possible to ensure the markings are approved and enforceable."

Devon County Council estimates it collected around £6,000 in unlawful fines in Crediton's Market Street. In another twist to the saga, this week it was forced to change the terms of its refund policy.
The council had given those fined 28 days to apply for a refund from the date of a public notice which it issued in May.
Mr Harry question why, when for years it had collected fines illegally, the authority had given them less than a month to apply to get their money back. There is now an open-ended refund policy in place.

A spokesman for the county council said: "In issuing the notice we took advice from a barrister, which was that 28 days was an appropriate period.
"Whilst that period has now elapsed, in good faith, we are continuing to assess any request for refund on its merit and where it is the case that the penalty charge notice was issued in error a refund is provided."
He was not available to comment on whether the council was reviewing the legality of road markings elsewhere in the county.

This is only the beginning ...

2011-08-31T07:02:00.001+01:00

Private land parking disputes are set to become the big issue over the next 18 months and 2012 will be the year it all comes to a head...

It doesn't take a Mayan Prophecy to work that one out as clamping is banned and the Protection FROM Freedom Bill works its way through Parliament shifting liability for 'breaches of contract' to a third party and allowing private ticketers to pursue the Registered Keeper using 'purchased' information from the DVLA.
You have been warned.

Express and Echo
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Calls for action over 'harsh' parking firm

ANGRY motorists are demanding action from the private parking regulator after claiming they were treated harshly by an enforcement firm in the city.
The Echo has highlighted a string of recent complaints about parking firm PPS.

ANGRY: Victoria Davison has complained after being given a parking ticket
at Exeter Central Station

Motorists have expressed concern about the way they have been treated at Exeter's Central Station and other privately owned city centre car parks.
Now two more drivers have contacted the Echo claiming they should not have been given tickets by Premier Parking Solutions, based in Newton Abbot.

Both have contacted the British Parking Association (BPA) – a trade body which regulates firms. They are calling for it to cancel membership for PPS.

Schoolteacher Chris Charlwood, 50, from Cheriton Fitzpaine, was given a £75 fine at Exeter Central Station after PPS claimed his ticket was not visible enough.
The deputy headteacher said: "I was given a fine despite my parking ticket being displayed," he said.
"But because it was in a recess on my dashboard common on some Peugeot cars the parking operative did not see it.
"Nowhere is the motorist specifically directed to a designated display position within their vehicle where the ticket must be displayed. I have complained to the BPA in the strongest terms about the Draconian and unaccountable manner in which this firm appear to manage their parking operations."

Victoria Davison, from Bradninch, was also given a £75 fine after parking at Central Station. She has also complained to the BPA.
She said her ticket was also on display, but facing downwards. "I have written to PPS about the fine," she said.
"But they have threatened to place it in the hands of a debt collector if it is not paid.
"I'm not paying it because my parking ticket was valid. I've complained to the BPA," she said.

The latest complaints come after the Echo featured a story about a patient fined by a different company at the Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital when her treatment overran. Her appeal was rejected.

A BPA spokeswoman said complaints would be investigated.
She said: "We urge those who feel that they have been treated unfairly to contact us with full details.
"The BPA investigates all complaints made against members of its Approved Operator Scheme and disciplinary action is taken against any operator who is found to be in breach of the code of practice." Earlier this year PPS was ordered by Network Rail, which owns the car park in front of Central Station, to be more lenient towards drivers.
It followed complaints made by city MP Ben Bradshaw following a spate of enforcement tickets issued to drivers.
In one case a driver from Exeter was given a parking charge within a minute of pulling on to the station car park.

Despite being contacted by the Echo, nobody was available for comment from PPS.
If you feel you have been harshly penalised by a parking firm contact the Echo newsdesk on 01392 442239.

Police ‘help bailiffs to seize cars over unpaid parking fines’

2011-08-29T15:12:00.002+01:00

The Times
August 27th 2011
Mark Atherton
Police ‘help bailiffs to seize cars over unpaid parking fines’

(Rock music fans at the Reading Festival yesterday. Police forces earned almost £8 million in the past year providing security for events such as
music festivals)

The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helping bailiffs to collect disputed parking fines.

An investigation by The Times has discovered that forces across the UK, including the Metropolitan and Kent Police, have been regularly assisting bailiffs to seize the cars of motorists with outstanding penalties, even though campaigners say they do not have the legal authority because parking enforcement in most parts of the UK is a civil, not criminal matter.

In one case, the police helped Newlyn, a bailiff company that has been accused of adding extra costs to debts, cutting corners and aggressively chasing people for money that they say they do not owe. The Times has obtained video evidence of how the police confiscated the car keys of one driver and handed them to Newlyn even though the bailiff provided documentation of disputed authenticity and the driver denied that he owed any money.

In 2009 a district judge branded a director of Newlyn a liar in a hearing about the renewal of a bailiff’s licence. The driver who had his car confiscated has since taken his case to the Police Complaints Authority.

The law states that the police should assist bailiffs only if there is likely to be a breach of the peace, but officers appear to be routinely going on joint operations to stop motorists.
Ron Clark, of Fairparking.com, a website that champions the cause of motorists, said: “The permission to engage in such activity was removed by the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order of 1993. Police should no more be assisting bailiffs to chase up parking contraventions than they should be assisting utility companies in securing payment of their energy bills.”

Barrie Segal, of Appealnow.com, which helps people fight unfair parking penalties, said: “Shouldn’t the police be concentrating on chasing people who break the criminal law? I’m all for police stopping motorists where they suspect a crime has occurred. I just don’t think they should team up with bailiffs because it misleads the public into thinking that bailiffs have greater powers than they do.”
Legal experts consulted by The Times said the police could be acting beyond their authority.

District Judge Stephen Gerlis, of Barnet County Court, said: “I am not aware of any protocol or authority that provides for the police to be involved in the enforcement of civil debts, unless there is a suggestion that a criminal offence may be committed.”

The joint operations came to light after The Times obtained a transcript of a court hearing about a bailiff’s licence renewal. In this hearing, Leonard Brailey, an employee of Marston’s, a leading bailiff company, admitted that the police had for the past seven years been assisting his company with roadside stopping operations in Kent and other areas on the outskirts of London. In the past six months, he had taken part in six to ten operations, he said.
He explained that police would flag down oncoming cars for a roadside check. Then, after completing the check, they would say to the motorist: “Here is a bailiff. He is going to carry out checks as well.” Mr Brailey agreed that the impression given was that this was some lawful stopping to which the motorist had no right to object.

Kent Police confirmed it had conducted roadside police operations with bailiffs. The Metropolitan Police said it also carried out roadside stop operations with bailiffs “on rare occasions”. Both forces said they were satisfied that their operations were legal.

According to Mr Brailey, after being introduced by the police, the bailiff phones his office to check whether there are any outstanding warrants for unpaid fines relating to the vehicle. But Mr Clark said: “The bailiff’s van is equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology and a database of vehicles on which there are outstanding parking contraventions. These are the vehicles the police stop.”

Malcolm Hurlston, of Credit Action, the national financial education charity, said: “The proposals for regulating bailiffs are already months overdue. The whole area of bailiff activity is confusing and complicated and urgently needs regulation.”
The Ministry of Justice said: “The majority of bailiffs are responsible, but too many are not and this cannot continue. We will publish our consultation as soon as we have exhausted our exploration of all the issues.”
Newlyn refused to comment but has previously denied any wrongdoing and has said that its director’s incorrect statement in court was “merely an administrative error”.

Local Government Ombudsman now becoming involved in parking issues

2011-08-29T14:59:00.002+01:00

The intervention of the LGO in 'parking' related matters is quite timely and necessary. It is quite clear that there is serious maladministration involving processes and systems in many councils but quite clear that there is no power for the adjudication service to investigate or censure and, up until now, the LGO has been reluctant to become involved. However, the sands are shifting and it is clear that systemic failings and maladministration are now likely to be investigated especially where such maladministration has the potential to impact nationally.

Ombudsman criticises Bexley Council over parking fine
Date Published: 26/07/11

Bexley Council’s rigid following of procedure and failure to update its address records meant that a woman suffered bailiff action unnecessarily for a parking fine.

Bexley Council’s rigid following of procedure and failure to update its address records meant that a woman suffered bailiff action unnecessarily for a parking fine, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin. In her report, issued today, she says that, as a result, the woman ended up paying £629.95 to clear the debt, instead of the £150 for which she was liable.

She says: “I consider that had the Council considered its discretion during the recovery process it would have responded to [the woman] at the correct address and she would have paid the appropriate fine. So the debt would not have been referred to the bailiff and the bailiff’s costs would not have been incurred.”

A resident complained that the Council pursued her at an old address for a penalty charge notice (PCN) of £100. She had not updated the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of her new address and did not have a mail forwarding service in place. As a result, she became aware of the parking fine on collection of post from her old address, which included the PCN and charge certificate advising the fine had increased to £150. She wrote to the Council to advise of her new address and requested to pay the reduced fine of £50 as she had missed the opportunity. The Council did not respond to the letter. The Council pursued the debt to bailiff action unknown to the woman as correspondence was directed to her old address; six months after her letter she made a payment of £629.95 to the bailiffs to clear the debt. The complainant believes the Council should have responded to her correspondence at the address she supplied, so that the bailiff action could have been avoided.

The Ombudsman considers that whilst the Council followed the correct recovery process, it at no time considered its discretion. It did not consider correspondence which the complainant sent in; failed to update her address and so continued to send all correspondence to an old address where she no longer resided. As a result she did not receive relevant documents, and was not aware of the actions being taken against her. The Council rigidly followed its automated process, did not consider the individual circumstances or the use of its discretion.

The Ombudsman considers that, had such failings not occurred, the complainant would have paid the £150 fine for which she was liable, because at no time did she seek to evade payment of the debt. She lost the opportunity to pay the original fine or the reduced amount due to her own initial failings. But had the Council used its available discretion it would have recognised her change of address and properly explained the position to her regarding the ongoing debt recovery action. She would not then have faced unexpected and avoidable bailiff action.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

pays the complainant £479.95, being the difference between the £629.95 paid and the £150 she could have paid had the Council not fettered its discretion by its rigid procedures, and
undertakes a review of its automated PCN recovery procedure, ensuring that correspondence is considered even if received outside the statutory notification period to ensure it considers its discretion based on the individual circumstances of each case.
The real names of people in this report are not given for legal reasons.

Report ref no 10 009 251

Not So Smart Car Refunds reported in today's Sunday Mirror

2011-08-21T20:00:00.002+01:00

This story is set to grow and grow as more councils are added to the list of uncertificated Smartcars.

Motorists could get CCTV fines refunded

2011-08-18T07:21:00.006+01:00

Predicted on this blog sometime ago and now it seems that the Local Government Ombudsman is set to intervene so that councils will be forced to refund £millions of unlawfully derived income.

Parking and bus lane fines worth millions of pounds could have to be refunded by councils using mobile CCTV vans.

The use of tickets-by-post from CCTV camera cars was permitted by the Traffic Management Act, which came into force in March 2008 Photo: Heathcliff O'malley

By David Millward, Transport Editor
17 Aug 2011

As many as 24 local authorities face potential claims from motorists after a successful challenge to a ticket by a driver in Richmond-upon-Thames, west London.

Nigel Wise contested a ticket issued by a mobile unit claiming that the device had not been formally approved by the Department for Transport.

His appeal was upheld by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service and the council also agreed to pay Mr Wise £50 costs.

Richmond Council alone estimates that its liability could be as high as £1.05 million if it refunds an estimated 20,000 parking tickets issued between 2009 and 2011.

Proposals to refund the money, drawn up by Lord True, Richmond’s leader, will be considered by the council next month.

But in its own trade journal, Parking News, the industry estimates that as many as 24 councils could find themselves in the same position as Richmond.

The mobile CCTV units which use cameras fitted to a periscope are normally found on Smart cars.

They have been commonplace in London for several years and their use has spread to the provinces following a change in the law in 2008.

Councils using the units, whose fine have been subject to appeal, include Medway, Wirral, Bournemouth, Basildon, Plymouth, and Bolton.

Other authorities could find their parking fines challenged unless they can show that the complied with the small print of the Traffic Management Act 2008, which requires formal approval before the mobile cameras are allowed on the streets.

In particular they should check the paperwork sent by the Government’s Vehicle Certification Agency, which was found to be defective in the Richmond case.

Many motorists have been incensed by the cameras especially when they see the units brazenly parked on double yellow lines.

In her latest report, published earlier in the summer, Caroline Sheppard, the chief traffic adjudicator outside London, said councils should make sure the mobile units complied with the law.

This followed complaints about the quality of evidence provided by the mobile units which was often found to be unclear.

There had also been allegations by motoring groups that the mobile units were being used for “fine harvesting.”

In her report Mrs Sheppard said that the mobile cameras should only be used with “fairness and integrity.”

“The dash for cash through the sheer number of PCN’s which CCTV can dish out has clearly caught out some local authorities and deservedly so,” said Paul Watters of the AA.

They are quick enough to chastise drivers for minor parking bloomers yet think they can get away with wholesale rule breaking.

“In 2008 we were promised a fairer enforcement system for all but despite efforts to bring this about even that new guidance was not adhered to – its is tough for local authorities to repay large sums when budgets are being cut but it is a lesson that should be learned given the fact something like 10m penalty charge notices are issued every year”.

London Borough of Richmond ... CCTV Smartcar Refunds

2011-07-11T07:44:00.003+01:00

Let us not forget that the revenue derived by Richmond Council is UNLAWFUL income to which they are not entitled. Whilst their admission that their vehicles were incorrectly certified and refunds must be made requires praise along with some very laudible statements in their press release which I hope will serve as a reminder to other authorities that they are not above the law.

It is a requirement that they keep details of every financial transaction and therefore there should be no problem whatsoever contact everyone who has paid to advise them of the situation ... thus allowing them an opportunity 'to appeal' as Richmond claim their legal advice requires. That way they will not need to expend vast sums of money on press and media advertising.

Some cynics would perhaps suggest that a few adverts will result in significantly fewer refunds. I would like to believe that Richmond's intentions are honourable and an example that many others will be forced to follow in the coming months.

RICHMOND ON THAMES WEBSITE STATEMENT

Appeals for fines issued by camera cars (from March 2009 until April 2011)
At a Cabinet meeting on the 21 July, members will discuss a recommendation that Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by the Council’s mobile camera cars from March 2009 until April 2011 are refunded. This is due to the cars being incorrectly certified during this time.

The PCNs issued fall outside the usual 28 day appeal period. Legal advice to the Council is that there is no need to repay parking charges outside the appeal period. However, as motorists had no way of knowing the charges were incorrectly levied, the Cabinet, in accordance with its Fair Parking policies, is being recommended to allow a special 3-month appeal period to enable motorists caught by the camera cars to request a refund. Appeals made on this basis would automatically be allowed. Unclaimed funds would be reinvested in parking, highway and footpath related schemes.

If the Cabinet Meeting approves this approach the Council will launch an extensive advertising campaign to contact motorists, letting them know how they can apply for a refund and what the precise starting point for the three month appeal window is. This process will not be in place until the Cabinet decision has been taken, so motorists are urged to wait before they contact the Council.

Adverts will be placed in the local newspapers and on the Council website after the likely Cabinet approval.

Please monitor the local media following the Cabinet Meeting on 21 July for further information on how to apply. In addition, please note that only Parking Charge Notices issued by the mobile camera cars and during the above dates will be entitled to a refund.

For more information see our recent press release

CCTV Smartcar enforcement blunder ... voluntary restitution?

2011-06-30T15:35:00.002+01:00

After recent successes at PATAS regarding uncertificated CCTV Smartcars the pressure is mounting on councils to volunteer refunds or face investigation by the District Auditor and other agencies, especially if it becomes apparent that enforcement continued in the full knowledge of non-compliance.

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to take action to ensure that enforcing authorities abide by the statutory prohibition on penalty demands being issued in furtherance of civil parking and traffic enforcement by means of closed circuit television apparatus (CCTV) which has not been certified by the Secretary of State as an Authorised Device; and what action they will take to ensure the refunding of penalties unlawfully taken from motorists due to the use of CCTV apparatus that was not an Authorised Device.
• Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 28 June 2011, c413W)

Earl Attlee (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)
Where a Local Authority imposes a penalty charge using a system of cameras, it must have been certified as an approved device by the Secretary of State. We are satisfied that the civil enforcement regime for the use of CCTV set out in legislation is clear and understood by relevant local authorities. It is for those authorities to comply with legislative requirements and we have no plans to take any further action to ensure that they are doing so.
If a local authority has imposed a penalty notice and has subsequently realised that the proper legal basis for the imposition of that penalty notice may not have been in place, then it will be open to that authority to consider whether it is appropriate to make a refund.

The implications of this ICO decision will send shockwaves around many councils ...

2011-06-22T19:25:00.002+01:00

Mark my words ... this decision will unleash a whole host of Freedom of Information requests from individuals and groups across the country.

Excellent work by John Greenwood.

Consider it a rumbling of thunder in the distance at the minute ...

An end to ‘status quo of secrecy’ at Bolton Council?
The Bolton News
Sunday 19th June 2011

THE outside business dealings of senior town hall staff could soon be made public after Bolton Council was issued a High Court threat by the country’s information boss.

The threat comes after transparency campaigner John Greenwood asked for details held on the council’s register of interests in a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

When the council refused, Mr Greenwood, from Breightmet, reported the council to the government’s Information Commissioner.

Your Vote
Should this information be made public?
Yes: 93%
No: 7%
Thanks for voting - this ballot is now closed

The commissioner has now ruled that the details of the register of interests should be released. The register records the name of council officers and any personal interests they have, such as ownership of property, family associations, business interests, shareholdings and membership of organisations that may conflict with their decision-making role.

Mr Greenwood said: “This is a major victory for the public and those wanting open, transparent governance over Bolton Council who sought to keep the status quo of secrecy.”

As part of the decision notice issued to Bolton Council, the commissioner acknowledged that releasing some of this information would intrude into their private lives and may cause them distress.

He also found, however, there was a case for disclosing it in the public interest because the officers are responsible for decisions that affect the local community and involve spending public money.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has also released guidance that could open the floodgates for similar requests to other authorities across the country.

Bolton Council has been given 35 days to release the information or risk being reported to the High Court.

A spokesman for the authority said the council is seeking advice with a view to appealing the matter.

Are you appealing enough? Careful where you Parke!

2011-06-06T13:36:00.006+01:00

Not a question to decide whether you appealing or attractive to the opposite sex but a question as to why more people don't challenge their PCN.
Real reason is that having a 50% discount for early capitulation levelled at your head makes most people think that it's not worth the fight no matter how unjust or unfair the PCN is.

However, your chances of success are quite high and don't always take it for granted that the council will win should you fight all the way to adjudication. It is sometimes the underdog who causes the upset!

Drivers Told To Fight Unfair Parking Tickets
Friday June 03, 2011
Lulu Sinclair, Sky News Online

Motorists are being urged to consider contesting car parking tickets if they think they have been given one unfairly.

Fewer than 1% of drivers took issue with their fines in 2009/10 out of a total of almost 4.25 million tickets, according to the chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

But of those who did, just under 60% won their case, Caroline Sheppard revealed.

She is head of a team of 24 lawyers who rule on appeals from dissatisfied drivers within the 250 or so councils in England and Wales which are responsible for parking tickets.

The adjudicator makes her plea in a new report which says councils on the whole are issuing slightly fewer tickets than before.

"Parking tickets are a strong source of revenue for councils "

"The aim of the tribunal is to provide an easy, convenient, fair and informal service for motorists," Ms Sheppard said.

"We believe it is important for people to understand better the rules and regulations, for councils to exercise discretion in cases where it is due, and finally, for people to know that they have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator if they want to continue to challenge a penalty after the council has rejected their case."

A spokeswoman for the tribunal chief said she was keen to let people know there was an appeal system, if they thought they were being unjustly treated.

"This is open and accessible to motorists who think they have a case and we want to make sure people know about it."

Another source of irritation among drivers is the private parking system where parking fines are disproportionate to the "crime", and the chief adjudicator is calling for an independent ombudsman to be set up, to allow rights of appeal to drivers.

Take Parking Tickets To The Tribunal
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal deals with the final stage of the appeals process.

You can appeal to it if:

:: You have been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice by a council.

:: You have already made a formal appeal in writing to the council.

:: The council rejected your appeal and sent you a Notice of Appeal form.

:: You then have 28 days to appeal to the tribunal.

Source: Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Neil Herron, the former metric martyr turned campaigner for fairer parking, is pleased motorists are being made more aware of what they can do but warns it is a Catch 22 situation.

"The more people know about methods of complaint, the more they will use them and the more overloaded the system will eventually become."

He remains sceptical that councils use parking restrictions as a way of managing traffic, arguing that they are a growing source of revenue, particularly when central funding to councils is being cut back.

"Councils rely on people just paying up," Mr Herron told Sky News Online.

"You usually have the incentive of 'half-price' fines for 14 days so you're taking a risk if you decide to appeal. If you lose, you'll have to pay double right away.

"But remember, your chances of success are greatly approved once you get into the formal legal process, so don't be put off.

"The rules are built on unstable foundations. If you feel that your ticket has been unfairly or unjustly issued, then fight it. You stand a good chance of winning!"

2011-05-29T18:49:00.002+01:00

If there are so many drivers failing to heed the signs then those in charge of traffic management should be replaced by engineers who will come up with a more effective solution to manage traffic and get drivers to comply ... but that would cause the cash to dry up!
I am sure that this is just the beginning of the Grafton Road story ;-)

Revealed: The £5m raised by one camera on Britain’s most baffling road
By Andrew Buckwell
Mail on Sunday
29th May 2011

Motorists have been fined a staggering £5 million for driving down a quiet residential street which has been dubbed ‘Britain’s most baffling road’.
More than 41,000 drivers have been hit with penalties after a council erected nine signs that confuse everyone who enters the road, and a CCTV camera.

Most confusing is the rule that bans motorists from driving one way down the street in the morning and then from going in the opposite direction in the afternoon.

Last night campaigners accused the Labour-controlled Camden Council in North London of using motorists as a ‘cash cow’ to help boost Town Hall coffers.
Paul Pearson, a parking campaigner who runs the Penalty Charge Notice website, said: ‘It’s absolutely staggering. This is highway robbery. It’s one of most profitable cameras in the country – and it’s in a residential street.

‘This is a clear case of using cameras to raise revenue for a cash-strapped Town Hall.’

Until five years ago, access to Grafton Road in Kentish Town was restricted by a hydraulic bollard and a set of traffic lights that showed either red or green, depending on the position of the bollard.
Then, in 2006, the council lowered the bollard and introduced signs and a camera to capture breaches.
Drivers are now confronted with nine signs, the set of defunct traffic lights and the sunken bollard.

Confusing: Camden Council has been raking it in thanks to these baffling signs
The mouth of the road has been divided into three sections with a
central section blocked off and accessible only by emergency vehicles, with lanes for cars either side.

As the traffic is funnelled into the lanes, the confusion begins.
Two pairs of access signs warn cars and motorbikes of restrictions to their passing, indicating the exact times they cannot pass – 7am to 10am one way, 2pm to 7pm the other.
Then there are two no-entry signs applying to the lane on the other side of the road, one width-restriction sign, one cycle sign and a traffic-camera sign.

Figures revealed in a Freedom of Information request by The Mail on Sunday show that the camera caught 41,237 motorists between October 2006 and March 2011, at a rate of almost 800 a month.

Motorist David Howard, 51, said: ‘The signs are so small and numerous you have to slam on your brakes to see them, by which time you’ve been flashed. I bet everyone going down it the first time receives a ticket. I’m certain it’s deliberate.’

A Camden Council spokesman last night denied the camera was a trap. He said: ‘The signs stating the restrictions are clear to motorists.’

No excuses. No TRO then give back the money

2011-05-25T20:36:00.002+01:00

Another blunder by another council. Traffic Regulation Orders are legal documents. If you don't have one or it's incorrect then you can't keep the money. Council cutbacks should come from culling the people paid handsomely from the public purse who have failed to deliver the most basic of legal requirements. No point politicians blaming the previous administration. The responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the council officers responsible.
No law ... no penalty. The District Auditor needs to be tasked with the investigation and the Local Government Ombudsman brought in to investigate the maladministration causing injustice to thousands.

Hyndburn parking tickets since 2008 'could be invalid'
Lancashire Telegraph
Tuesday 24th May 2011
Exclusive By Emma Cruces

EVERY parking ticket issued in an East Lancashire borough over the last three years could be invalid, it has emerged.

Hyndburn Council failed to update its bylaws in line with a new Traffic act in 2008.

Parking campaigners have described it as a ‘major blunder’ and believe it means thousands of tickets issued ‘could be overturned’.

Similar cases have seen the government agency, which would adjudicate on the matter, order that mass refunds occur.

It says ‘outdated terminology invalidates a penalty charge’.

However, the council is confident it will not have to return thousands of pounds in fines, claiming the use of incorrect terms ‘does not affect liability’.

Hyndburn Labour MP Graham Jones said if the fears proved correct it was the latest in a ‘long list of disasters’ his party’s new ruling group had inherited from the ousted Conservatives.

Town centre trader Chris Fisher said he discovered the council’s bylaw document was out of date after looking into a parking ticket he received this March.

Mr Fisher contacted Neil Herron, the founder of parking watchdog Parking Appeals.

Mr Herron has become a thorn in the side of councils across the country, helping drivers overturn tickets.

He urged motorists to appeal claiming the situation could see all tickets since 2008 overturned. He said: “It’s a major blunder.

“Hyndburn uses the wrong terminology, refers to the wrong legislation.

“They expect members of the public to obey signs to the letter and not be one minute late but can’t even get their own house in order.”

The government repealed the 1991 Road Traffic Act in March 2008, but gave councils two years notice to apply for new powers under the 2004 act.

Though Hyndburn tickets themselves quote the 2004 act, the council’s bylaw document still quotes the 1991 act.

A spokesperson said they believed this ‘does not affect liability’, adding: “We don’t accept their view of the law and have responded saying this.

“Mr Fisher is entitled to set out his case before a parking adjudicator however and they will make the decision.

“The council's view is that the penalty charge notice in question was correctly issued by a civil enforcement officer in accordance with requirements of the Traffic Management Act 2004.”

Hyndburn’s bylaw document is said to use outdated terminology such as ‘parking attendant’ instead of ‘civil enforcement officer’ and refer to the Road Traffic Act 1991 instead of the Road Traffic Act 2004, in key areas.

The fine amount in the council’s bylaw is also said to be set at £60 however the 2004 act quoted on on Mr Fisher’s ticket gives the amount as £40.

Mr Fisher, who owns Printing.com, Blackburn Road, Accrington, said: “As a trader there is nowhere where you can park all day so you have to keep moving your car on from place to place.

“I was a bit late moving from a three hour spot on Blackburn Road one day and this is the result.

“I just find it frustrating you get no thanks or help as a trader in the town centre and are expected to do extra work just to get yourself from A to B.

“After all that it turns out the council hasn’t done its own homework.”

Earlier this month Labour seized control of Hyndburn Council from the Conservative group.

Hyndburn Labour MP Graham Jones said: “If this is proved accurate, it can be added to a long list of disasters at the hands of the council.”

Labour leader Miles Parkinson, who takes official control of the council tonight, said: “It sounds as if it warrants a serious investigation and could have a serious effect on the borough.”

But outgoing Conservative leader Peter Britcliffe he had been assured by the legal department the parking tickets were still valid.

He added: “However, it is for the adjudicator to decide. ”

Another council, another blunder ...

2011-05-25T10:22:00.001+01:00

Town hall parking tickets may not be valid
by Steve White,
Daily Mirror
25/05/2011

All parking tickets issued in a town since 2008 could be void after the council failed to update traffic by-laws.

Chris Fisher, 39, spotted Hyndburn council cites the out-of-date 1991 Road Traffic Act when he was ticketed in Accrington, Lancs.

The printer contacted Neil Herron, of Parking Appeals, who is now urging all motorists ticketed by the authority since the new Act took over in 2008 to appeal. He said: “This is a major blunder.”

The council insisted tickets were legal but referred cases to the parking adjudicator.

Nice work if you can get it ...

2011-05-13T19:08:00.005+01:00

Just had Yosser Hughes on the phone asking for Merton's contact details ...

Seems as though the way the consultant sees the way to save money is to 'improve the chances of a PCN being issued' rather than streamlining back-office processes ... or am I missing something?

£85k consultant set to cut Merton Council parking costs amid charges hike
Wimbledon Guardian
Friday 13th May 2011

By Omar Oakes
A management consultant is being paid £85,000 for 12 weeks’ work in an attempt to make the council’s parking department “better value for money” – but critics have questioned whether the outcome will be good news for motorists.

The consultant, drafted in from CapGemini, is looking at how to cut back-office costs in Merton Council’s parking services department.

The department, which current employs 58 full-time staff, spends £2.8m but last year made £9.3m from parking charges, fines and permits.

But Neil Herron, founder of parking control watchdog Parking Appeals, said he was concerned Merton would end up making changes to maximise parking revenue rather than offer a cheaper service.

He said: “Once they’ve made these changes, will it be cheaper to park? Will fewer parking tickets be issued? Will the number of complaints go down? I doubt it.

“The best way to improve the service is to have better signage and an efficient and transparent appeals system.”

Last year the council made £9.5m from car park tickets, parking permits and fines – and motorists have already been hit with higher costs through this year’s budget.

Free parking in some council car parks was cut from 20 minutes to 10 minutes and the imposition of controlled parking zones on Saturdays was announced for residents living in Merton Park.

The council’s deputy leader, Councillor Mark Betteridge, said it was “working hard to transform services and to ensure it provides the very best value for money for residents”.

He said the review was funded from the transformation budget established under the previous [Conservative] administration.

He said: “This review will more than pay for itself as we look to implement the proposed changes that will reduce back-office costs.

“This will help in our drive to keep Merton’s running costs down so we can continue to maintain essential services and keep council tax low for our residents.”

But Rosemary McLaughlin, Merton Council branch secretary for trade union Unison, said: “It is outrageous in the current climate to engage even more consultants at the cost of £85,000.

"It would be expected in-house management with inflated salaries and pay increases would have the skills to transform any service within the council.”

In October, the Wimbledon Guardian revealed Merton Council was condemned by the Parking and Appeals Traffic Service for “underhand tactics”, after a traffic warden used an unmarked civilian car and issued a parking fine to a motorist after hardly any grace period.

And in March, papers released during Merton Council's 2011/12 budget showed the parking service had proposed a number of changes to take effect during this financial year.

Merton Council's proposed changes to parking services and enforcement:

1.Removal 20 min free parking at Pay and Display machines
2.Enforcement by mobile CCTV
3.Introduce borough-wide trade/business permit
4.New person set up charge for the issue of parking permits
5.Increase cost of business permits
6.Reduce observation time from five minutes to two minutes before the issue of a Parking Control Notice (PCN)
7.Review existing parking tariffs for Wimbledon Town Centre Car Parks and expand to all borough car parks
8.Increase by an average of 10% all On Street pay and display tariffs
9.Review all on street Pay and Display tariff structures
10.Expansion of Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) coverage subject to consultation
11.Increase enforcement at bus lanes
What do you think? Leave a comment below, call 020 8722 6335 or email: ooakes@london.newsquest.co.uk

CCTV Not So SmartCar ticking timebomb

2011-05-10T09:24:00.004+01:00

Tips 'n' icebergs an' all that!

I anticipate that many councils will be desperately checking their documentation to see whether they've blundered. Hard to justify censuring motorists if a council is breaking the law itself. A word of warning to those caught out ... just be open and transparent and admit the error and accept the consequences. There will be no super-injunctions available to council officers. The British public are a pretty forgiving lot when it comes to people admitting mistakes and saying sorry. They will however fight tooth and nail to expose those who deceive and lie.

Campaigner says Wirral CCTV spy car is 'illegal'
Wirral Globe
Monday 9th May 2011

THE campaigner who made national news by forcing a London council to take its CCTV "spy cars" off the road because of incorrect paperwork says Wirral must do the same.

Nigel Wise discovered discrepancies in the registration of cameras on two of Richmond and Twickenham council's Smart cars after being fined for parking last August.

Following his sucess in London, Mr Wise sent a Freedom of Information request to Wirral demanding to see their spy car paperwork.

Now he says he's found the same mistakes in Wirral's certificates - which would possibly invalidate fines.

Wirral Council has denied this however, and insists its certification is watertight.

Mr Wise successfully had his £100 fine overturned at a parking tribunal hearing last month after he revealed the Vehicle Certification Agency had not declared the actual camera that pictured him parked in the road as an “approved device”.

After the hearing, the council blamed the VCA for the administrative error and said all the council’s camera cars were “correctly licensed”.

But it was forced to make a U-turn and pull the cars off the road last week for officers to check documentation.

A Richmond council spokesman said officers would now go through documents with “a fine-toothed comb” and were looking into whether they would need to refund motorists.

It could have to hand back more than £1m in fines.

Mr Wise contacted the Globe after reading our website report on Friday that Wirral Council had confirmed certification of their car was all in order.

He said: " I think Wirral Council is in for a shock, a bombshell.

"The law clearly states that a council must be in a position to prove that the camera is an 'approved device.'

"Wirral Council would be unable to prove that - as no camera whatsoever is named on Wirral's certificates.

"Nor do they have the maker's name of the system used to record and review pictures.

"It is these elements that require certification. Not the car itself."

Mr Wise added: "This bare fact alone would invalidate any Wirral CCTV car fine or penalty that is taken to appeal.

"It is an inescapable fact that Wirral ought to now take their vehicles off the road forthwith pending the rectification of their inadequate and incomplete certificates."

He urged anyone who has recently received a penalty issued by the Wirral CCTV car to appeal.

The certificates have been seen by the Globe.

The Smart Car is the only item registered. There appears to be no mention of cameras or recording systems.

But a Wirral Council spokesman argued that the two cases are different.

He said: "It is our understanding that Richmond had made changes to its equipment which may have invalidated the original licences.

"Our equipment is the same as was originally approved by the Home Office. We are happy the licence is all in order."

Let's hope Richmond Council's Leader is true to his word ...

2011-05-05T06:53:00.003+01:00

The Richmond CCTV Smartcar case now looks like the Leader will conduct a full, independent investigation.

Leader and newly appointed Member of the House of Lords, Councillor Nicholas True's email to successful appellant Nigel Wise is shown below.
Given his position on London Council's Leader's Committee
and the fact that he is a newly appointed Lord we expect a full, no stone unturned investigation and if it transpires that the evidence placed before PATAS is correct then monies taken unlawfully from motorists MUST be refunded.
If the motoring public is to accept that parking enforcement is about traffic management rather than revenue raising then it must be fair, transparent, proportionate ... and most importantly LEGAL!

-----Original Message-----
From: Cllr Lord True
To: xxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:06
Subject: RE: Humane Parking
Thank you. I am fully aware of this correspondence and others from you that I have asked to be examined independently.
I have asked for a full investigation and report to me.
In the interim I did not and do not intend to provide a fuller reply. I also need to receive appropriate legal and technical advice following the panel outcome.
I attach great importance to delivering a parking policy that recognises that parking control is a service designed to make communities more liveable and high streets vibrant and not one designed to gouge resources from an already highly taxed public.
However, proper enforcement of agreed parking policy is a part of this.
No doubt we will be in touch. As a Richmond Borough taxpayer you are entitled to equitable treatment under the law.
N
Nicholas True
Leader of the Council
Phone: 020 8876 9628
Bus. Email: Cllr.LordTrue@richmond.gov.uk

D'Oh! Council blunder has major financial implications ...

2011-05-04T15:27:00.005+01:00

When it comes to parking enforcement it is essential that those taking money from motorists ensure that THEY first comply fully with the law.

When they do it using Smartcar CCTV enforcement there is an even bigger responsibility due to the fact that the equipment MUST be approved by the Secretary of State.

When councils get it wrong then there first responsibility is to address the issue of those motorists fined unlawfully and then look at why highly paid council officers cannot follow simple guidelines and clear legislation.

Private Land ticket cancelled ... how many others have simply paid up?

2011-05-03T00:13:00.003+01:00

Neil Herron, Metric Martyr campaigner, took on the parking enforcers for me
Christopher Booker
Sunday Telegraph 1st May 2011

A veteran campaigner, Neil Herron of Metric Martyrs fame has turned his attention to parking law, writes Christopher Booker.
Neil Herron, a veteran of the Metric Martyrs
campaign, is also tackling parking law
Photo: JULIAN SIMMONDS
Last January I became embroiled in a little problem that I suspect others have shared. Unavoidably delayed overnight in London, I returned to my car parked at Bath station to find a penalty notice for £80, because I had overrun my allotted parking time. I explained to the parking company, Apcoa, why this had happened, and enclosed a cheque to cover the additional time. I also asked why there were seemingly no arrangements to allow drivers unavoidably caught like this to extend their parking time. Apcoa dismissively returned my cheque, insisting that I still owed them £80.

I then consulted my doughty friend Neil Herron, hero of the Metric Martyrs campaign, who has also in recent years become a scourge of the parking industry, by uncovering all the ways in which enforcement so often goes beyond the law. He said that his Parking Appeals Ltd would be delighted to fight my cause, because he had long been waiting for a test case like this.

Parking on private land is subject to contract law. Since I had immediately sought to remedy Apcoa’s loss by reimbursing them the money they were owed, I had honoured our contract – as he looked forward to explaining in court. Apcoa’s response was to send in debt collectors to demand their £80.

Neil’ s reply was, in effect, “See you in court” – knowing this was a case they would not wish to see put to legal test. The debt collectors now reply that Apcoa has decided to drop the matter – just as Neil predicted. He only regrets being deprived of that test case he has long been hoping for.

Not so Smartcars? "Simples ...get approval"

2011-05-02T23:52:00.005+01:00

Quick to catch the unsuspecting motorist but now with a dilemma and another frank admission these 'Not So SmartCars' are set to cause a financial headache for Richmond Council. We reported earlier that Nigel Wise's case could be the tip of a very large iceberg.

Richmond Council earlier dismissed the loss of the PCN appeal at PATAS as a 'technicality.' However, it is a fundamental legal requirement that these CCTV Smartcar devices are 'approved' by the Secretary of State. If they are not then the council cannot issue PCNs ... "Simples."

If the council has issued the PCNs without legal authority to do so then they must refund the money. Let's hope that Richmond Council do the decent thing and lead by example.

Parking ticket camera cars taken off road
Evening Standard
Mark Blunden
27 Apr 2011

Drivers in one London borough were feeling a little less persecuted today after council chiefs took CCTV cars off the road following a blunder.

Richmond upon Thames town hall bosses said Smart Cars that issue parking tickets could be out of use for up to a week, potentially losing thousands of pounds in revenue.

The U-turn comes after a landmark ruling in which motorist Nigel Wise had a £100 fine thrown out by a parking appeal tribunal after he proved Richmond was using the wrong kind of cameras on its cars.

The carer, 59, claims councils across the capital, which issue up to £10 million in tickets through Smart Cars every year, are making similar errors.

Last week Richmond said that all its "CCTV camera cars are correctly licensed and were at the time of this (Mr Wise's) incident". But today, the authority admitted this was not the case and campaigners are demanding the authority refunds thousands of parking tickets issued by its two vehicles. A council spokesman said: "In light of Thursday's decision, we are looking at all documentation relating to camera cars.

"Until the checks are complete, both cars have been taken off the road."

Richmond earned more than £573,000 last year from 12,305 tickets issued through CCTV cars. Its parking services are contracted out to Vinci Park, but the final sign-off for camera licences rests with town hall officials.

It had originally blamed the Vehicle Certification Agency, which issues licences, for typographical errors on the certificates. The traffic wardens who normally sit in the cars will instead patrol the borough on foot.

Council still Smarting ...

2011-05-02T19:55:00.004+01:00

The council were quick to change their 'terminology' after the earlier admissions, and appear to be blaming the VCA. Regardless of who is to blame the fact remains that it is clear the the vehicles were not legally able to issue PCNs without certification ... and this was the admission at PATAS.

The law is based on technicalities and, as the law is also a 'two-way street' if a motorist technically breaches a traffic order then a PCN can be issued BUT not by a council that does not have its 'technical' house in order.

This little tale has a long way to run ...

Motorist Nigel Wise wins parking fine appeal against Richmond Council over unlicensed CCTV car
Richmond and Twickenham Times
Friday 22nd April 2011
By Paul Teed

A motorist has won an appeal against a parking fine because the council’s CCTV car was not properly licensed.

Nigel Wise, 59, said the ruling could have implications for drivers who had been caught out by mobile surveillance units, because he believed Richmond Council had not correctly certified some of its filming apparatus since March 2007.

The campaigner, who also successfully challenged a ticket in July last year, told the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (Patas) hearing on Wednesday the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) had not declared the camera that snapped him in Powder Mill Lane, Whitton, in August last year as an “approved device”.

The council blamed the Department for Transport’s VCA, which it applied to for the certificate, and insisted all its CCTV cars had the correct licence.

Councillor Clare Head, cabinet member for traffic at the council, confirmed the VCA made a mistake on the paperwork it sent to the authority, adding: “This is all very frustrating, we believe we lost this case on a technicality. We will learn from this mistake and make sure it does not happen again.”

London Motorists’ Action Group, which backed Mr Wise’s case, claimed the hearing had wider implications for other affected drivers who could now try to overturn their tickets.

A spokesman for the group said: “Mr Wise presented to the tribunal detailed evidence, which proved none of the parking enforcement operations by Richmond’s Smart cars belonging to [parking enforcement company] NSL since March 2007 had been conducted by camera apparatus that was certified as authorised devices.”

Coun Head said: “The Government agency, VCA, responsible for issuing the certificates, made a mistake on the paperwork sent to us confirming the licence for one of our camera cars. Unfortunately, in addition to this, our representative at the hearing was not properly prepared and was unable to refute or verify the claim made by Mr Wise.

“I can now confirm all of Richmond Council’s CCTV camera cars are in fact correctly licensed and were at the time of this incident and also that the VCA document has since been corrected.”

Not so Smart ...

2011-04-28T09:12:00.004+01:00

At a PATAS hearing last week ... Nigel Wise v London Borough of Richmond ... an extraordinary series of events occurred.
Nigel's clinically prepared case was expertly presented and left council parking representative with no option to concede. Costs were also awarded to Nigel which is something of a rarity.

The exemplary behaviour by Mr. Johnson and his full and frank admission that the council he failed to comply with the legal requirement to have its CCTV Smartcars certified in order to issue PCNs deserves praise. It made a refreshing change ... and I made a point of congratulating Mr. Johnson at the hearing as did Nigel.

However, the council it seems, once re-grouped appear to want to trivialise this rather than do the decent thing, accept the error and refund the money. More to come on this one ...

Hope for motorists in landmark CCTV parking fine victory
Mark Blunden
21 Apr 2011

Drivers issued parking tickets by mobile CCTV vans across London could have their fines quashed, it emerged today.

Campaigners say the case of one motorist who managed to get a ticket overturned on a technicality could lead to thousands of other similar penalties being cancelled.

When Nigel Wise, 59, received a £100 fine he discovered CCTV vans used by Richmond council were using the wrong type of camera, making his ticket invalid.

In a landmark ruling, a tribunal at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service in Islington overturned the penalty, opening the door for appeals potentially worth millions of pounds.

Mr Wise, a full-time carer, claims to have unearthed evidence of similar errors at councils across the capital.

There are 43 Smart Cars equipped with CCTV in at least 24 boroughs, according to civil liberties group Big Brother Watch. Neil Herron, of the London Motorists' Action Group, said: "This is a landmark case. It has proved that you can't have any old cameras running around in any old car.

"Richmond council did not apply for the correct camera certificates, it was their error."

It is estimated that up to £10 million worth of tickets are issued city-wide by the CCTV vehicles every year.

Conservative-run Richmond earned more than £573,000 last year from 12,305 tickets of that type.

The authority today sought to shift the blame for the cameras to the government agency responsible for issuing the certificates.

Clare Head, Richmond's cabinet member for traffic, said: "The Government agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency, responsible for issuing the certificates made a mistake on the paperwork sent to us confirming the licence for one of our camera cars.

"This is all very frustrating. We believe we lost this case on a technicality. We'll learn from this mistake and make sure it does not happen again."

West country .... nice little earner?

2011-04-26T10:20:00.006+01:00

Tickets issued to 'help traffic flow' ... with restrictions operating 6.30am until 10.30pm one has to ask the question 'is traffic flow so busy at night to command enforcement until 10.30pm?'

City motorists pay out £4m for illegal parking
Monday, April 25, 2011, 09:00

DRIVERS in Bristol were issued with more than £4 million of parking fines last year – and the council is recruiting even more wardens to stop people flouting the rules.
The number of parking tickets slapped on windscreens and bus-lane fines posted through letter boxes by Bristol City Council has nearly doubled in the past two years to more than 70,000 as motorists continue to park in places they should not.

More than 60 wardens are now employed by the council but officials say they are simply trying to get people to comply with the parking regulations – not out to make money.

The parking services department has increased its staff from 32 in 2008 to 63 at the start of this year – and has just taken on another eight civil enforcement officers.

On average 27 officers are on duty in Bristol each day between 6:30am and 10:30pm.
Parking manager for the council, David Bunting, told the Evening Post the dramatic increase in tickets was due to a significant increase in the number of wardens and a much more targeted approach by the council.

"We improved our allocation of staff to hotspot areas and looked at it scientifically and I think people continue to park illegally," he said.
"It could be there are more cars parking where they shouldn't but I suspect it is because we have been more targeted with our resources.
"We are here to make the traffic flow and we just want compliance."

Parking tickets issued by Bristol City Council are £50 for less serious cases, such as over-staying in a pay-and-display bay and £70 for more serious contraventions – for example, parking on a double yellow line. Payments received within 14 days of issue are discounted by 50 per cent.
In September last year the Evening Post reported that £900,000 of parking fines were outstanding.

In the latest figures obtained by the Post the council revealed they had recouped just £2.2 million of the £4 million total issued last year.
But they said this figure is growing daily and two thirds of the fines issued had been paid within 14 days at a discounted rate.
The cost of enforcing Bristol's double yellows, bus lanes and resident permit schemes was £2.1 million last year and the council revealed it has started making a profit after suffering significant losses.

The increased level of fines has enabled them to turn a £691,250 loss for the year ended March 31, 2009 into a profit of £259,000 for 2010.
"All parking surpluses go into a transport account used to fund park and ride and highway maintenance," said Mr Bunting.
The net sum of fines recouped grew from £1.1 million in 2008 to £1.6 million in 2009 and £2.2 million to date from last year.

These sums came from 61,871 parking tickets and 15,010 tickets for driving in a bus lane for the 12 months up to November 30, 2010.

Hugh Bladon, a founding member of the Association of British Drivers, said he feared the significant increase was probably from "overzealous" wardens, although the council have confirmed wardens are not subject to targets or quotas.
"The big problem we've got is that motorists are being penalised left right and centre," said Mr Bladon, from Weston-super-Mare. "If you want a city centre to thrive you need to make provision for parking." He praised Cabot Circus but questioned provisions in the Clifton and Whiteladies, notorious parking hotspots.
"People who cause obstructions deserve to suffer whatever punishment is meted out," he added. "But the trouble is if you treat people like children they act like them."

More than £138,000 of fines were written off last year due to successful appeals and out of date DVLA records.

Of 12,630 tickets appealed some 4,475 were successful.
The council said each appeal is considered on its merits and fully investigated but revealed 2,667 tickets were cancelled after a "general reason" was supplied, 556 were cancelled after receipt of "acceptable evidence" such as pay and display tickets, 334 because of "extenuating circumstances" and 236 because of administrative errors.

Have you been issued with a PCN?

2011-04-25T15:37:00.002+01:00

If you have then it is important that you check whether the location where you were issued with the PCN is correctly marked. If it isn't then you may find the extracts from the Moss decision useful.

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MOSS v KPMG LLP
[2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin)
Verbatim extracts of the judgment of Ouseley J of 14 October 2010 that
referred to law relating to parking enforcement (emphasis added)

On street Parking
20 I do not propose to deal with the two spaces at the Town Hall because there is no doubt that the PCNs were unlawfully issued. The matter was remedied, and a comparatively small sum was involved.

28 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders Procedure (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2499, requires in Regulation 18 that such traffic signs as the local authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is available to road users should be placed on or near the road before a traffic regulation order comes into force.

29 Mr Moss's first contention to the auditor was that the road markings used by Bolton MBC for its restricted areas, such as loading bays or doctors' or disabled parking bays, and for permitted or designated parking areas, invariably did not comply with what was prescribed by the Regulations. He provided a schedule of some of these together with generalised evidence that he had been unable to find a single one that met the requirements of the Regulations. He provided photographs of a number of contravening markings but did not provide a copy of most of the prescribed diagrams to enable a comparison to be made between the actual and the prescribed markings.

30 Mr Gullick submitted, based on Mr Moss's evidence, that the non compliance with the prescribed diagrams was more than trivial or de minimis on each occasion. The council had accepted, during 2007, that most of its road parking markings did not comply with the Regulations. As from October 2007 it set about re marking them, starting with the roads which generated most PCNs.

38 Of some relevance also is the decision of Jackson J in R (Barnet London Borough Council) v Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 Admin, [2007] RTR 14. This concerned the invalidity of a PCN which did not state the date of its issue as required by Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Jackson J dealt with the argument that no prejudice was caused to the defendant by that clear non compliance, at paragraphs 41 to 42:

"41 Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non compliance in this respect, nevertheless
no prejudice was caused, PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this
submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act
creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme,
motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain
specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are
not met, then the financial liability does not arise.

42 In the present case, the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2005 did not
comply with section 66 (3) (c), (d) and (e) of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered
either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to
owner."

39 Mr Gullick also relied on what Mr Gary Hickinbottom (as he then was) said in the Parking Appeals Service on the review of the decision of the Chief Parking Adjudicator in Burnett v Buckinghamshire County Council in April 1988. He said obiter that signs had to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, adding:
"Consequently, in summary, as a condition precedent of a local authority enforcing a parking penalty, as a breach of a TRO made under the 1984 Act, the obligations of a motorist must be properly signed in accordance with the detailed provisions of the [2002] Regulations."

Part of his overall conclusion was this:

"Where an adjudicator finds that an authority has acted ultra vires in failing to comply with its mandatory obligations properly to set out the alleged contravention of a PCN or properly to sign a parking or waiting restriction, he can and indeed must find that the authority cannot pursue a penalty based upon its own unlawful act with the result that he must allow the appellant's appeal. In this case the council has failed to comply with two mandatory obligations. First, it failed to sign the restriction and, second, it failed properly to identify the contravention of the relevant Regulations upon which it purports to rely. By virtue of these failings, the council has acted beyond its powers and the appellant's appeal must be allowed."

46 Of course I am troubled by the width of the submissions which such an approach appears to be capable of generating. Mr Gullick submitted that where the transverse lines enclosing a long street bay were single and not double, or it may be the other way round, the entire length of bays was not subject to enforcement by PCN. The submission is troubling because it would appear to affect the obligation to pay and display, and potentially the permission to park. On the other hand, I can also see the attraction at least to some of meeting what may be zealous, technical and even over zealous car parking enforcement with a thoroughly technical response. The leeway claimed by the errant local authority is not to be denied by it to the errant driver.

48 In the end, and without great confidence, I have concluded that what Mr Hickinbottom said in Buckinghamshire County Council should be taken to be the law. The purpose behind a common prescribed system of road signs and markings includes certainty for drivers wherever they are in the country. They are not therefore faced with different varieties of signs wherever they go for the same permitted parking, prohibitions and restrictions. The common system also regulates signs in order to avoid clutter and confusion to road users by regulating what can or cannot be put on the road surface or signs by its side.

49 The statutory system of prescribed road signs also forbids the use of non compliant road signs. If the statutory prohibition in Section 64 (4) of the 1984 Act were enforced, it would cause the removal of many signs necessary to delineate and inform drivers about the extent of permission and restrictions or prohibitions. That would also prevent adequate information being conveyed about them to the driver. A local authority should not be able to rely on its contraventions of statute as a basis for exacting a penalty and the civil enforcement measures that follow from non payment of a PCN.

50 As this is also the approach which, following Mr Hickinbottom's decision in Buckinghamshire County Council in 1998, I assume parking adjudicators have routinely followed for many years without challenge by non compliant local authorities, I would be reluctant to upset what appears to be the current system of parking enforcement and parking adjudicating decisions on the basis of the arguments which I have heard. Bolton MBC has not attempted to take these issues further on appeal against a parking adjudicator or to address them before me. Such an approach should also act as a spur to compliance by local authorities with a duty under Section 64 rather than giving them a licence to adopt a slovenly indifference, which appears to have been Bolton MBC's approach until Mr Moss stung them into action in October 2007.

This proves that for some parking fines are no deterrent

2011-04-25T15:17:00.005+01:00

The vulgar wealth of Premiership footballers leads to this sort of anti-social behaviour. If parking matters were still dealt with by the courts then this 'arrogance' could be dealt with in a different way.

The football industry needs to clean itself up otherwise the new generation will see this sort of behaviour as something to aspire to.

Millionaire Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli pays out £100,000 in parking fines after his car is impounded 27 times
By Marcus Barnes
Daily Mail
25th April 2011

With £100,000-a-week to play around with you might forgive Mario Balotelli for being a ever so slightly frivolous with his hard earned cash.

But the Manchester City striker appears to have let the mountains of money go to his head, adopting a total disregard for the north west city's parking laws.

While us mere mortals pay close attention to where we can park and how long for, the millionaire Italian footballer constantly flouts parking rules notching up almost £10,000 in parking fines.

Car calamity: Mario Balotelli has picked up almost £100,000 in parking fines
Another day, another ticket: Balotelli's Maserati gets a ticket outside San Carlo's restaurant in Manchester city centre
On top of that his obligatory supercar, a white Maserati, has been impounded some 27 times.

Frustrated liaison officers at Manchester City have had to go and pick up his car for him every time it gets towed away.

A source at the club told The Sun newspaper: 'Mario will drive from his luxury apartment to a restaurant a few streets away and leave the car on double yellows.

'The other week the Maserati misfired so he just abandoned it. Staff have had to bail it out 27 times.

'The valet the club uses empties the glovebox of tickets every time he cleans it. Mario doesn't seem to care. It's a drop in the ocean to him.'
But it seems that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as his arrogance in concerned.

Million pound signing: Balotelli was snapped up by Manchester City for a cool £22.5million
The footballer was also accused of cheating on model and former Big Brother contestant Sophie Reade (pictured) with her best friend, another glamour girl named Faye Evette
According to the report, Balotelli was allegedly once pulled over by police with £25,000 in cash on his passenger seat.

When asked why he had the money, he simply said 'Because I can'.

Balotelli has also had to pay out £300,000 in club fines, most recently for throwing darts at a youth team player.

And on the field he has had ten yellow cards and two reds in only 24 appearances.
The Italian's private life is just as colourful - and, again, it's the player's sheer audacity that makes his love life so interesting.

Last August he dumped stunning model girlfriend Melissa Castagnoli by text message.
But she got her revenge by reading the messages out live on air.

The two texts Castagnoli received from Balotelli read: 'I’m back (Balotelli had caught a private jet from Manchester to Italy) to make you change, but never mind, you’re sunk. Everything is against you tomorrow, bye!'
'You‘re a stupid girl, the real problem is not a child, but stupid! Say hello to the (presenter), which is good for you! Um, OK.'

He was also accused of cheating on model and former Big Brother contestant Sophie Reade with her best friend, another glamour girl named Faye Evette.

And Reade, 25, let rip at both her friend and Balotelli in a series of posts on her Twitter page.

One of which read: 'Would like to let everyone know @FayeEvette is a s*** and slept with the guy I was seeing! What a friend and welcome 2011. Mario Balotelli is a ****er!!'

Council employs graffiti artist to paint road markings?

2011-04-15T18:59:00.009+01:00

Now graffiti artist Banksy has often been spotted with 'parking related artwork' on the streets of London but don't ever think that he has been spotted as far north as Yarm. That said, I do not think that he would wish to be associated with the shocking state of affairs on the cobbled streets of Yarm. A little reminder to the council ... have a read of TSRGD 2002 ... and perhaps start making efficiency savings by identifying the officers tasked with understanding and complying with the law! Wonky Yarm High Street lines baffle traders by Lindsey Mussett, BAFFLED traders in Yarm thought a graffiti artist conman was on the loose when wonky yellow lines and parking bays began to appear on their high street. Evening Gazette But despite their appearance, the lines are in fact official markings - painted on by Stockton Council workers. Business owners contacted the Gazette fearing that the markings - which include double yellow lines along the edge of the cobbles and white parking bays on them - were the work of a conman posing as a council worker. Some of the parking bays are too small even to fit a car between, while the yellow lines take a very uneven turn and are missing in some areas. Peter Bell, of The House fashion store, said: “We became very suspicious when we realised he wasn’t actually very good at spraying and was marking bays in the wrong directions and the wrong sizes.” Mr Bell also claimed he was contacted by a number of residents saying they had paint on their cars. One Yarm resident, who did not wish to be named, told the Gazette that Stockton Council had been reported to police due to “non-compliant” markings on the high street. A Stockton Council spokesperson said: “We have been contacted by the police about allegations surrounding parking enforcement. “Yarm High Street is a designated disc zone and not a controlled parking zone. Parking enforcement on Yarm High Street is carried out under a Traffic Regulation Order which has been in place since 1998 and as such we are legally permitted to enforce parking on the high street. “The painted lines are a temporary measure to make parking bays clearer for car owners. “Unfortunately, because of the nature of cobble stones, painted markings get worn quite quickly. “We apologise for the standard of these temporary markings. We will be laying permanent white lines over the weekend bringing the markings back up to standard. This work will be carried out during off-peak hours to minimise disruption.”

Parking tickets to mourners ...

2011-04-13T09:03:00.007+01:00

Disgust over parking fines handed to mourners at funeral
This is Grimsby
Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 09:00

FURIOUS mourners were left stunned when they were handed £70 parking fines at the funeral of a 24-year-old relative.
Four cars were parked on the grass verge in front of the car park at Grimsby Crematorium, away from the yellow lines on Weelsby Avenue, but each were still hit with a fine.
The recipients are vowing to contest the charges, with one declaring: "I would rather go to prison than pay that."
North East Lincolnshire Council has admitted the four tickets should not have been handed out – as it is revealed that more than 1,000 disgruntled motorists have successfully appealed against their fines.
Val Gautby, 71, of Chichester Road, Cleethorpes, was fined while attending the funeral of her daughter's nephew, Daniel Stocks, who lost a 20-year battle to leukaemia, as reported.
She believes the parking wardens responsible should be more considerate.
"They need to be taught about diplomacy and consideration," she said.
"I was at a funeral; it is the last place I want to be especially after a young lad has gone through such a lot.

"I don't want it to become a witch hunt or for the person responsible to lose their job but I think whoever it was should be reprimanded.
"The council should set up a scheme to teach them diplomacy for a start."
Mrs Gautby, who has been driving for about 50 years, said the car park at the crematorium was already full when she arrived, and the hearse was behind her so she parked on a grass verge.
"I parked off the road away from the double yellow lines," she said. "I had to go there because the car park was full, and the hearse was coming.
"I had just been at the funeral where I was upset that a young man had passed away and when I came out I could see the yellow envelope on my car.
"I couldn't believe it, it was so insensitive."
Both her grandson and son-in-law were pall bearers at the well-attended service.
Jason Longhurst, assistant executive director for planning, transportation and housing at the council, said: "The issuing of penalty notices to mourners at this funeral is totally unacceptable. Compassion and common sense must prevail.

"Anyone who feels they have wrongly been issued a ticket should follow our informal challenge process which allows us to take these special circumstances into account."
Val's ticket, which was issued 20 minutes after the start of the funeral, stated she had "parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours".
Although the £70 fine will be reduced to £35 if paid within 28 days, she said she will not be paying it.
She said: "There is no way I will pay a penny. I have written to the council to tell them of my intentions."

Daniel's grandmother, Pat Stocks, also parked on the grass verge and was given a ticket.
She said: "It was my grandson's funeral service at the crematorium with about 150 people there to show their respects from all parts of England.
"It was obviously a very sad day for us all but it went as well as one would expect until we went back to the car park afterwards to find that a parking warden had, while we were in the crematorium, given four people parking tickets.
"They were obviously nowhere to be seen. I became so distraught and upset I couldn't believe it.
"I have read in recent weeks about the behaviour of some of these wardens, but this takes the biscuit.
"I felt so guilty that I was apologising to everyone who attended the service."
Councillors Cliff Barber, Peggy Elliott and Chris Shaw have stepped in to help the recipients.
"I am disgusted at what has happened and will be taking it further," said Mr Barber.
"There are people who park incorrectly and dangerously and try to abuse the system – that deserves a ticket.
"But there are times when just that little bit of common sense prevails."

BBC News ...Private Land Parking Breaches

2011-04-12T14:28:00.009+01:00

DVLA helping top parking firms despite code breaches
BBC News

8 April 2011

The DVLA is giving drivers' names and addresses to some private parking firms despite breaches of the industry's voluntary code, the BBC has learned.

The DVLA's rules restrict access to the data to companies complying with the British Parking Association code. Breaches include overstating powers by threatening fines and penalties and failing to handle complaints promptly. The DVLA says it investigates alleged breaches and stops firms' access to the data if they are proven. "We have to strike a balance - allowing fair enforcement but protecting motorists," said a DVLA spokesman. The DVLA insists any firm it gives the data to must be belong to the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme - which sets out how they should operate. "If it is brought to our attention that a company does not meet the necessary standards, we will immediately investigate, and if allegations are proven, stop the release of keeper information to them." Any companies failing to be "fully compliant" with the Association's Code of Practice would "not be eligible to request DVLA data". The DVLA receives an estimated £3.4m a year for providing access to drivers' names and addresses to private parking companies, but says this is to cover administrative costs.

Fines and Penalties

However, BBC One's Watchdog programme has found a number of companies were still being allowed to access private data even though they had been in breach of the scheme. As private parking companies have no powers under the criminal justice system, they cannot describe their charges as fines or penalties. One company, Searchlight Security and Parking Solutions, of Penzance, included the word "fine" on its website. It blamed this on "an oversight".

The code states: "You must not use terms which imply that you are acting under statutory authority; this will include terms such as 'fine', 'penalty' or 'penalty charge notice'." This rule also applies to any signs using these terms at a car park. The BPA has given companies in breach of this rule time to comply.

APCOA, another member of the BPA, which manages Luton and Gatwick Airport car parks, was found to have taken three months to respond to a driver's appeal when it should have done so in 14 days. It apologised, blaming an administrative error. The BPA is responsible for enforcing its own code. However, it only commits to visiting its approved operators once a year to check they are keeping to it. The BPA told Watchdog it received a number of complaints, all of which were investigated. It operates a sanctions scheme depending on the severity of the offence, which has led to two other companies being suspended in recent months.

Self-regulation

The RAC Foundation is calling for an end to self-regulation, saying the government should regulate the industry. "It should regulate the private parking industry and insist that anyone enforcing parking regulations sticks to a government code of practice," said the RAC director, Stephen Glaister. "It is difficult for the BPA to enforce this code adequately and this is unsatisfactory," he added.

Watchdog returned to BBC One on Thursday 7 April at 2000BST. Watch online at BBC iPlayer or catch up on the latest consumer investigations at BBC Watchdog.

Know your rights

The British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme also states: Motorists should have five minutes grace after overstaying before a ticket goes on their car. Where a clamp is to be used the motorist should have 15 minutes grace. The standard parking charge should not exceed £75 The maximum Parking Charge must not exceed £150. Parking tickets should not be put on a vehicle until at least 30 minutes after a clamp has been removed. The maximum charge for vehicle removal should be £250 with storage charges capped at £35 per day.

Unduly Lenient Sentences

2011-03-18T08:20:00.004Z

Did you know that if you feel that a sentence has been unduly lenient then you, as a member of the public, can ask the Attorney General to look at the case. The extract from the Attorney General's website is listed below.

Anyone can ask the Attorney General to look at a case
Victims, their families, and members of the public can contact the Attorney General's Office if they think a sentence is much too light.

It's easy to ask the Attorney General to look at a case - you don't need a lawyer. To ask for a sentence to be looked at, you'll need some basic information. This includes:

•the name of the person who was sentenced;
•the name of the Crown Court where the sentence was passed;
•the crimes committed;
•the date of sentence.
.
And also tell us which case you are concerned about and why you think it should be changed. You should contact the Correspondence Unit. The Attorney General's Office will email you when a decision is made whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

Don't worry if you don't have all the information, but the more you can give us, the more likely it is that we will find the right case.

If you can, also phone the Attorney General's Office on 020 7271 2492. You may need to leave a message

Tipping Point for Britain's Motorists...The Scales of Justice

2011-03-08T23:17:00.004Z

(c)Raigan Herron

One rule for one ... and crocodile tears ...

2011-03-07T10:52:00.004Z

Adopting the council's philosophy that this was 'an administrative error' and therefore anyone who paid the PCN they have accepted the penalty perhaps any motorist who buys a pay and display ticket but gets back a few minutes late can make the same excuse.

How many other councils CCTV PCNs have the same error?

Will there be any sympathy from the motorist as the council sheds its crocodile tears?

Parking ‘clerical error’ joy for drivers
Bolton Evening News
9:10am Monday 7th March 2011

HUNDREDS of drivers have escaped a parking fine after town hall bosses admitted a clerical error had been made on some tickets.

Motorist Barry Moss noticed Bolton Council was putting a short code on its fixed penalty notices when it should have been using a long code.

In a Freedom of Information request, the council admitted cancelling 214 tickets and writing off 428 others because they used the short code.

The authority began using the long code on November 17 last year.

Mr Moss, aged 64, of Hindley Road, Westhoughton, called for the authority to refund every other ticket with the short code on it which could number nearly 2,800.

But the council said payers had already accepted liability.

At the centre of the matter is the council’s CCTV smart car which has been used since November, 2009, to collect evidence on lawbreaking motorists.

Tickets are issued in the form of a letter in the post rather than a notice on their windscreen.

Joe Cumbo, aged 67, got two tickets for parking on a single yellow line in Bury Road, Breightmet, last March. He paid one but, after speaking to Mr Moss, challenged the second— and the council cancelled it because of a “clerical error”.

Mr Cumbo, of Breightmet Drive, Breightmet, said: “The other ticket had the same code, so why can’t I get a refund?

It’s wrong.”

Tracey Pilkington, aged 44, of Westhoughton, also had her ticket cancelled on the same grounds after parking on double yellow lines in Market Street, Westhoughton.

Council figures show 2,786 people were ticketed from November 1, 2009, to November 5, 2010, as a result of the Smartcar evidence and, of those, motorists paid a total of £83,792.50 in fines.

A council spokesman said: “An adjudicator in a particular case took a view that the detail about the parking contravention on the parking contravention notice could have been clearer.

“Software has since been amended to include further detail of the contravention that occurred to be as clear as possible.

“We chose to cancel these two unpaid tickets, as although they were enforceable, we accepted the view that the parking contravention could have been clearer.

“However, if a customer has paid the fine, then they have accepted that they have parked where they should not have done.”

When the scales of justice start to tip ...

2011-03-06T18:52:00.004Z

It sometimes takes a lot for the British public to reach tipping point but when they do they will come together to ensure that unfairness and injustice is corrected and the 'balance' restored.

The last time the Scales of Justice were 'tipped' was when Steve Thoburn had his scales seized. Now we are witnessing the same undercurrent amongst the disparate groups and motorists across the land.

The injustice suffered by pensioner Peter Harry will be 'corrected' by the collective coming together of the British motoring public to ensure that justice is seen to be done in the most high profile and public of fashions. Let us hope that the various agencies responsible for ensuring the correct and legal behaviour act expediently and in a transparent fashion and don't abrogate THEIR responsibility.

Remember that the sums involved in parking enforcement make the MPs expenses scandal seem like small change.

Anger at sentence for ex-council man
This is Exeter
By Tom Bevan

A COUNCILLOR has branded the sentencing of a parking official who admitted forging documents as "unduly lenient"."

Geoffrey Urwin, 43, who worked at Exeter City Council as a parking support team leader, doctored a map that was presented to a traffic penalty tribunal after motorist Peter Harry appealed against a ticket he had been given.

As revealed in the Echo, Urwin, of Oxford Road, St James, pleaded guilty to a charge of wilful misconduct at Exeter Crown Court and was given an absolute discharge by Judge Graham Cottle, the Recorder of Exeter.

But the judge's decision has sparked fury, with Cllr Percy Prowse, who helped initiate the original investigation, saying he had written to the police asking if there were grounds for appeal.
And the victim Mr Harry, 67, who lives in Dawlish, said he was "astounded" by the judge's leniency.

Before Urwin entered his plea, Judge Cottle spoke of his disbelief that the case had ever reached the crown court in the first place. "The CPS lawyer spent hours on this case? I wonder whether that was money well spent," the judge said.

But his comments sparked anger from Mr Harry who said: "I am astounded by this decision especially when he said this case should never have been brought to the Crown Court. I don't know where else it could go.

"All the suffering I have gone through to get to this point but you cannot even say this is a slap on the wrist. He got nothing.

"I am livid and disgusted with what went on. He should have heard the case. He did not ask for an explanation."

Exeter city councillor Percy Prowse, who is also a former police officer, said: "I was sat in the back of the court and could not believe what I heard the judge say. He said he did not understand the case and could not work out why it was in front of him.

"He seemed to trivialise the facts and appeared to make light of the offence. I was a police officer for 30 years and if I had forged or falsified a document that would have resulted in the conviction of an innocent member of the public that same judge would have understood quite clearly what the offence was. That would be no different to a public official of Exeter City Council who did exactly that.

"I have since written to the police asking if the CPS would consider an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence.

"The message this sends out to the public is that if an official does such a thing, when they are found out they get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Public trust in public figures is at rock bottom and things like this will mean it stays down the bottom."

Bailiff Action Petition ...

2011-03-06T13:56:00.004Z

The petition below has been launched by Dr Devaki Bhatta and is indicative now of the growing element of the British motoring public who are suffering at the hands of the lawless, unaccountable parking industry.

There will soon be a coming together of all the disparate groups including professionals in the industry who want to see a proper system of fair, transparent and legal parking enforcement in this country.

Decisions such as those from Judge Cottell merely serve to fan the flames of injustice.

Bailiff Action for Parking Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Ministry of Justice

Unlawful private Bailiffs (contracted by local councils) are getting away with blackmail, extortion and plain theft through eliciting fear and distress to innocent people with the intention of forcing them to part with excessive amounts of money or risk paying a far greater penalty. For many people, finding their vehicle ‘seized’ or opening the door to a threatening bailiff is the first and only warning of any outstanding fine, prior to so-called ‘punishment’ being enacted.

The ‘procedural system’ involving the Traffc Enforcement Centre (TEC) via which ordinary, law-abiding citizens must file representations to get their case heard is so flawed and long-winded, that it is in favour of the authorities and allows Bailiffs to operate outside the edge of the law in the meantime. This works on the basis of maximum disruption to the individual concerned, so ultimately relies on the majority of individuals “giving in” to avoid months of distress and incurring further costs.

Politicians and judges are well aware of this, yet traffic enforcement policies are not high enough on anyone’s priority list for it to be investigated; as a result, the motorist continues to be “guilty until proven innocent”.

This petition demonstrates the overwhelming support for the fight against Bailiff action for motoring ‘offences’, with a view to getting someone at the Ministry of Justice to stand up and take note!

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

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

The Bailiff Action for Parking Tickets Petition to Ministry of Justice was created by and written by Dr Devaki Bhatta (devaki.bhatta@gmail.com).

This petition is hosted and can be signed here

Another ominous sign as the storm clouds gather over the south western front ...

2011-03-03T11:46:00.009Z

More and more eyes are looking at the parking enforcement in the South West and more and more motorists are realising that they are being treated simply as a 'cash-cow' by some councils who seem to regard their requirement to comply with the law as an 'inconvenience.'

When the ship starts to sink it will make the MPs expenses scandal and pensions and insurance mis-selling look like small beer.

To all the people in the parking industry intent to operating correct and lawful regimes with traffic management rather than revenue being the driver we will continue to support and praise your good work.

To all those who thought that they were above the law and thought that the little guy would be a pushover ... there are too many watching now for this ever to be swept under the carpet.

Signs 'error' could lead to parking ticket refunds

Express and Echo
Wednesday March 2nd 2011

PARKING fines may have been issued unlawfully in Exmouth town centre, it has been claimed.
Devon county councillor Percy Prowse says the restricted zone area in Manchester Road contravenes traffic regulations because signs were put up without the necessary authorisation from the Secretary of State.

The former policeman claims that between May 5, 2008 and January 27, 2011, 17 tickets have been issued to unsuspecting motorists unlawfully.

The Echo has seen documents which indicate that the traffic order for the road does not have the requisite authority. Cllr Prowse says any parking tickets which have been issued could now be refunded.

He said: "County council officers have exceeded their lawful authority in allowing East Devon District Council to issue penalty tickets in that zone. They are issuing tickets to motorists unlawfully. As far as I can see, the signs are not compliant with the law and therefore there's no foundation to issue a ticket to a motorist."
He added: "And under the traffic order I have seen, the signs show that the restricted zone is for Manchester Street but it's supposed to be for Manchester Road.
"Because they've done every-thing in a hurry, they've made huge mistakes.
"I am aware that 17 tickets have been issued to unsuspecting motorists on Manchester Street for which there was no lawful authority but I should think there would be far more on Manchester Road.
"You've got to be a very clever motorist to know something's wrong."

Cllr Prowse has raised several issues relating to this cause including accusing the council of unlawfully collecting almost £6,000 in parking fines in a similar restricted parking zone in Market Square, Crediton.

Peter Harry, 68, of Dawlish, was issued a ticket for parking on Manchester Road when he was visiting Exmouth in January and is now appealing.
"I put in a freedom of information request for all the restricted zones in Devon and all those that have been authorised and there were two that had not – Market Street in Crediton and Manchester Road in Exmouth. I should never have been issued with a ticket."

The county council was unavailable for comment despite repeated requests.

Parking Manager ... 'to secure and maximise income.'

2011-03-03T11:41:00.004Z

Show me the money. Show me the money.

Shouldn't it be 'manage traffic flow?'

FURY OVER £600-A-DAY PARKING JOB
Daily Express
2nd March 2011.

A COUNCIL is offering to pay £600-a-day for someone to squeeze more parking fees out of motorists.
The new head of parking services for an unnamed local authority in London would rake in £156,000 a year for a five-day week.

An advertisement placed by a recruitment agency gives the job description as including “securing and maximising critical income” from on-street parking.
Last night the job advert caused outrage among taxpayer groups.

Charlotte Linacre, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Councils are driving taxpayers round the bend squandering cash and paying off‑the‑scale rewards for senior staff. It’s ridiculous that this council, instead of getting a grip on spending, is offering a six‑figure salary for a parking manager.
“Taxpayers will be outraged to hear they are being ripped off twice, once at the parking meter and again paying these absurdly high wages.”

Last month the Daily Express revealed that Britons pay £991million in parking fines every year.

Lester Cowling's Parking Battle ...

2011-03-02T13:12:00.004Z

Dorset parking ticket battle: Lester Cowling’s story

WHEN I returned my car to find I was being giving a parking ticket I felt as if I was being mugged.
Less than five minutes before I’d been speaking amicably with the Traffic Warden. He’d seen me get out of the car, he’d seen that I’d not noticed the parking machine, and he’d let me walk off. Then he’d given me a ticket. He was, it appears, simply obeying orders. It’s not council policy for Traffic Warden to alert motorists to the fact they may be about to commit an offence.

In fairness to him, his notes to some extent accord to my recollection.
He claimed he’d shouted after me. If so I hadn’t heard him. Neither apparently had anybody else in Dorchester’s High West Street – somebody would have pointed it out if a Traffic Warden was trying to get my attention.

He said I should have been aware that a new pay and display scheme was in force because it had been widely advertised in the Press and on commercial radio.
It was a theme taken up by Parking Services Manager Anne-Marie Goodbody who wrote to me in December 2009: “The new pay and display scheme was advertised in the local press and on the radio.”

This statement was untrue. Checks revealed no advertisements were placed in the press and no commercial had been aired on radio.
Eventually, in May last year, the County Council conceded there’d been no advertising. Why had I been told this untruth?

To bully me into submission and into giving up my fight?
This was just the start of it. My problem with the pay-and-display sign was that it was on the very edge of the pavement and you needed to step out into the busy road to see it.

Suddenly at the beginning of last year it, and others, were realigned. Now they could be easily read from the pavement.
Good.

After several weeks I wrote to ask why this had been done. Had it been because of protests from other motorists? If so, that would have had a bearing on my case. The County Council declined to say how many others had protested. Instead they returned the signs to their original alignment.

I’m not anti parking regulations or parking charges.
There are 60 million of us on this crowded island and there’s got to be rules.
But there has to be fairness too.
I wasn’t the only one caught out.

Others started to complain. Parking Services Manager Anne-Marie Goodbody insisted to the Dorset Echo there was an appeals process for those who felt aggrieved. So I thought, let’s give it go. The experience has been an eye-opener.

Appeals are handled by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, an organisation funded by participating councils. It has the final say and its rulings cannot be challenged. They scheduled a hearing for last September which I’d agreed could be held over the phone. I’d been assured it was unlikely anybody from the County Council would want to be involved. It would just be me and the adjudicator.

Still, I prepared fully, returning from a trip a day early and re-arranging work. A few hours before the hearing was due I was told that it was off. The County Council claimed its notification of the appeal had been delayed in the post, had only turned up late the previous afternoon and Mrs Goodbody was away on holiday and she might want to be involved. I protested. This was typical of the contempt with which these bodies treat the public.

The decision, I was told by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, had been made by an adjudicator and therefore couldn’t be questioned. Maybe, but what the Tribunal was in effect doing was acting at the beck and call of a junior member of staff at Dorset County Council.

What evidence was there that there’d really been a delay with mail?
More likely, it seemed to me, administrative chaos. The adjudicator obviously hadn’t regarded me as important when it came to making his or her decision.
And what was all this about letters delayed? Surely these people can use email? It turned out they weren’t allowed to do so unless both parties officially consented.
Local government!

Under pressure they agreed to do so in future. But agreeing that involved a dialogue between them from which I was excluded.
I began to wonder just how close Dorset County Council and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal really were.

How many other dialogues go on from which appellants are excluded?
Is the Traffic Penalty Tribunal a body capable of policing parking regulation?

More successes ... more cancellations ... praise for Southwark Council

2011-03-02T12:59:00.005Z

Tickets cancelled. Refunds given. Great work by the NoToMob team BUT respect to Southwark Council for making the refunds and correcting the error

Hundreds of parking tickets cancelled
South London Press
Tuesday, 01 March 2011

MORE than 550 parking tickets have been cancelled after campaigners exposed them to be unlawful, it has emerged.
Southwark council fined 557 drivers after extending a loading bay in Valmar Road, near Coldharbour Lane in Camberwell.

But an investigation by campaign group NoToMob revealed the town hall had not issued a legal traffic management order about the extension – so all the tickets were invalid.
The fines were issued between January and November last year.

NotoMob was set up by motorbike riders to challenge what it describes as “revenue-driven parking enforcement”.
A spokesman for the group said: “Town hall parking enforcement is about revenue generation and not road safety.
“CCTV enforcement is being used to rake in cash at honeytraps while locations such as school crossings are being ignored.
“We plan to expose all councils which issue tickets under dubious circumstances.”

A Southwark council spokesman said: “As soon as we realised the mistake it was corrected.
“All drivers who had paid the penalty charge notices were contacted and given refunds and all other tickets were cancelled.”

The gathering of the clans ...

2011-03-02T00:43:00.006Z

In the hills and the valleys and the towns and the cities and on every piece of potholed tarmac that Britain's motorists traverse at £8 per gallon and with a £50,000,000,000 tax take per annum to the Treasury there comes a moment where 'tipping point' is reached.

On top of the potholes, the 'speed awareness courses' for doing 34mph in a 30mph zone, and the lack of investment in the country's decaying road infrastructure, Britain's motorists are often pursued to the ends of the earth for the most minor of parking contraventions (minute late back to a meter, an inch over a white line) by councils now empowered to raise the fines, issue the fines, collect the money and keep the money (and appeals adjudicated upon by 'independent' adjudicators paid at the rate of 60p from every ticket issued) ... we now see one of those public officials, who are paid handsomely from the public purse, in a position of trust with pension rewards the private sector would die for (if they could retire early enough to extract the benefit) ... given an absolute discharge for forging documents to extract a £60 fine from a pensioner.

Now just hold that thought for a minute.

A £60 fine for parking in a pay and display bay that wasn't marked correctly BUT an absolute discharge for the person FORGING the documents to make a financial gain for his employers, Exeter City Council.

Read the press cutting below .... "The defendant has admitted he doctored the plan and blames others in the council for being involved."

A word of warning to all those council officers out there who thought that they were above the law. To those council officers who thought that they could act with impunity. To those council officers who thought that their colleagues or 'the system' would protect them.

Check the Local Authority (Indemnities for Officers and Members) Order 2004 ... and then check out how much you personally have to lose should the council decide that, because of your actions, you cannot be protected. Don't assume that you are protected.

The MPs serving time at Her Majesty's Pleasure did not expect such a turn of events but thanks to the dogged determination of Heather Brooke who exposed the MPs expenses scandal the public saw that justice could be dispensed and the guilty dispatched.

In some council areas Civil Parking Enforcement is lawless, unregulated and out of control and has been for a number of years and it is the new MPs expenses scandal, the pensions and endowments mis-selling, the disgraceful bank charges scandal ... but now the moment is upon us where every motorist who has suffered a personal injustice but has been daunted by the enormity of taking on the system can join behind a man who has been prepared to stand up to be counted.

The Peter Harry case, a pensioner pursued relentlessly for a £60 fine with council officials prepared to forge documents for financial gain has unsettled the common man. If the Judges and the etsablishment will not protect and defend our rights and freedoms how will justice ever be seen to be done?

Thanks and praise needs to go to all those parking offiocers and many parking managers who are quietly and openly supprting what we do knowing that there are rotten apples in every profession. Until those rotten apples are removed then parking enforcement generally will continue to feel the public's wrath.

The disparate groups across the country are coming together. The clans are gathering. If you are a council officer who thinks that you are above the law ... we are now at 'tipping point.' The British Motoring Public will not tolerate this any more.

In the coming days the landscape will change .... and the 'common man' will ensure that justice will be seen to be done in the most public of fashions.

This is Exeter

Monday, February 28, 2011,

Ex-council man walks free over map charge

A FORMER parking officer in the city has walked free from court after he admitted falsifying a map relating to a parking ticket.

Judge Graham Cottle gave Geoffrey Urwin an absolute discharge and questioned why the case had ever been brought to Exeter Crown Court.

Urwin, 43, of Oxford Road, St James, had falsified a document used in a motorist's appeal against a parking ticket. The court heard he had since lost his job.

The defendant was going to deny the charge but changed his plea after Judge Cottle said he thought an absolute discharge was appropriate.

Urwin admitted that, without reasonable excuse or justification, he willfully misconducted himself, by falsifying a map used in a parking penalty notice proceeding.

The charge said it happened between June 1 and June 30 last year, when the defendant was a parking support team leader with the council.

He was accused of doctoring a map, which was presented to a traffic penalty tribunal after a motorist appealed against a parking ticket issued to him in Exeter.

Prosecutor Andrew Macfarlane said that the motorist was someone who had a "campaign with others".

Mr Macfarlane said: "He deliberately parked in a parking bay where he believed markings were not entirely accurate and declined to put money in the meter."

He said that the parking attendant recorded it as the wrong space in Southernhay, while trying to show the position of the parking bay.

"The defendant decided to doctor it and place it in the correct designation with where the car was, falsifying that document," said the prosecutor.

"The policy of the council is, if that error is found, rather than falsifying the document, the parking charge is abandoned.

"The defendant has admitted he doctored the plan and blames others in the council for being involved."

Judge Cottle said: "Does the crown court exist to deal with this?"

The prosecutor replied that a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer had made an "exhaustive analysis" of the case. Judge Cottle said: "He'll get an absolute discharge if convicted….That is what the county council should be about, not this kind of court."

The judge, who was due to sentence a rapist and also a man who had killed a pedestrian through careless driving later in the day, said he was dealing with cases of "immense seriousness" and should not have to deal with one of this kind. He added no criticism was intended of the prosecutor.

Mr Macfarlane replied that common law meant the case had to be dealt with at crown court.

Defence counsel Nicholas Bradley said Urwin had no criminal record and had lost his job since this incident.

"He was asked to leave and he did," said Mr Bradley.

Judge Cottle said about the offence: "He probably accepts he did something he shouldn't."

After the guilty plea and sentencing, Judge Cottle said the offence would not rank as a criminal conviction.

Urwin told the Echo after the hearing: "I'm extremely relieved. That's it."

Is this a traffic sign?

2011-03-01T00:20:00.011Z

According to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ... the mantra they chant is 'as long as no reasonable motorist could be misled' ... and 'the meaning of the restriction is clear' ...

However, Manuel, let me explain ....

and sorry to be pedantic but the law is so ... and many people pore over matters to ensure that there is no confusion, but when confusion reigns ... lawyers earn their money ... and Judges clarify the law (and they do not wear wigs Karl Pilkington as disguises so that they don't get recognised ... although Judge Cottle in the Peter Harry case may well buy a blonde one after deciding that forgery by a council officer was a 'trivial matter.' That may make 32 million motorists a tad angry).

Meanwhile, back to traffic signing law which, is as boring as watching yellow paint dry ... traffic signs (as prescribed by TSRGD 2002 referenced at Sction 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) must be of the colour, shape and size of the 'pictures and dimensions' in the books that clever people spent lots of time making ... otherwise they are not traffic signs!!! If they are not 'traffic signs' they are not legal, something that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicators seem to find difficulty in grasping (although PATAS adjudicators seem to understand what the law requires them to do).

So, in the world of the 'independent' Manchester based TPT (who receive 60p from every ticket issued), if the meaning of the sign is clear ... then that is good enough ....

Don't laugh ...

Would a ticket be valid at this location?

Or this one?

or ... and if you've had a little drink or two and starting to slur ...

... or feel as though the living dead are being paid from the public purse ...

... so, Mr. Parking Adjudicator ... the meaning of the sign below is quite clear but it ain't a traffic sign as required by Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or prescribed by the strict and pedantic diagrams of TSRGD 2002 so check out the words of Justices

Rix, Ouseley and Bennett

Would any reasonable motorist be misled? Of course not but it ain't legal ... and nor is the fine!

Justice must be seen to be done ... and if it isn't the people will become restless

2011-02-26T14:20:00.005Z

We have just witnessed an outrageous case of injustice in Exeter Crown Court when pensioner Peter Harry, a victim of wilful misconduct saw the accused, Geoff Unwin, an Exeter Parking Services Team Leader given an absolute discharge after pleading guilty to the charge which stemmed from the forging of evidence documents.

This sends a message out to the British motoring public that whilst you will be punished with fines and penalties for the most minor and trivial of contraventions (such as parking slightly outside a bay or being a minute late back to a meter) and pursued relentlessly, council officers who forge documents to allow their council to fill its parking fines coffers will be treated so leniently that it brings the whole justice system into disrepute.

Judge Graham Cottle however has been in the press before ...Reported in the Times on October 18, 2006 the headline was ...

Former judge jailed for telling undercover reporter to lie

Judge Graham Cottle told Lancaster that the criminal justice system in this country was held up as a model of fairness and good practice, and in order to maintain that reputation it was of paramount importance that professionals involved in the system behaved at all times with honesty and integrity.
More here

The decision at Exeter Crown Court still has those who witnessed the Judge's words stunned with disbelief.

May I humbly suggest that this injustice perpetrated on the VICTIM Peter Harry, one which the CPS regard as a very serious matter indeed, is now just the beginning rather than the end of the matter?

Prepare for the maelstrom ... Council officer forged parking documents

2011-02-25T22:12:00.004Z

I expect that Britain's motorists will be incensed at the decision of Judge Graham Cottle but expect a very bright media spotlight to be shone on the sordid affairs of parking officers in the South West.

As a reminder of what the CPS say ...

CPS Guidance: Misconduct in Public Office

Like perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office covers a wide range of conduct. It should always be remembered that it is a very serious, indictable only offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest.

... and then read the words of Judge Cottle.

Then remember that Peter Harry is a VICTIM of wilful misconduct and the criminal actions of someone paid from the public purse. This massive injustice will incense Britain's motorists.

Official forged parking documents
Published on Fri Feb 25
20:10:09 2011
Press Association

A motorist has spoken of his disbelief after an Exeter City Council official escaped with a slap on the wrist after admitting forging documents in a parking dispute.

Geoffrey Urwin, 43, who worked at Exeter City Council as a parking support team leader, doctored a map that was presented to a traffic penalty tribunal after motorist Peter Harry appealed against a ticket he had been given.

Urwin, of Oxford Road, St James, Exeter, pleaded guilty to a charge of wilful misconduct at Exeter Crown Court on Friday and was given an absolute discharge by Judge Graham Cottle, the Recorder of Exeter.

Exeter Crown Court heard the charge related to an incident in June 2009, when Mr Harry, 67, who is part of a group campaigning against illegal issuing of parking tickets, discovered that some of the parking restrictions in Exeter city centre were incorrectly marked and decided to test them.

He found that the parking bays on Southernhay East were marked with a double white transverse line - meaning motorists who did not buy a ticket could not be penalised for parking there. When the retired cheese wholesaler, from Dawlish, Devon, received a penalty notice for not purchasing a ticket, he appealed against the fine.

The court heard that Mr Harry found that the ticket he had been issued with stated that he was parked in Southernhay West, when in fact he had left his car in the adjacent Southernhay East. He also discovered that a map the council had submitted to the tribunal had been doctored and the word 'East' removed - making it look like he was parked in 'Southernhay', the court heard.

After Mr Harry complained to the police, it was discovered that Urwin had realised that the pensioner was right and so the defendant altered parking plans to put the city council in the clear, the court heard.

Before Urwin entered his plea, Judge Cottle spoke of his disbelief that the case had ever reached the crown court in the first place. "The CPS lawyer spent hours on this case? I wonder whether that was money well spent," the judge said.

Speaking outside court, Mr Harry spoke of his disbelief at the comments of the judge. "I cannot understand justice sometimes," he said. "I am absolutely astounded. I am just struck for words. How the judge can give an absolute discharge for a criminal offence, which he never heard anything about, is beyond me."

A spokesman for Exeter City Council said: "Geoff Urwin no longer works for the city council. We have no further comment to make."

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved

The death of parking enforcement in Devon? Is it time ...

2011-02-17T21:44:00.005Z

How much more evidence is needed?

Perhaps the Court Case at Exeter Crown Court next Thursday will be the 'tipping point.'

As many council Parking Managers read this blog it is perhaps time that you reflected on your own indifference and intransigence if you too have been guilty of enforcing restrictions that you knew were unlawful. The mantra often chanted by the 'industry of 'it's only a parking ticket' will perhaps, in light of the MP's expenses scandal, be viewed in a different fashion. 'It was 'only a packet of biscuits' or 'only a few mortgage payments' for a mortgage that had been paid off didn't wash and those guilty of defrauding the public purse are now spending time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Now let's look at a Parking Manager who KNEW that there were no lawful parking restrictions, who KNEW that the Traffic Order was invalid AND YET STILL ALLOWED MOTORISTS TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR CASH TO ENHANCE THE COUNCIL'S COFFERS AND THE PARKING MANAGER'S STATUS.

Where is the difference. The public is entitled to expect honesty and integrity from those paid from the public purse.

There is a great deal of evidence in many council areas going back many years. There are many motorists and businesses who have suffered greatly. I doubt that many will have sympathy for any crocodile tears shed by those currently looking over their shoulder.

The press are looking for the new 'abuse of public trust' scandal. Perchance it might be greedy councils and their officers who thought that the motorist was easy prey.

Well done to those brave enough to stand up to be counted. Well done to those council officers who were not prepared to be tarred with the same brush as those with their arrogant contempt for the law.

Meanwhile, more news from the pointy bit at the other end of England!

This is Exeter
Wednesday, February 16, 2011,
Signs removed in parking dispute

SIGNS which warned of parking restrictions in Crediton's Market Square have been removed following claims that fines were collected illegally.

Campaigners claim Devon County Council did not have proper authorisation from central Government to enforce parking. County councillor Percy Prowse thinks fines of nearly £6,000 have been paid by motorists who parked in the restricted bays and did not buy a ticket.

The county council said at the beginning of this month it was not currently enforcing parking in the restricted bays, and last Monday some signs were removed.

Councils want signing 'dumbed-down'

2011-02-13T20:37:00.004Z

The current consultation being undertaken by the Department for Transport sees councils wishing to save money by dumbing down traffic signs.

The method on the right could save a lot of money!

You could even have the Traffic Penalty Tribunal chanting its mantra that 'no reasonable person could be misled!'

Apparently, there are a few adjudicators who still think that they can ignore statute law and the will of the courts ...

There are two ways to end clamping and towing ...

2011-02-07T14:59:00.003Z

The first is by lobbying Government and proposinga change to the legislation.

The second is the method below ... We would strongly advise the former.

Show me the money ...

2011-02-07T14:50:00.008Z

Traffic management ... absolute failure if there is this level of non-compliance.

Cash Cow value ... up there top of the league

Council makes fortune from street where drivers are fined £2,500 a day
London Evening Standard
Tom Harper
7 Feb 2011

It is an unremarkable residential street in south London flanked by housing estates and dotted with takeaways.

But today Clapham Park Road can be named as the biggest "cash cow" for parking tickets in the capital.

In a stretch of road measuring less than 500 yards, wardens raked in almost £1 million in parking and traffic fines last year - £300,000 more than its nearest London rival.

Coffers at Lambeth council were swelled by £2,500 a day through the activities of civil enforcement officers and two CCTV cameras patrolling bus lanes in Clapham Park Road.

The disclosure threatens to reignite the debate over town halls' use of parking fines as a stealth tax - in breach of Whitehall guidelines - to generate cash at a time of budget cuts.

AA president Edmund King said: "That is an incredible amount of money for one street. Something is wrong with the system - the intention of the council should be to keep traffic moving, not make money. At best it's very poor traffic management and at worst, frankly, it's profiteering."

Last year, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles warned boroughs they must cope with 25 per cent budget cuts without using civil parking enforcement as a way of raising revenue. But an investigation by the Evening Standard found 20 town halls in London generated a massive £146 million in tickets and fines last year.

Information obtained using the Freedom of Information Act shows that top of the list was Kensington and Chelsea, which earned £36 million through penalty charge notices for parking and traffic violations.

But revenue from those tickets - which cost drivers up to £120, the highest in Britain - was spread across many streets. The top earner was King's Road, at £203,123.
This figure is dwarfed by Clapham Park Road, which amassed £914,040 through 16,800 tickets last year.

Residents and businesses - the street has a handful of shops and two bars - said motorists were often caught out by cameras monitoring a bus lane, which has had its layout changed several times in recent years. Other drivers say they are targeted by over-eager parking inspectors who strike within seconds of them leaving their cars.

A Lambeth spokesman said: "This is an extremely busy area used by thousands of vehicles a day and a minority of motorists add to congestion by driving in the bus lane."

Next highest for revenue was Green Lanes, a four-mile road stretching from Hackney through Haringey into Enfield. Wardens in the Haringey section gathered £606,903 from 12,689 tickets.
The borough said it was a "long and major route" and needed to be kept free of vehicles. The Broadway, a busy shopping street in Ealing, came third, generating £534,041 with 8,385 tickets.
Last week, Barnet councillor Brian Coleman triggered uproar when it emerged he boasted town hall parking policy was to "never knowingly undercharge".

Campaigners advise motorists they should appeal against all tickets as many are issued wrongly. In London last year 68 per cent of drivers who took their case to the independent adjudicator won.
Last month, transport minister Norman Baker ordered a review of signs and markings amid concerns that they feature impenetrable lists of timings, exemptions and instructions.

Some tickets have been put down to overzealous wardens. In November, a driver got a £120 fine after a yellow line was painted under his car. Daniel Jacob, 26, of Basildon, said: "It's not even straight, it's a wobbly scrawl.

Moneyspinners
Clapham Park Road (Lambeth) £914,040
Green Lanes (Haringey) £606,903

The Broadway/Herbert Rd (Ealing) £534,041

Kentish Town Road (Camden) £395,491

Mare Street (Hackney) £356,012

Chiswick High Road (Hounslow) £351,416

Elephant Road (Southwark) £327,472
Lea Bridge Road (Waltham Forest) £250,270
King's Road (Kensington & Chelsea) £203,123
Penge High Street (Bromley) £194,005

Baker Street (Westminster) £189,515

Uxbridge High Street (Hillingdon) £172,075
London Road (Croydon) £171,295

Hackney Road (Tower Hamlets) £145,612

Macfarlane Road (H'smith & Fulham) £135,319

Garratt Lane (Wandsworth) £118,436

Wellington Street (Greenwich) £75,726

Yew Grove (Barnet) £47,910

Market Place Car Park (Havering) £34,185

Grove Road (Sutton) £22,686

Highest earning street for traffic and parking fines in each borough. Other boroughs failed to respond or gave only partial information that was not comparable.

Parking 'Industry' now aware of the Court of Appeal ruling

2011-02-07T14:06:00.003Z

No excuses for Parking Managers or adjudicators now. The High Court (Moss v KPMG) and the Court of Appeal has clearly spelled out the requirements for signs to comply with TSRGD 2002.

I am led to believe that some Adjudicators are being a bit naughty still citing the decision of Justice Keith when appellants raise signing matters as a defence. Some parking departments also need to check their rejection letters as this matter may come with a nasty sting in the tail ... especially if they are aware of the non-compliance.

A further word of warning ... 'substantial compliance' fell a long time ago and perhaps some adjudicators should read the Ouseley decision in Moss v KPMG before attempting to elevate themselves powers to which they are not entitled.

To the people who are determined to see that justice prevails and the rotten apples exposed ... keep the information coming.

Herron wins permission to appeal in Sunderland CPZ case
Parking Review

Neil HerronParking campaigner Neil Herron has been granted permission to appeal against a High Court ruling regarding Sunderland's controlled parking zone (CPZ).

At the hearing last year Justice Bean dismissed Herron’s contention that a parking adjudicator had “erred in law” in his decision regarding the validity of the CPZ (PR June 2009).

The truth will out ...

2011-02-06T18:51:00.001Z

Sunderland Council Officer Mr. Odunaiya's comments are interesting and follow the line of the 'old' regime. I will be sending him a copy of the transcript and Judgment as soon as they are released by the Court of Appeal to clarify his misconception. Perhaps Sunderland should have sent someone to the Court to take notes. Given the size of the new Consolidated Order published in the Sunderland Echo the Monday following the Court of Appeal decision perhaps they weren't expecting the result!

Let's hope the councillors who have been served papers throughout all of this debacle start paying a little closer attention. Try reading the documents posted here

Parking campaigner wins right to appeal over fines
Neil Herron
By Tim Booler
Sat Feb 05 2011

A PARKING campaigner has struck back in a long-running battle over alleged “unlawful” fines.

Neil Herron lost a test case in the High Court last year, when he claimed a controlled parking zone in Sunderland city centre was set up without the necessary approval, and penalty charges issued were therefore unenforceable.

But the city businessman has now won his bid to be able to appeal against that ruling, giving him another chance of forcing a judicial review into the issue.

The case in court revolves around enforcement at Frederick Street, in Sunniside.

As revealed in the Echo this month, it has been the busiest street in Sunderland for parking tickets over the last two years, with 1,015 issued, racking up £22,405 in fines.

The eventual outcome of the test case has been labelled as a “watershed moment” for motorists and car parking in the UK, by industry experts.

Lord Justice Rix granted Mr Herron’s application after a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London.

Afterwards, Mr Herron’s solicitor Franklin Price said: “The judge could see Neil’s arguments and thought they were sufficient to merit a hearing before the full Court of Appeal, and that it was also a matter of some public importance.”

Mr Herron said: “I feel vindicated now that permission has been granted, and it’s about time we had a full independent investigation into Sunderland Council’s parking enforcement regime.”

Mr Herron – who will be allowed enter new evidence when the case next appears in court – claimed little progress has been made since he had meetings with officers about concerns in 2005.

Ron Odunaiya, executive director for city services at Sunderland Council, said: “The High Court had previously confirmed that Sunderland’s Controlled Parking Zone was lawful, and that Mr Herron’s application for judicial review was ‘entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit’.

“We have always believed Sunderland’s parking rules to be firm but fair.

“Controlled parking is about road safety, reducing congestion in the interests of all highways users, and supporting economic activity and viability across Sunderland.

“We are awaiting a date for the hearing of the appeal, at which the city council will be represented.”

Herron v The Parking Adjudicator ... Order of the Court of Appeal

2011-02-01T21:08:00.004Z

A watershed moment for Britain's motorists. I am sure that many residents and ratepayers of Sunderland will want to know how much this case has cost to date.

£1million spent by Sunderland in legal costs in equal pay case

2011-02-01T12:34:00.003Z

The council will still not reveal how much it has spent fighting the parking ticket case. About time it was disclosed.

Sunderland Council facing £20m bill after pay fight
Jan 30 2011 by Linda Richards, Sunday Sun

MORE than 1,500 employees are celebrating after winning an equal pay battle.

Sunderland City Council now faces a £20m bill after its attempt to have an equal pay ruling overturned was rejected, leaving the employees in line for payouts of up to £16,000 each.

An employment tribunal in Newcastle found in 2008 that the council had unlawfully discriminated against women employees by giving bonus payments to male workers employed as street sweepers, gardeners and refuse collectors.

The women, represented by Newcastle-based Stefan Cross Solicitors Limited, submitted claims against the council in respect of their jobs which included cleaners, cooks and care assistants.

An appeal by the council has now been rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Members agreed with the Newcastle tribunal, which said that because the bonus payments had nothing to do with productivity and were simply part of basic pay, paying them only to the male employees amounted to discrimination which could not be justified and was therefore unlawful.

Paul Doran, of Stefan Cross Solicitors Limited, who acted for the women, said: “This is yet another instance in which a local authority has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees defending the indefensible.

“It is incredible that more than 40 years since the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, women still have to revert to the courts and tribunals to allow them to receive equal pay for equal work.”

Sunderland’s appeal was heard along with a similar appeal by Bury Council.

In the Bury case, the EAT also ruled that “protection” arrangements that allowed the men to continue to receive higher pay after a new pay structure was introduced as also unlawful.

This will affect thousands of Sunderland workers because Sunderland introduced a similar, but far more generous scheme.

These arrangements are the subject of ongoing claims in the tribunals but this latest ruling will help the women in this case too.

There are already 1,500 women making such claims and the total bill to the council could exceed £20m.

The council is believed to have already spent more than £1m on legal bills fighting the cases.

Perjury

2011-02-01T08:26:00.001Z

Perjury
Date Produced: 27 April 2009
Title: Administration of Justice
Offence: Perjury
Legislation: Perjury Act 1911 section 1
Mode of Trial: Indictable only
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 7 years imprisonment

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
See factors in main text under R v Archer

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines
R v Archer [2003] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 86 is the only guideline case.

Factors to be considered include:

the number of offences
whether planned or spontaneous
whether they were persisted in
whether the lies told or fabrications embarked upon had any actual impact on the proceedings in question;
whether the activities of the offender drew in others
the relationship between others drawn in and the offender
the whole course of conduct

No distinction should be drawn as to level of sentence according to whether the proceedings concerned were of a civil or criminal nature. Perjury may be comparatively trivial in criminal proceedings or very serious in civil proceedings. Whether the proceedings were civil or criminal is one of the factors to be considered.

See below for details of the case

Relevant Sentencing Case Law
R v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 27. Tried twice for murder, jury failed to agree, discharged; written confession some years later. 6 years imprisonment concurrent on both counts upheld. The punishment had to be commensurate with the gravity of the original offence and yet not be seen as a punishment for that original offence.

R v Archer [2003] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 86.Appellant was the plaintiff in libel proceedings arising from newspaper allegations that he had had sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Convicted following trial on four counts and sentenced as follows:

Perverting the course of justice by procuring a false alibi - two years imprisonment.
Perverting the course of justice by concealing the existence of a diary, providing his secretary with a blank diary and details to fill in, and using it as genuine - four years imprisonment.
Perjury by falsely swearing an affidavit about documents in his possession - three years imprisonment.
Perjury that the diary was in existence and contained certain entries - four years imprisonment.
all sentences to run concurrently.

Sentences upheld on appeal.

R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 61. Kidnapped by a gang, detained overnight, subjected to violence and made to contact his partner and demand money. At their trial he gave false evidence to the effect that he had not been kidnapped and that he had instigated the violence. His defence of duress was rejected. Four years imprisonment upheld.

R v Adams [2004] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 15. Gave supporting evidence for a friend being tried for possession with intent. 18 months imprisonment upheld.

R v Healey (1990) 12 Cr.App.R.(S.) 297. Fine defaulter gave false evidence of means. 6 months imprisonment upheld.

R v Hall (1982) 4 Cr.App.R.(S.) 153. Gave false alibi evidence for another in a magistrates' court trial. 3 months imprisonment upheld.

Recent Decisions reported in CSP at B8-1.3 divided into: perjury in proceedings in magistrates' courts; perjury in civil proceedings; perjury in proceedings relating to serious crime.

Misconduct in Public Office

2011-02-01T08:20:00.003Z

Misconduct In Public Office
This Guidance was last updated on 19th November 2007.
Crown Prosecution Service

Principles ... Who is a Public Officer?
Charging Practice
Useful References Principles

The elements of misconduct in public office are:

a) A public officer acting as such.

b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.

c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.

d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

Who is a Public Officer?
In Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA 868, it was put to the Court of Appeal, but not argued as part of the substantive appeal, that public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment, e.g. security at courts and transport of prisoners, and that it was unfair and illogical if those holding public office, such as police officers, were to be liable to conviction of an offence not applicable to private employees doing similar work.

Having not heard argument on the point, this may present problems of definition", which they declined to elaborate upon.

the Court stated as follows (Para 62):

"This potential unfairness adds weight, in our view, to the conclusion that the offence should be strictly confined but we do not propose to develop the point or to consider further the question of what, for present purposes, constitutes a public office."

So who holds a public office and as a result can be guilty of this offence? According to the Court of Appeal, which quoted from the earlier authorities, it requires that the defendant "must be a public officer acting as such .... There must be a breach of duty by the officer, [which is wilful and which is such that the conduct is] an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder" (Para 56). And later, quoting from the case of Bembridge [(1783) 3 Doug KB 32], "those who hold public office carry out their duties for the benefit of the public as a whole and, if they abuse their office, there is a breach of the public's trust" (Para 57).

Charging Practice
Like perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office covers a wide range of conduct. It should always be remembered that it is a very serious, indictable only offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest.

Before deciding to proceed with a charge of misconduct in public office you should consider whether the acts complained of can properly be dealt with by any available statutory offence. If the seriousness of the offence can properly be reflected in any other charge, which would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers, and permit a proper presentation of the case as a whole, that other charge should be used unless:

the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would be inadequate; or
it would ensure the better presentation of the case as a whole; for example, a co-defendant has been charged with an indictable offence and the statutory offence is summary only.
In R v Sookoo (2002) TLR 10/4/02 the Court cautioned against adding a count of perverting the course of justice when the conduct could properly be treated as an aggravating feature of a statutory offence. Similar reasoning should be applied to the charging of misconduct in public office. So for example, an assault by a police officer committed while on duty could also arguably be misconduct in public office, but the appropriate assault charge would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers and the ability to take into account the breach of trust by the officer as an aggravating factor [see R v. Dunn [2003] 2 Cr.App.R.(S)].

Useful References
Archbold 25-381

Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA 868

Bembridge [(1783) 3 Doug KB 32]

Dytham [1979] 1 QB 723

R v. W [2003] EWCA 1632

Witcher & Lang Guildford Crown Court March 2005

R v. Sunshes Nkesha Pike-Williams [2004] EWCA Crim 2400

Bowden [1996] 1 Cr.App.R. 104

Kent v Griffiths and others

Attorney General's Reference No.3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868

R v Sookoo (2002) TLR 10/4/02

R v. Dunn [2003] 2 Cr.App.R.(S)
.

Herron v The Parking Adjudicator ... Court of Appeal grants permission

2011-01-30T17:26:00.007Z

This is the day that Britain's motorists have been waiting for ... There weren't many in attendance in Court 75 at the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday morning to hear Lord Justice Rix deliver his decision on the Appeal of Herron v The Parking Adjudicator (and Sunderland City Council) but the ones who were witnessed a watershed moment in the battle for lawful parking enforcement and a fair deal for Britain's motorists. Sunderland City Council and The Traffic Penalty Tribunal were not present to hear the news. Insiders report that all was not well in the respective ivory towers as the news circulated. Lord Justice Rix fully grasped the case and the arguments which had failed to persuade Justice Bean ... and then granted permission to appeal. He also allowed the introduction of a new point which had only been made available after the High Court hearing and which related to the Traffic Regulation Order in Frederick Street where the majority of the PCNs were issued. It appears that an 'administrative error' by Sunderland City Council meant that the Frederick Street Order giving effect to the restriction was missed out of the 2003 Consolidated Order, a point only made available to the appellant by a whistleblower. Question is, when did Sunderland become aware of this 'administrative error'? Below is an extract from a Report to Cabinet 7th December 2005 ... Now that it is before the Court of Appeal we can finally have a very bright spotlight shone on Sunderland City Council's Parking operation. For everyone reading this for the first time please check out the video clips below which sets the scene. A five year battle to expose corruption will now have the biggest platform of all.

Carlisle Council quashes drive's car park fine after public outcry.

2010-12-16T13:01:00.009Z

Carlisle council quashes driver's car park fine after public outcry

By Thom Kennedy - 14th December 2010

News & Star

A motorist whose parking ticket caused an outpouring of public support has had his penalty
notice cancelled.

Donald Austin parked his Jaguar in the space at the edge of the civic centre car park in Lowther Street, most of demand pay display tickets, and paid for his ticket

However, he was in a disc space, where he would have received limited free parking time had he placed the disc in the window. He received a parking ticket but refused to pay his fine, saying the ticket he bought contained all the relevant information. Now Ray Bloxham, the Carlisle City Council portfolio holder for local enviroment, has stepped in to cancel his fine.

Mr Austin said he had been stopped in the street by people supporting his cause after reading The proof of the pudding is that the ticket has been revoked," Mr Austin said. "There has been an awful lot of interest in this, i had several calls at home and i have been stopped in the street.
about it in the news. ""I was due to go on the radio to tell the story again, but i said i would like somebody to come from the city council to argue their case, and i would prove them wrong.

The next thing i heard was when i got a call back saying the ticket had been revoked."

The story had produced a great deal of interest when it appeared in the News & Star, and more than 50 web comments appeared underneath the story, the majority of which supported Mr Austins fight. It could lead to retraining for wardens to prevent tickets been issued to cars with pay and display tickets, which show the time it arrives in the space.

Mr Bloxham said: "I spoke to Mr Austin and apologised most profusley for the difficulties he has had, and i asked the director to see if the charge could be cancelled.
"In all fairness he was within the limit."

When asked about whether other motorists could expect tickets in similar situations, Mr Bloxham added: " I'm sure we will be having some retraining , possibly in people's attitude to that.

"If you come to one of these spaces and put a note in the window and by the time an attendant comes its over that time you would expect a fine, but if its within the time i wouldnt expect that."

BBC Politics Show ...

2010-12-13T20:52:00.005Z

The BBC Politics Show discloses the advice from leading traffic law expert Stephen Sauvain QC which highlighted the failings of Scarborough and other North Yorkshire CPZs. This 'advice' also indicates that monies taken from motorists in areas where the signage is non-compliant must be refunded.

To date, the Department for Transport refused to make this advice available to the High Court in the case of Herron v The Parking Adjudicator but now that this information has been made public and the decision in the Moss case explicitly reaffirms the requirement for signs to strictly comply with the law then hopefully this will put an end to the nonsense spouted by some councils and adjudicators the a sign is okay if 'no reasonable person could be misled.'

Our sources say that a great deal of panic has ensued in many town halls from officers fearing that their continued enforcement of known non-compliant signage may well result in a visit and an investigation. The first court case for misconduct in public office is listed in Exeter for February. May I be so bold as to suggest that this will not be the last?

Huddersfield Police Station parking bay is 'illegal'

2010-12-08T14:31:00.011Z

In light of the decision of Justice Ouseley in the High Court Moss v KPMG it seems as though Kirklees Council now have themselves in a bit of a pickle. Accounts not signed off and more admissions of illegal bays ... a highways and parking department not fit for purpose. Now let's see how quickly they refund their unlawfully derived income ... Adur Council were exemplary in their actions.

Kirklees Council has been 'breaking the law' - right under the nose of the Old Bill.

Huddersfield Examiner
December 8th

Parking chiefs have been left red-faced yet again after it was revealed that the 'police vehicles only' parking bay outside Huddersfield's town centre police station is not lawful.

Drawings taken from the Department for Transport website show the Albion Street bay should be marked in yellow paint but it is painted white. The blunder comes only a few years after the Examiner revealed that Huddersfield Town Halls permit parking bay was illegal. The Ramsden Street parking space, only a few yards away from the police bay is used by the mayor and other dignitaries. It was painted yellow when it should have been painted white. Following the Examiner's story they bay was repainted within 48 hours.

Parking law expert Neil Herron, director of http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/, said Kirklees was one of the worst local authorities for playing by the rules. Mr Herron, who has appeared on TV and radio programmes, said "its not a police parking bay, its simple as that. there are councils accross the country that have made similar errors painting white lines that should be yellow. There not traffic signs and its not lawful. It shows a sloppy attitude to their legal responsibilities, its not difficult to get the lines and signs corrected."

In 2008 the Examiner revealed almost 100 parking zones in the district failed to comply with the law. The expose showed illegal bays in Batley, Holmfirth, Cleckeaton, Heckmondwike and almost every neighbourhood in huddersfield. At the time Mr Herron accused Kirklees Council of catching motorists with unlawful parking fines and called for parking enforcements to be suspended.

Virtual bays unveiled by Herron ...

2010-12-07T11:43:00.007Z

Neil Showed how freight deliveries can be simplified
TransportXtra

A new system for actively managing kerbspace to enable freight deliveries to be made without incurring parking penalties was unveild at parking management 2010 by Neil Herron of Activ8 (Virtual Parking Solutions).

Herron, best known for running www.parkingappeals.co.uk , revealed a real-time vehicle tracking and space ACTIV8 Virtual Parking Solutions at the conference.

"Parking is not always about parking, its often about loading and unloading vehicles," he said "There are differing kerbside needs for different kerbusers, blue badge holders and the ordinary motorists. We need to promote active management rather than blanket enforcement." A traffic management perspective emphasises the need to keep kerbside spaces turning over. Herron said the problem is that restricted kerbspace is being used at a time which is convenient to commercial vehicle drivers and not when it is conducive to smoothing traffic flows.

Herron said: "The penalty charge notice (PCN) commercial drivers receive is not managing the kerbside, it is effectively a £60 dispensation to park where and when they like, on zigzags, in disabled bays or double yellow lines." Delivery companies and their clients absorb the cost of enforcement. "Commercial operators, freight transport industry, coach operators and the utility companies are paying 500m a year in PCNs for servicing customers and there is a further 100m admin charge for dealing with all those tickets," he said.

Herron said that he developed the Activ8 Virtual Parking Solutions while handling parking penalty appeals for commercial operators. "The first thing we do is train drivers on where they can and cannot park. However, once you start knocking off the hotpots and start working alternative delivery areas you quickly get to a point where drivers have to park in contravention. The question then is what's the least worst time you can choose for a delivery."

Simply creating more loading bays will not work as the public will park in them, he said. " We need an innovative approach to differentiating users." The 'Virtual Parking Bay' system was devised by Herron utilising innovative patented GPS technology developed by Dr Phillip Tann, a lecturer at Sunderland University, who made headlines when accused of doing 42mph in a 30mph zone. Dr Tann was testing out prototype GPS/GPRS telemetry so presented data iat the court which proved he was doing 29mph. Herron saw how this system could be adapted to create real-time vehicle tracking and destination managment system.

"The answer is to create journey certainty." he said. "If you are on a journey from A-to-B the best thing is to know there is a guaranteed space when you arrive. With a virtual parking space you are saving CO2 emisions, fuel use and man hours. And it smoothes traffic flow." The Fleetm8 system has undergone initial trials at Westminster City Council and DHL Tradeteam, and the virtual loading bay solution emerged from those trials. "with the virtual parking bay we have created a system where you book your kerbside loading space in real-time dispensation to park on the higway. local authorities will 'risk-assess' the bays some of which may only be available for two or three hours a day when it least impinges on traffic flow."

Delivery companies using Fleetm8 (or other telemetry incorporating the bespoke software) are able to pre-book a slot in the virtual parking bay. The virtual parking bays are only visible to a vehicle's onboard telemetry and are effectively real-time, site specific exemptions. The delivery driver's in-cab GPS device or PDA receives details of the delivery window. The local authority's civil enforcement officers' GPS-enabled handhelds also receive real-time details of vehicle with a booked arrival so that they know not to issue a PCN.

"It is possible to create virtual 'geofences' which when breached by the delivery vehicle, send an automated alert to the person expecting delivery so they can be ready for the arrival so as to further reduce loading time. When the lorry leaved, it breaches the virtual polygon forming the bay so that it becomes available for someone else to book. This is managing retricted kerbspace rather than just enforcing it."

Herron said the concept can be used off-street too, with a geo fence created at the entrance and exit. Virtual bays offer local authorities a revenue stream because operators are prepared to pay for guaranteed loading slots. Herron said: "ACTIV8 would be a positive revenue model for the authorities based on the provision of a service with a traffic managment benefit and something which commercial operators from delivery companies, couriers, coach operators and utility companies have expressed and desire to see implemented."

Is this the end for the Penalty Charge Notice for commercial operators?

2010-12-06T15:01:00.003Z

Virtual bays unveiled by Herron
Neil Herron showed how freight deliveries can be simplified
Parking Review
November 2010

A new system for actively managing kerbspace to enable freight deliveries to be made without incurring parking penalties was unveiled at Parking Management 2010 by Neil Herron of Activ8 (Virtual Parking Solutions).

Herron, best known for running www.parkingappeals.co.uk, revealed a real-time vehicle tracking and space ACTIV8 Virtual Parking Solution at the conference. “Parking is not always about parking, it is often about loading and unloading vehicles,” he said. “There are differing kerbside needs for different kerbside users. The challenge is recognising and differentiating between commercial users, blue badge holders and the ordinary motorist. We need to promote active management rather than blanket enforcement.”

A traffic management perspective emphasises the need to keep kerbside spaces turning over. Herron said the problem is that restricted kerbspace is being used at a time which is convenient to commercial vehicle drivers and not when it is conducive to smoothing traffic flows. Herron said: “The penalty charge notice (PCN) commercial drivers receive is not managing the kerbside, it is effectively a £60 dispensation to park where and when they like, on zigzags, in disabled bays or double yellow lines.”

Delivery companies and their clients absorb the cost of enforcement. “Commercial operators, freight transport industry, coach operators and the utility companies are paying £500m a year in PCNs for servicing customers, and there is a further £100m admin charge for dealing with all those parking tickets,” he said.

Herron said that he developed the Activ8 Virtual Parking Solution while handling parking penalty appeals for commercial operators. “The first thing we do is train drivers on where they can and cannot park. However, once you start knocking off the hotspots and working out alternative delivery areas you quickly get to a point where drivers have to park in contravention. The question then is what’s the least worst time you can choose for a delivery.”

Simply creating more loading bays will not work as the public will park in them, he said. “We need an innovative approach to differentiating user.”

The ‘Virtual Parking Bay’ system was devised by Herron utilising innovative, patented GPS technology developed by Dr Phillip Tann, a lecturer at Sunderland University, who made headlines when accused of doing 42mph in a 30mph zone. Dr Tann was testing out prototype GPS/GPRS telemetry so presented data at the court which proved he was doing 29mph. Herron saw how this system could be adapted to create real-time vehicle tracking and destination management system. “The answer is to create journey certainty,” he said. ”If you are on a journey from A-to-B the best thing is to know there is a guaranteed space when you arrive. With a virtual parking space you are saving CO2 emissions, fuel use and man hours. And it smoothes traffic flow.”

The Fleetm8 system has undergone initial trials with Westminster City Council and DHL Tradeteam, and the Virtual Loading Bay Solution emerged from those trials. “With the virtual parking bay we have created a system where you book your kerbside loading space in real-time, effectively a real-time dispensation to park on the highway. Local authorities will ‘risk-assess’ the bays, some of which may only be available for two or three hours a day when it least impinges on traffic flow.”

Delivery companies using Fleetm8 (or other telemetry incorporating the bespoke software) are able to pre-book a slot in a virtual parking bay. The virtual bays are only visible to a vehicle's on-board telemetry and are effectively real-time, site specific exemptions. The delivery driver’s in-cab GPS device or PDA receives details of the delivery window. The local authority’s civil enforcement officers’ GPS-enabled handhelds also receive real-time details of vehicles with a booked arrival so that they know not to issue a PCN.

“It is possible to create virtual ‘geo fences’ which, when breached by the delivery vehicle, send an automated alert the person expecting delivery so they can be ready for the arrival so as to further reduce loading time. When the lorry leaves, it breaches the virtual polygon forming the bay so that it becomes available for someone else can book. This is managing restricted kerbspace rather than just enforcing.”

Herron said the concept can be used off-street too, with a geo fence created at the entrance and exit.

Virtual bays offer local authorities a revenue stream because operators are prepared to pay for guaranteed loading slots. Herron said: “ACTIV8 would be a positive revenue model for the authorities based on the provision of a service with a traffic management benefit and something which commercial operators from delivery companies, couriers, coach operators and utility companies have expressed a desire to see implemented.”

PiP frameworks revised after European ruling

2010-12-06T14:45:00.003Z

European Commission upholds procurement complaint
Parking Review November 2010

Lee RowleyWestminster City Council has been found to have infringed European Union rules on local government procurement by the European Commission (EC). The commission investigated a complaint about the city council’s decision to enable members of the Partners in Parking (PiP) procurement group to join in its use of a mobile phone parking system rather than go through their own tendering process.

The EC was investigating a complaint originally made to the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), part of the UK government’s Cabinet Office. The anonymous complainant said the phone parking contract should have been re-tendered.

The EC?agreed with the complaint and asked the OGC to take “appropriate and adequate measures for the purpose of terminating the infringement in question”.

On 20 November the EC reoported: “Westminster committed to ensure that the public bodies, parties to the framework agreement, were restricted to those expressly listed in the contract documents. Furthermore, the Office of Government Commerce has published and updated guidance on the matter, ensuring adequate identification of the bodies permitted to use framework agreements. Finally, Westminster City Council decided to limit the duration of the framework agreement to the period permitted by law.”

The framework agreement is now restricted to four years and limited to PiP’s original members: Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Islington and Camden and Transport for London.
Lee Rowley, Westminster Council’s cabinet member for parking, said: “We cooperated fully with the European Commission and OGC. It’s important to note that there was no punitive action taken by the EU against the council. Indeed, if the council had committed a serious wrongdoing then the case would have been escalated to the European Court.”

There is no suggestion that phone system provider Verrus was at fault during the process.

Westminster Council in the spotlight

2010-11-25T13:12:00.007Z

'No wrong-doing' council broke EU law
By Ed Davey 25 November 2010
BBC News, London

Council faces EU parking inquiry
A council has been censured by the European Commission for infringing contract laws - and criticised for earlier claiming in a press release it had been "cleared of any wrong-doing".

Westminster Council was the subject of an EU investigation after setting up Partners in Parking (PiP), which allowed local authorities to join forces to purchase cheap parking services.

Westminster was found to have infringed EU law

Transport for London and six local authorities in the city joined when it first started, hoping for a better deal from private parking enforcement firms.

Canadian company Verrus was awarded the contract to provide pay-and-display services, pay-by-phone, parking tickets and debt collection to the members.

Additional local authorities were then persuaded by Westminster City Council to join PiP but these contracts under European Union rules should have gone back out to tender rather than being passed automatically to Verrus.

This move prompted an investigation by the European Union after an un-named parking company complained about the process and the failure to put subsequent contracts out to tender.

But on 8 November Westminster Council released a statement saying an investigation by the European Commission into its parking contract "has cleared the authority of any wrongdoing".

Councillor Lee Rowley, Westminster's parking boss, said at the time: "We always maintained this contract was properly awarded following a tender process carried out in accordance with the law and we are obviously pleased that the EU has decided to close this case."

But BBC London has obtained documents showing the Commission found against Westminster Council and that it was ordered to make changes.

'Infringed EU law'

In an written statement it said: "The Commission considered that Westminster City Council has infringed EU law.
"The United Kingdom authorities recognised the Commission's allegations and committed to take appropriate and adequate measures for the purpose of terminating the infringement."

This statement was obtained by Gerard Batten, a Member of the European Parliament and also of UKIP.

Gerard Batten MEP said Westminster's press release was 'simply not true' He said: "The press release Westminster sent out is simply not true.
"They have not been cleared of any wrong-doing.
"They certainly were not let off scot-free."

He said he was not surprised the authority had put out "such a silly statement".

In light of the revelations, the BBC has learned some councils are considering withdrawing from PiP.

A head of parking at one of the PiP councils, speaking to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said: "The whole issue of legal capability has to be explained.
"I had the press release saying everything was in the clear.
"Then I received other information - now I am trying to ask how these things relate."

Asked if the council would now withdraw from PiP, the officer said: "Whether it is a deal-breaker I don't think we can say until they respond."

Westminster Council's initial claims followed an exchange of emails with the Office for Governmental Commerce (OGC), which dealt with the EU over the issue.

"Our earlier statement did not intend to mislead anyone”
Cllr Lee Rowley
Westminster Council

The OGC says it does not comment on individual cases but the BBC understands the OGC is privately adamant that Westminster's press release was inaccurate and the council should not have based its claims on their emails.

On Wednesday Cllr Rowley said: "Our assertion that we had been cleared of any wrong-doing was based on the fact the OGC had said that the Commission had closed the case.
"It was also based on the EU saying there had been a satisfactory outcome to its investigation.
"Our earlier statement did not intend to mislead anyone and it's important to note that there was no punitive action taken against the council."

PiP once had ambitions to go nationwide.

The minutes of its December 2009 board meeting read: "The board received a report to consider the recommendation enable non-London authorities to join PiP.

Expansion plans dropped

"An Associate Membership would be created in order to enable UK authorities outside London to take advantage of PiP procurements."

A PiP report from 2009 described Bristol, Maidstone, Swindon, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Chiltern and Oxford as having a "potential interest" in joining.

One PiP report referred to the "harmonisation" of a Westminster policy to charge motorcyclists for parking, promising to "review national policy context".

Bristol City Council was one of several authorities nationwide interested in PiP But Bristol Council raised concerns about PiP with regard to the legality of authorities outside London joining the organisation.

After the EU investigation began, expansion beyond London was shelved.

Westminster Council, which insists the EU probe did not affect the plans' termination, has since dismissed claims of national ambitions.

In July 2010 the then PiP chairman, Alastair Gilchrist, who is now strategic director of resources at Westminster Council, told other members: "Concerns about PiP's nationwide expansion are ill-conceived and regional savings are still at the heart of PiP's focus."

The EU's ruling means that only the seven authorities which first joined PiP - Westminster, the City of London, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Islington, Camden and Transport for London - may continue to use the Verrus contract.

An OGC advisory in light of the ruling suggests councils who subsequently joined PiP may be said to have made an "illegal award" of the contract to Verrus, if they used the company.

There is no suggestion of any wrong-doing by Verrus.

Enfield, Richmond, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Havering and Croydon joined PiP after its start date.

The BBC understands at least one of those authorities, Tower Hamlets, is now actively seeking to award a new contract.

Clamper convicted ...

2010-11-25T11:58:00.004Z

Clamper sentenced for ‘bullying’ tactics
Get Reading
By Laura Herbert
November 25, 2010

A clamper who demanded hundreds of pounds from a Caversham motorist he claimed was illegally parked has become one of the first clampers prosecuted under new aggressive trading laws.

Regional Clamping Services (UK) Ltd boss Lee Peacock immobilised motoring journalist James Day’s Alfa Romeo in Mill Green, Caversham, on February 11.

The parking ticket was issued by the wheel-clamping company because, it said, Mr Day’s car was causing an obstruction, had no parking permit and because signs stated ‘strictly no parking’.

He was charged £170 for the vehicle to be towed, £150 for it to be clamped and £105 (£35 per day) for it to be kept in a compound in Iver, Buckinghamshire – a total of £425.

Mr Day, of nearby Queens Road, made the 30-mile trip to the compound two days later to have his car released.

Peacock, from Uxbridge, appeared at Brent Magistrates’ Court in London on November 2 where he admitted two bankruptcy offences, two counts of fraud and one of aggressive trading. The charges do not relate to Mr Day.

He is also accused of breaking the law by running Regional Clamping Services (UK) Ltd as he was disqualified as a director and from using the company name after his original business Regional Clamping Services Ltd went into liquidation in February 2009.

Peacock was sentenced to 16 weeks suspended for 18 months for both fraud counts to run concurrently, and 10 weeks suspended for 18 months for bankruptcy offences. Both sentences are to run consecutively.

He must also carry out 120 hours’ unpaid work, fined £500 and ordered to pay £3,433 in costs.

Mr Day, 27, said: “I’m pleased the law has finally caught up with him and I know Brent Trading Standards played a big part in bringing this crook to book.

“It’s just a shame it took a kind of loophole law to prosecute him rather than clamping being illegal in the first place, like in other parts of the UK.

“The sentence itself is too lenient for someone who has clearly profited huge amounts of money from his aggressive practices. Money that in most cases won’t find its way back to victims and in some cases caused distress as a result of intimidation.”

He added: “I hope residents who feel the need to have parking restrictions placed in their neighbourhoods think long and hard about who they employ to enforce them, especially as Mr Peacock already had an alleged history of malpractice before being prosecuted.”

Reading East MP Rob Wilson, who was contacted by Mr Day at the time, said of the sentencing: “I think this is a warning to all clamping companies that are sailing close to the wind that their behaviour is not going to be tolerated in the future.

“We came into Government with a clear mission to make sure companies that were being overly aggressive, bullying and working at the edges of the law are going to be dealt with.”

He added: “I am so pleased to see this case has gone to court and I hope other companies will learn from it.

“There are very reputable companies that do a reasonable job and work within the law. There’s no reason why all of these companies can’t do that.”

Council runs for cover ...

2010-11-24T16:26:00.004Z

Our press release went out yesterday from the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund offering to handle Irene's case and we are pleased to say that we will not be required. Our council insider reveals that the council read the blog here and thought better of it and cancelled the PCNs rather than getting into what would have been a very public spat.

‘Cowards’ back down over parking farce
Southend Echo
24th November 2010

A 90-YEAR-OLD woman has been spared from two parking tickets she received within the space of just 15 minutes, thanks to the Echo.

Yesterday, the Echo highlighted the plight of Irene Reynolds, who was given the fines after her disabled permit accidentally became partially obscured on two occasions.

Despite appealing against the tickets, Southend Council officials had refused to back down. However, after we intervened, officials looked again at the case and changed their minds.

Mrs Reynolds, who told the Echo she would rather serve time in jail than pay the fines, said: “I think they are cowards because I would have gone to prison.

“It is so pathetic.
“Too damn silly for words.”

Mrs Reynolds, of High Street, Old Leigh, who is recovering from a broken leg, got her first ticket when she inadvertently left a glove partially covering her permit.

She then dropped her friend in Leigh Broadway but, in gratitude for the lift, he left a Mars bar on her dashboard which, once again, partially obscured her permit.

She told how traffic wardens were thoroughly amused by the whole incident.

Mrs Reynolds, the former head of the old Westminster School in Westcliff, added: “They were laughing at me as they put the second ticket on the windscreen.

“They were awful.
“If I thought one of my former pupils had become a traffic warden like them I think I would feel I had done a poor job.
“I am 90 years old and in very poor health. I think they should have used their common sense in the first place.”

Derek Kenyon, the council’s parking manager, said: “We have considered this case very carefully, and on this occasion we will be cancelling these penalty charge notices.
“However, it is important to abide by the rules for the use of disabled parking badges, laid down by the Department for Transport.”

Ticketed motorist accuses council of unfair treatment

2010-11-24T10:39:00.001Z

Very laudable by the council not to contest the decision due to the fact that they had not received the information from the DfT in time. They state:
"we decided not to contest the appeal while we fully confirmed that the signage is legitimate."

Such information, the use of non-prescribed signs, would require Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State for Transport. Let us hope that the council has now received this information to 'fully confirm' that their signage is legitimate.

This is Devon
By Emma Pearcy epearcy@heraldexpress.co.uk
23rd September 2010
A Teignmouth woman who successfully contested a parking ticket has accused highways and enforcment authorities of treating drivers unfairly.

Sheila Robinson claims a parking enforcment zone in the resort's Somerset Place is poorly signed.

But Teignbridge Council, which carries out enforcement action on behalf of Devon County Council, vociferously denied her claims saying it is signed properly and she 'got off' on a technicality.

The council says the area has always been correctly signed but confirmation from the Department of Transport did not arrive in time for Mrs Robinson's appeal.

Mrs Robinson successfully contested a ticket slapped on her car in Somerset Place in January.
She said: " A lot of people are not aware the area is part of the parking enforcement zone.
"I saw the signs warning motorists it's a parking enforcement zone are not in the right place.
"If you miss one there is nothing else to warn you that you are in a parking enforcement zone.
"I challenged the ticket because there was nothing to show me, as a law-abiding citizen, that it was an enforcement zone.
"Any logical thinking person would think they are not doing anything wrong."

Her appeal, against Teignbridge Council and Devon County Council as highways authority, was completed earlier this month after nine months and her ticket was cancelled.

She said: "There was no doubt in my mind I would succeed in my appeal."

A Teignbridge Council spokesman said: "This area is correctly signed, but an administrative issue meant we did not have the paperwork from the Department of Transport confirming its legitimacy to hand at the time of the appeal.

"Rather than spend taxpayers' money chasing this up within the short time frame allowed by an appeal, we decided not to contest the appeal while we fully confirmed that the signage is legitimate.
"On-street parking legislation is set by Devon County Council and enforced by Teignbridge Council on their behalf.
"The cost of the service, including dealing with challenges, is covered by the county council as part of a set service agreement, so appeals do not increase the cost of the service to the public. "While we appreciate a parking ticket is never welcome, the regulations are there for everyone's benefit. Any driver choosing to break the rules risks a ticket."

Show me the money!

2010-11-23T10:16:00.004Z

Pressure on parking wardens will send their wages soaring
Felix Allen and Mark Blunden
London Evening Standard
22.11.10

Parking attendants will regularly double their wages as London's town halls urge them to issue more tickets to raise money to offset government cuts.

The warning follows revelations that a warden in one of the most deprived boroughs earned more than £50,000 last year.

Known as a Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officer, he earned £52,786 — more than some charity chief executives and four times a new nurse.

Another Tower Hamlets attendant was paid £44,319, despite a basic salary of £26,800.

Neil Herron, of the London Motorists' Action Group, said: “We hear that the guys who go out and ticket the best get the biggest bonuses, only they don't call it a bonus. We are repeatedly told there are no targets but how can anyone earn £53,000 if they're not being rewarded with some kind of bonus?”

Tower Hamlets said the “one-off” salaries consisted of overtime and pay reviews, with the average warden earning £26,800.

A council spokeswoman said: “Our civil enforcement officers do not receive any bonuses or payments related to the number of notices issued.”

Other boroughs paying high wages to parking attendants include Hounslow where one employee earned £42,524, and another, in Merton, £35,339.

A Mars a day keeps you fine(d)

2010-11-23T07:36:00.006Z

Is this what parking enforcement is about?

90 year old Blue Badge Holder treated with contempt by laughing wardens... and then Southend Council refuses to cancel the PCNs. Shame on you all!

The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund has offered to take the case on and will guarantee that these PCNs will be cancelled otherwise they will pay the costs.

Irene, 90: I’ll go to jail rather than pay fines
22nd November 2010

A 90-YEAR-OLD woman says she’ll go to prison rather than pay two parking tickets she was given in the space of just 15 minutes.

Irene Reynolds found her car, parked near her home in Old Leigh High Street, had been given a ticket because she had accidentally left a glove covering part of her disabled permit.

Still seething about parking wardens’ meanness, she drove off to take a friend to Leigh Broadway, where she parked on Leigh Hill, near St Clement’s Church.

Her friend left her a Mars bar on the dashboard as a thank you present for the lift – and it covered part of her parking permit. The result: Another ticket.

Retired headmistress Mrs Reynolds, who is recovering from a broken leg, said of the second incident: “I parked on double yellow lines, which I’m allowed do with my permit, but I saw two traffic wardens nearby and, not wanting to take any more chances, asked them if I was all right where I had parked. They said I was fine.

“I popped in to a nearby store and when I came back, I could see the wardens standing there laughing their heads off. I hobbled as fast as I could to the car, but was horrified to find another ticket.
“My friend had left a Mars bar on the dashboard for me, to say thanks for the lift, but he had accidentally put part of the chocolate over my permit.”

Mrs Reynolds pleaded with the wardens, but they refused to let her off. She later appealed to Southend Council, which refused to waive the tickets.

The former head of the old Westminster School, in Westcliff, added: “I couldn’t believe they could all be so heartless. I know you have to display the permit clearly, but it wasn’t completely covered. It was quite obvious I had a permit. I absolutely refuse to pay these fines.
“I will go to prison before I pay a penny. It’s too silly for words and just so unfair.”

The council has promised to look into the incidents after the Echo raised them with it.

Parking manager Derek Kenyon said: “A detailed investigation into these notices, is now under way. We hope to resolve this by next week.”

Sunday Times Magazine ...first time for everything

2010-11-21T19:28:00.003Z

Drove round Sunderland with Matt and detailed the many failings of a mismanaged system of enforcement, not just in Sunderland but across the country. As councils start their 'we need to raise PCN levels' kite flying exercise a very bright spotlight is about to be shone on an 'industry' that has failed to self-regulate and whose failings have been regularly ignored by all and sundry. When it has come under scrutiny and challenge by the public in Dave's Big Society those individuals have been treated with disproportionate costs. The truth will eventually out and there are some very worried council officers (serving and former) who may well suffer at the hands of their former colleagues.

I'll only be parking my car here for a couple of minutes
Matt Rudd
21 November 2010

The meter is ticking for traffic wardens, but don't rejoice yet. The smart computers that are replacing them can spot a transgression a mile away.

Tuesday. 1600 hours. A windowless control room somewhere deep in an anonymous Marylebone office block, central London, and it’s all very Spooks. I am sitting next to Donald, nickname: the Godfather.
From his bank of computer screens, he can control more than 100 cordless cameras across London, but right now we’re focused on just one.

With the help of joystick controls, we have our target locked: the man is sitting in his sleek black Mercedes on Harley Street. From his relaxed demeanour, it is clear he has no idea we’re watching him or that, in 13 seconds, he’s toast. Ten, nine, eight… it’s the point in the operation where all the training comes in…
Five, four, three… Come to papa. Two, one… boom! Target eliminated.

Well, okay, not eliminated. But that’s more than two minutes and one second parked on a single yellow line between the hours of 8.30am and 6.30pm, Mr Mercedes Driver. No explosion, no sniper’s bullet, but in about 10 days’ time, you will be receiving a £60 parking ticket. Kapow.
This is just the start: the traditional traffic warden is dead. The cyber-enforcement officer is taking over I am willing to accept that the parking-enforcement headquarters of Westminster council are not quite as glamorous as the MI6 headquarters across the river, but it is certainly futuristic. And while MI6 might be concerned with dirty bombs, terror cells and agents in holdalls, Donald and his colleagues are after you. Yes, you. The illegal parker. They are the traffic wardens of the future. They sit at their terminals — up to 10 of them at a time — prowling the streets virtually, via wi-fi CCTV.

This is the first time anywhere in the world that remote, wireless cameras have been used to enforce parking. They find an illegally parked car, they video it for that very precise, very legally binding two minutes and one second, and they issue the ticket.
Five or six an hour is a good rate of attack — and all from the comfort of a swivel chair. Donald prefers it to his days issuing tickets on the actual streets. You get less hassle, he says, but “not as much exercise”.

The £1.3m annual contract for the CCTV operation is outsourced to the private company NSL (“intelligent urban management solutions for the public and private sector”), which is the largest employer of enforcement officers in the country. They are very proud of Donald and his team. They’ve already shown him off to several British councils, the Icelanders and the Norwegians. Next week, a delegation from Stockholm will drop in. Everyone has been terribly enthusiastic. Everyone, I’m guessing, except the man in the black Mercedes when, in a few days, he opens that official-looking envelope from Westminster council (the printing of which, by the way, is outsourced to another joyless office in Scotland).

The purist would argue that Mercedes man deserves it. He shouldn’t have parked on the single yellow line in the first place. Donald points out that when they first put one of the cameras in Soho’s Old Compton Street, they were issuing 50 tickets a day. Now, this has reduced to a trickle — and the road is clear. To demonstrate, he flicks his screen to Old Compton Street and shows me how devoid of cars it is. “Everyone knows not to park illegally down there,” he says, proudly.
To the rest of us, getting ticketed by a man watching you from 1.8 miles across town with a two-minute stopwatch might seem a bit, well, unfair. Officious. An infringement of one’s God-given right to wi-fi-free fair play.

But this is just the start: the traditional traffic warden is dead. The cyber-enforcement officer is taking over. Westminster’s multi-million-pound black ops is at the forefront of a step-change in parking control. It’s getting smarter, it’s getting more technical and it’s getting harder to avoid.

Banksy’s fantasy of a steamrolled traffic warden in Lewisham

Six years ago, 6m parking tickets were issued in England alone. Last year, that figure reached 9m. That’s 9m £60 fines. Or 9m days ruined. Only 1% of offenders bother to appeal. The rest accept their fate and pay up. The threat of the fine doubling if it isn’t settled within 14 days — something oddly akin to the concept of pleading guilty to get a lighter sentence — might have something to do with it.

Across the country, video surveillance — both at fixed points and in cars — is becoming de rigueur for parking control. Thirty-four councils used it last year, generating £3m in fines. Many more local authorities have gone high-tech this year. In Cheshire, they’re now being used to clamp down on double-parking at the school gate. As of January, Bolton council will be armed with a Smart Car sporting a 3.6m-high CCTV mast. In Enfield, north London, 40% of parking tickets were issued via CCTV in the first 12 months of the programme. And in just one year, Camera No 225 on Grant Road, next to Clapham Junction railway station, issued more than 6,000 tickets, earning £300,000 for Wandsworth council. As of this month, Bromley council has even started strapping head-cams to its wardens. Awesome.

For those kids who didn’t make it through the X Factor auditions, might I recommend the all-new BTec in CCTV Traffic Enforcement? You’ll be taught “within the current legal framework and gain the confidence to handle breaches of regulations correctly and effectively”. Forget the three Rs. In these times of economic uncertainty, these are the future-proof skills you need. It wasn’t always like this. There used to be traffic wardens, the old sort, in black-and-yellow uniforms. The Yellow Peril. They started patrolling Britain’s streets in September 1960, not just to “issue tickets for parking offences” but also to “offer advice to motorists”. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? “I wouldn’t park there, sonny. I’d have to give you a ticket. Oh, and your left rear’s a bit flat.” That sort of thing.

It simply isn’t fair if you’re getting a ticket from a camera you may not have even noticed. Where’s the discretion? Of course they were unpopular. Nobody’s ever going to love a traffic warden. In fact it only took three years before the first motorist had rigged up a vehicle to an electric cattle prod with the sole intent to electrocute one. Peter Hicks, a powerboat-racing farmer who used to fly his produce from Sussex to the wholesale market in Covent Garden by ex-American army helicopter, was just the sort of eccentric to take on these newfangled parking enforcers. In 1963, he booby-trapped his Land Rover with a 2,000-volt charge and spent many a happy lunch in the pub with his mates watching traffic wardens try to ticket it. “The attempts frequently ended in a huge bang and much merriment for those watching in the pub,” recalls his son. Hicks was eventually arrested and charged with assault, but after nine months the police dropped all charges.

While this doesn’t mean that in the 1960s it was legal to electrocute traffic wardens, prosecutors decided they wouldn’t be able to make an assault charge stick.
Hicks got off with a warning, but he didn’t know how good he had it back then. Things are quite different today. If you want a piece of legislation to blame, try the 1991 Road Traffic Act. It allowed local authorities to apply for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) powers. They could create controlled parking zones (CPZs) within which PCNs (penalty charge notices) could be issued without recourse to law. Parking was no longer a police matter.

Instead of traffic wardens, this heralded the rise of the civil enforcement officer, the employment of whom was increasingly outsourced to private companies. By the end of the 1990s, all of London’s councils were using CPZs. Manchester adopted them in 1999, Liverpool in 2002. Then the smaller rural councils followed suit. Now, 272 of the 326 local authorities in England have decriminalised parking.

“In every local authority area where CPZs were introduced, there has been at least a five-fold increase in the number of tickets issued,” says the parking campaigner Neil Herron as we drive around Sunderland on a sunny Monday morning. “It’s because the councils can keep the money. Under the old system, you were fined by the court and the money went to the Treasury. Now, the councils get it all. Herron has spent most of the last decade fighting what he sees as the mission creep of parking regulation.

He points out all the city-centre shops that have closed in recent months. Of course, it’s because of the recession, but the tough parking controls have, he says, pushed several small businesses into the abyss. There’s a boarded-up newsagent, a boarded-up grocer’s, a boarded-up furniture store, all gone to the wall, says Herron, because parking in town is a nightmare.
“Civil servants are no longer civil, or servants. Instead, we’ve let these petty officials accrue absolute power. Local authority regimes have come to depend on the vast rewards from parking enforcement to support and underpin their profligacy as a stealth tax,” he says, as a warden swaggers past.

When I ask Herron what he thinks about the spread of CCTV enforcement, he shrugs and says it’s part of our gradual transition into a Big Brother state. The AA calls it “Orwellian”. Paul Watters, the AA’s head of roads and transport policy, says things have got out of hand. “It’s not a moving offence. It’s not a speeding offence. And yet the fine is the same. And it simply isn’t fair if you’re getting a ticket from a camera you may not have even noticed. Where’s the discretion?”
The people in charge of the future of parking over in Westminster are moving to the next stage which they’re calling, rather frighteningly, smart enforcement. The ticketing machines that wardens carry are being upgraded. From now on, wardens won’t just ticket. They’ll feed information back to a central “compliance” database to enable controllers to “rapidly deploy” staff to problem areas. It’s the parking equivalent of a Swat team. The new handheld computers could also, the council hopes, “limit the enforcement options available to the warden depending on the type of parking offence committed, the location and any previous tickets issued to the motorist”.

Because, when you ask them, they like to show their touchy-feely side. They’re all about compliance rather than profit. They want to educate rather than penalise. And they’re keen to change the reputation of the civil enforcement officer as a ticket-happy jobsworth. That won’t be easy, as a glance over recent headlines shows.

June 28, 2007: “Traffic warden battered unconscious at soldier’s wake”;

December 18, 2007: “Traffic warden homophobically attacked in Blackpool”;

September 4, 2009: “Driver who caused injuries to traffic warden jailed”;

February 11, 2010: “Traffic warden has cigarette stubbed in his face”;

June 14, 2010: “Traffic warden attacked with knife in Northamptonshire”;

September 10, 2010: “Driver attempts to run down traffic warden in Croydon”.

Cherelle, egged on by Matt Rudd, slaps a PCN on a Land Rover in Soho
Cherelle is a traffic warden in Soho. Unlike Donald, she is a real person on the real streets giving out actual tickets. I join her for her evening patrol one Tuesday to see how it’s done, the old-fashioned way. It’s a chance, the council tells me, to see that not all parking-enforcement people are evil, that they may be doing the job for good reasons. Don’t judge me for this, but Cherelle and I start out getting on famously. When we meet, I’m nervous. I am, after all, a parking-enforcement officer by association. It’s getting dark. I’m going to be run down, have a cigarette put out in my face, be forced to go to Croydon. Cherelle, on the other hand, isn’t nervous at all. She loves her job. She gave up a career in marketing to do it. And although many of her colleagues might be moving up into the cyber-headquarters, she wouldn’t want to follow. “I’m happy walking the streets,” she says. “I like talking to people. If you can’t talk to people, you can’t see the whole picture.” It’s all about people skills, you see. Not all parking enforcement needs to be evil.

We’ll see. We walk past a brand-new Land Rover on Soho Square. I think it’s been pretty well established that a 4x4 is not ideally suited to central London.
As if to prove my point, this monster is crossing a good 10 inches into the neighbouring parking space.
“Can we ticket that?” I ask Cherelle, hopefully.
“Noooo,” she replies, because she is a reasonable parking-enforcement officer on an official media tour.
“Oh, come on,” I say. “It’s taking up two spaces.” If ever there was a reasonable time and place for parking enforcement, it’s right here, right now, on this Land Rover’s ass.
Cherelle starts issuing the ticket. He looks casual. Cherelle looks calm. I try to blend into the adjacent sex shop (not easy)
Because she doesn’t yet have the new handheld computer that will be controlling her movements via a mastermind central database, she checks with head office by mobile phone. And they say, yes — Offence 26: incorrect parking, or parking not within a bay. PCN-time. Kerching.

As Cherelle fills out the £60 fine (rising to £120 after 14 days, of course), a low-slung Toyota comes around the corner and slows down.
“How do you sleep at night?” yells the driver before cruising off down Greek Street.
Five minutes later, we’re having a face-off with a double-parked minicab driver who’s refusing to move because he’s eating his chicken and rice.
Cherelle starts issuing the ticket. He looks casual. Cherelle looks calm. I try to blend into the adjacent sex shop (not easy, lots of dildos).
“You do realise I’m going to issue you for being here?” she reiterates and starts taking photographs. Finally, he drives off, head bowed, battle lost. It’s been 10 minutes of confrontation. I ask Cherelle if she thinks she’ll suffer post-traumatic stress when she retires. She says she never takes her work home with her.

Water off a traffic warden’s back. She adds that she gets a lot of men flirting with her. It’s the uniform, she says. Now, Cherelle is a perfectly attractive lady, but to any man out there who finds that particular uniform alluring: that is niche, my friend. Seriously niche. They don’t even do websites for that sort of thing.

It’s halfway through our evening together and we’re at the sharp end. A truck is offloading in a suspended bay. Cherelle has her grumpy face on. The driver is nowhere to be seen. The driver’s mate is trying to stall her by doing jokes, diversion techniques and panic, but nothing’s working. She’s going to give the truck a ticket. This seems totally unfair. They aren’t blocking the road. They aren’t causing any trouble. They’re just trying to get some supplies into a local theatre.

This time, I try to blend into a coffee shop as things turn unreasonable. With seconds to spare, the driver emerges from a shop, slams the back door shut and hops into the front seat. With a sarcastic, nay triumphant wave, he drives off. “That was quite harsh,” I tell Cherelle. She’s astonished. “I think I was nice,” she says. “He had committed an offence and he was continuing to commit an offence. I talked to him.”
I’m out with the nicest parking-enforcement officer in London, the one they send out with journalists. And she still couldn’t give the lorry bloke an extra couple of minutes to offload his van. But at least she talked to him. If CCTV had been involved, the driver would have got a ticket.
Then, Cherelle goes rogue. A Spanish couple start videoing us. Cherelle, who had been doing a moped for parking on a pavement, storms over and, after a long chat, confiscates the DVD from their camera. “I don’t want to be on the internet doing this. The council would be furious. You can’t record people without permission,” she says. This isn’t strictly true. You can record what you like in public. It’s only when you stick it on YouTube that things get tricky.

A few minutes later, the Spanish boyfriend returns looking sheepish. He says he’s just remembered there’s something on the tape he wouldn’t want anyone else to see. Could he snap it in half?
And me and his very grumpy Spanish girlfriend watch as Cherelle agrees to let him destroy what was undoubtedly his prized London amateur porn movie.

I feel like a coffee break, but Cherelle is busy clearing an entire street of minicabs. She asks a frightened Chinese family to move on but ignores one illegally parked car because it’s a chauffeur waiting for an actor to come out of a studio. “I don’t ticket cars waiting for actors,” she explains. “Actors get enough hassle.” This is all mind-boggling to me, the civilian.

I ask her if she ever feels guilty and she says she once ticketed a car that she subsequently realised was owned by a disabled person. Then she felt bad. But she’s nothing like the big issuers, as she calls them. “They’ll stick a ticket on first and ask questions later. I don’t do that.”
Cherelle is hardcore — you have to be to do her job — but rather charming. Nevertheless, after three hours in her wake, I need two G&Ts on my 20-minute train home to steady my nerves.
Between you and me, it’s easy to get off a CCTV ticket. All you need to do is say that you were helping a pregnant women cross the road Councils will tell you that 10 years from now they expect to be issuing far fewer tickets. The dream for them and their third-party contractors is to achieve 95% compliance.

Fewer tickets sounds good, but what it means for the motorist is that you will do as you’re told. The days of dodging the warden will be over.
Set foot in a bus lane, put your tickers on in a loading bay, pull over for a couple of minutes to buy the wonderful Sunday Times as a newspaper, and you will be zapped. Gizmos such as portable CCTV, handheld computers and all-seeing compliance databases will be one step ahead of you. Orwellian indeed. Are there ways to resist? We could revolt. As Neil Herron says, you get a £70 fine if you shoplift, and £60 if you stop on a single yellow at the wrong time in front of a CCTV camera.
“The motoring public of this country has been treated as a cash cow for too long,” he says. “This is not just about a parking ticket ... it’s about how we are governed and the contempt with which we are held.
We have reached the watershed and it is now the time for change.” We could stand up to the councils and their cyber-parking attack dogs. We could stop paying our council tax until the £60 fine is halved and the 14-day doubling threat is abandoned. We could lock up all the civil enforcers for being horrid. But that’s not terribly British. It’s more French — and look at the mess they’re in.

We could tell a lie. Back in that windowless Marylebone control room, Donald had whispered a bit of advice just before I’d said goodbye. “Between you and me,” he confided, looking around nervously, “it’s easy to get off a CCTV ticket. All you need to do is say that you were helping a pregnant women cross the road just around the corner. Or an old woman get up some stairs. That sort of thing. The council won’t bother contesting your appeal. It’s too much hassle.”
Or we could forget parking altogether and take the train.

Adur council oversight prompts parking ticket refunds

2010-11-17T14:31:00.005Z

Now this is how it should be ... a lesson to all councils out there. Well done Adur and this follows on from a similar example set by South Tyneside, Sheffield and Guildford.

BBC News Sussex
An oversight by a Sussex council has led to people being wrongfully fined for parking offences in Shoreham.
Adur District Council said a parking order for the town's Ropetackle car park was inadvertently not completed in October 2008.

The error means people who paid to park were wrongfully charged, and those who received parking tickets were wrongfully fined. Refunds for Penalty Charge Notices are being organised with immediate effect.Machines suspended
The council said people did not need to contact the local authority for parking fine refunds.
People can claim refunds for pay and display charges at the Adur Civic Centre cash office between 11 November and 10 December, providing they have kept their Ropetackle car parking ticket. Ticket machines are currently suspended at the car park until a new order is in place, the council added. A 21-day consultation will run until 3 December, and the new order should come into force in early January.

Response from Adur Council ... an example to all

2010-11-17T14:02:00.004Z

From: Ian Lowrie Sent: 10 November 2010 15:43
To: Neil Herron
Subject
RE: Adur Council restitution ... Clarification sought

Dear Mr Herron,
I am sure you will be pleased to know that I can confirm that we are contacting direct those people who received fines incorrectly. Whilst we did make the mistake that created the situation, the open admission of such an error is by far the best way to handle it in my experience. Then we can move on more rapidly to the positive actions we prefer to be associated with.
So it does appear that your email ends up as a compliment, though I regret your implicit comment that you find this exceptional or surprising. We always try to be open and straightforward whenever we can, as do most of the councils I know.
Best wishes
Ian Lowrie

Ian Lowrie - Chief Executive Chief Executive's Office, Adur District Council and Worthing Borough CouncilLocation: Town Hall, Chapel Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1HAInternal: 1001 External: 01903 221001 E-mail: ian.lowrie@worthing.gov.uk

Adur Council restitution ... Clarification sought

2010-11-16T15:46:00.000Z

Mr Ian Lowrie
Chief Executive, Adur and Worthing Borough Councils
Adur District Council
Civic Centre, Ham Road
Shoreham-by-Sea
West Sussex, BN43 6PR
(01273) 263000

Dear Sir,

Un-completed traffic order for Ropetackle Car Park

I write in response to a BBC news report that Adur Council has suspended parking charges and parking contravention enforcement in consequence of some fatal omission in the traffic order that was intended to authorise the operation of this car park.
I see it also reported that "people do not need to contact the local authority for parking fine refunds".
I am accordingly writing to ask your clarification of this statement which I take to mean that Adur Council will be proactively identifying those who have paid penalty charges, for the purpose of refunding the penalty charges that were paid.

If this is the case then I compliment you and your officers for acting untypically in a correct, honest and exemplary manner that is commendably in contrast with many bad examples of what passes for lawful parking enforcement in this country.

I sincerely hope that you will be able to confirm that my understanding of the situation is correct.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

BMF: Bike Parking - BMF Appeals for Appeal Funds

2010-11-15T14:51:00.004Z

As the momentum grows and councils acrosss the country look to raise parking fines to London levels it is time for a full and frank debate on what the purpose of 'parking' enforcement is all about and where the role of traffic managament comes into the equation.

By Polotics.co.uk

Thursday, 11, Nov 2010

The British Motorcyclists Federation is calling on all UK motorcyclists, no matter where they may live, to support the No To Bike Parking Tax campaign (NTBPT) against Westminster's on-street parking charges for motorcycles.

A strong supporter of the NTBPT campaign to overturn the parking charges imposed on motorcyclists by Westminster City Council, the bmf say that with a ruling last week that the High Court may have got it wrong in judging that the charges were legal, and with what was said to be 'a good prospect of success at the re-trial', now is the time to really get behind the campaign.

But with the Court of Appeal Hearing listed for mid-March, there is a desperate need for legal funding. The fund has already passed the £5,000 mark, but at least £20,000 will be required for the appeal case to be properly presented. Motorcyclists donating* the cost of a couple of gallons of petrol could make all the difference say the bmf.

The bmf's Government Relations Executive Chris Hodder, said: "Make no mistake about it, this is not just a London issue, the High Court ruling that Westminster's parking charges for motorcycles are legal could well signal the end of free parking for motorcyclists across the UK. That's why this case is important, that's why this funding is important, and without it we cannot succeed."

In order to maintain the protest's high profile, the latest in a series of protest rides is to be held on Sunday 5th December around London's North and South circular routes. To be known as the 'Ace to Ace - the North & South Circular Run', the fund-raising ride leaves the world famous Ace Café, North Circular, Stonebridge, at 10.30hrs and returns at around 16.00hrs.
Although all riders are welcome to join the protest, it is also hoped that whether they attend or not, motorcyclists can donate £10 each to the legal challenge fund.

Fund donations should be made to: 'NTBPT' SORT CODE: 40-02-35, A/C 11411047.

Parking fines could be the highest in UK under new plans by county council

2010-10-28T12:11:00.005+01:00

This is where the 'kite-flying' began.

The Lincolnshire Echo
26th October 2010

Motorists could soon be fined £80 for parking misdemeanours under new proposals by Lincolnshire County Council.

Motorists caught parking illegally in Lincolnshire could soon be paying the highest fines in the UK under new proposals.

Lincolnshire County Council is to seek advice from the Deparment for Transport (DfT) on whether it can charge offenders £80 for parking misdemeanours.
The Conservative-controlled authority believes it would be the first in the UK to go above the current Government guidelines of £70.

County council officers are developing plans to take control of parking enforcement from Lincolnshire Police and say this penalty increase would save taxpayers at least £250,000 over the next five years.
Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond would need to give special authorisation if a formal application was submitted. But motoring group the AA believes hiking up fines to raise revenue for the council would be illegal.

County council divisional highways manager Brian Thompson said: "The Government has previously indicated that Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) should bot be financially detrimental to local authorities.
"As it stands, the scheme would currently result in a significant deficit for Lincolnshire.
"For this reason, we are planning to approach the Department for Transport to explore the possibility of a rise in the penalty to mitigate the costs entailed."
County council estimates suggest the cost of implementing CPE would be almost £1.5 million over a five-year period if it was to run it using its own staff.
Using an external company would cost £743,000 during the same time frame.

An application for CPE is expected to be submitted by the county council to the DfT by February next year.
AA head of public affairs and parking spokesman, Paul Watters, said applying to raise the maximum parking charge to raise cash was "against the law".

Mr Watters said: "Councils are not allowed to use penalty levels as a revenue-raising exercise.
"It must only be to deter drivers. The council is naive it it thinks it can set penalty levels to raise revenue."
Discussing the issue at yesterday's county council highways, transport and technology scrutiny committee, councillor gave a mixed reception to increasing the fine.
Mr Thompson said it would have a "significant effect" on finances.
He addes: "But it would make Lincolnshire different."
Conservative Councillor David Brailsford said: "I am going to suggest we don't go out on a limb. I know there are financial implications. but to charge higher in Lincolnshire than anywhere else would be extremely unpopular."

Independent Councillor Ray Newell said: "What is the argument against getting more money in from someone that is disobeying the instructions? This will either sink or swim. In the financial climate by putting this figure up it's more likely we will be swimming than losing."
But Lincoln Birchwood Tory Councillor Eddie Strengiel said the current financial climate provided its own pressures.

He said: " The current financial situation is a little bit sensitive."

Parking tribunal Chief tells councils to show common sense

2010-10-19T09:56:00.004+01:00

Perhaps the motoring public would have more faith in the system if decisions by the TPT were consistent ... and applied the law in relation to signing. We have seen many instances where they chant the mantra 'no reasonable person could have been misled' which is at odds with regard to the fact that signing must comply with the law. PATAS on the other hand is far more consistent in its approach. However, new developments on a number of fronts will shake this 'industry' from top to bottom ... and the recent arrest and pending trial of a council officer for misconduct in public office will cause a great deal of consternation as whistleblowers queue up to ensure that they are not tarred with the same brush.

The Sunday Telegraph
By David Harrison

10 Oct 2010
Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, accused some local authorities of operating a "zero tolerance" approach to minor infringements.

She suggested that motorists who are given parking tickets for petty breaches of the rules should be let off if they appeal against the penalties. Mrs Sheppard complained that motorists were being punished for such offences as leaving one wheel over the white line of a car park bay, or failing to display their pay-and-display ticket correctly.

In such cases, drivers whose penalties were upheld on appeal to town halls have subsequently had them overturned by the tribunal.
Last year the tribunal received more than 12,000 applications to overturn tickets. In more than 60 per cent of cases it ruled in favour of the motorist.

The intervention by the chief adjudicator comes after The Sunday Telegraph's Campaign for Fair Parking highlighted cases where councils have carried on issuing tickets in areas where they knew the signs were illegal. Mrs Sheppard accused councils of failing to exercise their discretion when penalties were challenged, and called for "an outbreak of common sense" over trivial cases.
She urged motorists to appeal against penalties if they think they have been dealt with unfairly or illegally.
She said: "Motorists must appeal if they have any doubts over penalty charges. People want to explain but we only see what comes before us, so let us look at it."

The chief adjudicator said she was concerned that too many councils were failing in their statutory duty to give proper consideration to representations made by motorists contesting penalties, or to evidence offered in mitigation.

She said that motorists' letters of explanation to town halls were often dismissed with a standard response letter of one or two lines – a practice which suggests that their arguments "had not been considered properly or fairly".
Many councils were "unwilling or unable to consider challenges based on mitigating circumstances", Mrs Sheppard said.

Mitigation pleas are common in cases where a ticket had been issued because of a failure to display a permit, disabled parking badge or pay-and-display ticket.
Many councils had taken the "extraordinary" view that it was somehow "fairer" to reject all representations, she said.

Adjudicators had seen this explained in letters of rejection in which council officials said it would be "unfair" on people who had paid a penalty charge if those who made representations were "let off".

Mrs Sheppard, a barrister, also criticised the rising number of appeals that councils failed to contest at the tribunal, saying: "I don't understand why local authorities reject drivers' representations and then go no further."

The tribunal, which covers all of England and Wales except Greater London, considers cases where motorists have received a parking ticket then appealed to the town hall, which has upheld the decision.

It received 12,423 submissions last year, an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year's figure.Of cases decided by the tribunal, 34 per cent were won by the motorist because the council did not contest the case and a further 28 per cent were decided in favour of the motorist after the adjudicator considered and rejected the council's arguments, meaning that 62 per cent of all appeals were successful.

In nine out of the past 10 years, the proportion of successful appeals has been over 60 per cent.
Last year in 28 areas more than half of all appeals went uncontested by the local authorities concerned.

Areas with the highest proportion of tickets overturned at the tribunal in 2008/9, the most recent figures available, included the Medway towns in Kent, where 360 motorists appealed to the tribunal and 91% were successful, and Slough, where 246 appealed and 84% were successful.
The chief adjudicator declined to comment on councils which instructed enforcement officers to issue tickets despite having being warned that their regulations or signposts were legally flawed.
But she said it was "regrettable" that the tribunal was still being asked to determine appeals against penalties issued on streets where road signs were misleading and confusing.

In some cases, the tribunal has told councils to ensure that their parking officials receive guidance from their legal teams.

Parking tickets can only be issued when a motorist has broken a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), or bylaw, that has been made correctly by the local authority.
Mrs Sheppard said that adjudicators were "bewildered" by some TROs, and called for greater clarity so that parking signs were clear and unambiguous.
The most common appeals were over pay and display tickets, "signs and lines", vehicle ownership, loading and unloading, penalty charge notices not issued or not on the vehicle, residents and visitors permits, and disabled bays and badges.

Most (57 per cent) of appeals are dealt with by post, 35 per cent by personal hearing and 8 per cent by the recently introduced telephone conference, the latter up from 12 in 2008 to 167 last year.

Yellow box camera raises £1 million a year

2010-10-18T15:47:00.008+01:00

If so many motorists are committing contraventions then the traffic and highways engineers have failed ... from a traffic management perspective. If it is about raising revenue then they have been hugely successful.

The Telegraph
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
17 Oct 2010
It has been called the "money box" - a traffic camera at a yellow box junction in Battersea, south London is raising a million pounds a year in fines levied on hapless motorists.

When the Sunday Telegraph monitored the junction, it found that every single car that went through was unable to exit the box properly, because of the congestion ahead.

Drivers claim they cannot avoid stopping inside the box because of severe congestion in the area caused by ongoing engineering works.
Campaigners say it is part of a growing trend of motoring fines being used by authorities as stealth taxes.

Up to 2,000 drivers a month are being fined for becoming stuck in the junction on Battersea Bridge Road, a main route from the south into the centre of London. The road has been the scene of major hold ups since a main arterial route was closed in February, making it difficult for cars to avoid stopping at the junction.

When The Sunday Telegraph monitored the junction, it found that every single car that went through was unable to exit the box properly, because of the congestion ahead.
A camera erected above the traffic lights films motorists as they pass through. Anyone who stops for longer than five seconds in the box is issued with a fine of £60, which can double if not paid immediately.

In response to a series of Freedom of Information requests, Transport for London said that £520,000 has been raised by the camera in the six months from January to July, with 10,087 motorists issued with tickets.

The figures show clearly that the number of penalties handed out doubled in February, at exactly the same time that the adjacent Albert Bridge was closed and traffic redirected over Battersea Bridge.

While only 640 people were caught in the box junction in January, that monthly total had more than trebled to 2,153 by March.
One motorist who was caught by the camera appealed her fine and last week an adjudicator at a parking appeals hearing upheld her complaint.

Elizabeth Lord won on the grounds that she could not have avoided stopping in the box as the exit was clear when she drove into it but became blocked by pedestrians by the time she was part way across.
She said she was no longer prepared to pay unfair motoring fines since being made redundant in the recession. And she urged other motorists to also appeal.

"I'm afraid I've reached the stage where I'm not prepared to take this lying down any more," she said.
"It's dreadful. I think people ought to fight these fines. I would suggest to anybody, don't take it lying down.
"Motorists are an easy target and most people are too busy to fight. But people haven't got so much money now, money is tight and we don't have £60 to chuck at something ridiculous like this."

A spokesman for Transport for London said: "We enforce traffic regulations to keep London's red route (major roads) network moving safely for the benfit of all road users.
"Our traffic enforcement strategy is aimed at keeping the red route moving - it is not about raising revenue.
"If anyone believes they have been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice unfairly or if there are mitigating circumstances they can appeal to TfL or to the independent Parking and Traffic Appeals Service."

Authorities Bill may give London councils new powers

2010-10-14T15:44:00.007+01:00

BBC News London
13th October 2010

A bill that will give local authorities in London a range of new powers is a step closer to becoming law after clearing its first Commons hurdle.
The London Local Authorities Bill would help councils issue fines to the public and clamp down on rogue traders.
Unusually, it was introduced in the House of Lords, and has already passed all its stages in the Upper Chamber.

Personal liberty campaigners said the bill was a move into 'dangerous waters'.
But all major parties backed the legislation, which was given a second reading by 293 votes to 21.
The legislation was backed despite one Conservative minister voicing concerns over it.
The legislation would:

Require people issued with penalty charge notices - for example over littering or parking - to provide their name and address to council officers

Allow councils to recover the cost of street cleaning from polluting traders

Require fast food sellers to display their hygiene rating and allow councils to crack down on unlicensed car dealers

Conservative MP Mike Freer said: "Many of us in this house would like to turn back the clock to a gentler age, but sadly we do live in an irresponsible society where many individuals cause problems for residents.
"Many of us would prefer a reduction in regulation and a lessening of the intrusive nature of government - both national and local.
"However, we do have a responsibility to address the real issues facing Londoners."

Conservative Local Government Minister Bob Neill said some measures in the Bill needed closer examination.
He cautioned: "We have to be proportionate and avoid the proliferation of fines for what might be perceived as genuinely minor breaches and which might create in the public a sense of unfairness.

Shadow local government minister Chris Williamson (Labour) said: "This bill has already been agreed by all 33 of the London local authorities.
"London councils are controlled by all three of the main political parties.
"On this bill they speak with one voice."

Neil Herron, who became known as the "metric martyr" after defying EU regulations on selling produce under the imperial weight system, criticised the Bill.
He said: "We are entering into dangerous waters when we are giving council officers these powers. "We need to go back to the fundamental principle that you can only be fined in a court of law.
"They will be fining us for standing on the cracks in the pavement next."

Three yellow lines on the road that mean nothing

2010-10-07T14:26:00.004+01:00

Just to underline the fact in yellow!

This is Exeter
published 04.10.10
PUZZLED: Businessman Brian Burnett with the triple yellow lines

Businessman Brian Burnett is the latest victim to emerge from what has been dubbed "the great parking scandal" after he was booked while parked on a triple yellow line.

The owner of Repaircare Electrical Services parked a van outside his business in Ladysmith Road, Exeter, to load some equipment but was given a penalty charge notice by civil enforcement officers
Mr Burnett asked the city council to reconsider due to the confused nature of the markings but was told "the intention" of them was clear so his ticket would not be cancelled
But he has now discovered that any variation on a recognised road sign can only be adopted with permission from the Secretary of State

His case has now been taken up and highlighted by city councillor and former police officer Percy Prowse.
It is the latest embarrassment for the council following the revalations in the Echo last week that tickets were being issued in areas that the council was told were unlawful three years ago.
Three former traffic wardens are expected to hear this week whether they have been successful in their tribunal claim for constructive dismissal .

They have turned whistleblowers and accompanied the Echo on a tour of the city centre to show where they were told to issue tickets despite doubts over the lawfulness of the signs and regulations

Mr Burnett said he felt furious after discovering his ticket had been issued unlawful and said: " I left the van outside on what is clearly a triple yellow line while we were about to load
"It took longer than we thought it would to load and in the meantime we were given a ticket.

"I appealed against it as I thought it was unfair but lost . After that I did speak to Percy and he is still challenging it on my behalf

"I have since discovered it is totally unlawful to give tickets when the road markings are not as they should be and I am really angry I have been penalised in this way

"Nothing has changed on the road marking but I am not sure who has been given a ticket there"

Mr Prowse said he had recently written to the county council's solicitor to ask what a triple yellow line meant and he was told it meant "absolutely nothing". He said: " A triple yellow line means nothing so they should never have issued a ticket in the first place.
The council wrote back to him to say 'the intention' of the lines was clear.
"To make variations from road signs in law the council needs permission from the Secretary of State. The law also states you cannot have a variant on yellow lines and a triple yellow does not exist For this reason it is totally unlawful."

Exeter City Council carries out the enforcement of on-street parking in the city on behalf of Devon County Council
A spokesman for the county council said: "The city council is instructed to enforce where the intent of the signs and lines clearly communicate the relevant restrictions
"Minor deviations in markings from the requirements of the regulations will not automatically invalidate a Penalty Charge Notice. If any individual believe they have been issued a Penalty Charge Notice incorrectly they hould appeal as directed on the notice."

Millions of parking tickets given out 'illegally', expert reveals

2010-10-04T10:58:00.011+01:00

Telegraph
By David Harrison
02nd October 2010
Millions of parking tickets are being issued illegally all over the UK, according to a leading expert.
Chris Leithead, ex-head of the Metropolitan police traffic division and a traffic consultant who advises councils on parking, said local authorities were issuing parking tickets in areas where signs were unlawful.

He said he had witnessed this in London, Birmingham, Manchester Edinburgh and Bath and was "absolutely certain" it was happening in many other areas.
Defective signs he has identified include:

Signs more than 60 metres apart, or simply missing

Road markings, such as parking bays and yellow lines, so worn they can barely be made out3

Double yellow lines with no T-bar to show the end of the no parking restriction.

"Swivel" signs that change restrictions without warning.

Signs that are unclear or ambiguous.

Mr Leithead, who has advised councils all over the UK on the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement, said: "We are talking about millions of tickets that have been issued unlawfully.
"Councils are taking advantage of the fact that most motorists do not know the signs are unlawful and that, even if they have concerns, they will just pay up to get it out of the way.
"But drivers should not be given those tickets in the first place."

His comments followed The Sunday Telegraph's disclosure last week (here) - confirmed in leaked emails - that Exeter city council had told traffic attendants to keep on issuing tickets even after they had pointed out that parking signs and bays were unclear or wrong.
Council parking controls have to be enshrined in bylaws, called Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). The signs and markings used to impose the restrictions have to be displayed and painted according to Department for Transport instructions before tickets can be issued, with only "minor deviations" allowed.

But Mr Leithead said there nobody checked whether councils were complying with the regulations - and many were flouting them openly as a way of raising revenue.
"This is not traffic management," he said. "If councils were serious about wanting traffic to flow more freely we would see attendant giving out tickets to cars blocking buses and other vehicles on main roads.
"But too many of them are busy dolling out tickets in quiet side streets where cars are not actually causing any problems and where signs are often unclear and unlawful."
A spokesman for the AA said: "When someone with Mr Leithead's inside knowledge and experience speaks out like this we should sit up and take notice.
"This confirms what we have long suspected - that councils are exploiting motorists to boost their coffers."

Through his local MP, Tony Lloyd, Mr Leithead has lodged a complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman, accusing the Secretary of State for Transport of maladministration for failing to require local authorities to carry out their legal duties.

He decided to complain after working as a consultant for Bath and North East Somerset council in 2008 and discovering many of its TROs and signs were unlawful.
Two TROs, for example, contained contradictory controls for the same road with one decreeing that there should be parking bays and another saying there should be no waiting allowed by any vehicles.
When he told the council that it should not issue parking tickets in these areas until the errors were rectified he says officials ignored his advice and the Department for Transport failed to take any action against them.

In March this year Richard Buckley, head of the Department for Transport's traffic management division, replying to a letter from Mr Leithead, said the department had no "formal role" to manage councils' parking controls performance or to investigate allegations made against them.
If officials received evidence of council failings they would "advise" the authority to stop issuing tickets but the local authority would decide whether to take any action, he said.
It was up to local communities, media and campaign groups to hold local authorities to high standards, using "civil society and local democracy," Mr Buckley added.

Mr Leithead said the department's response was "totally unacceptable" because "nobody is scrutinising councils' performance." He wants to see a national inspectorate set up to perform that role.
"The threat of the inspectorate would concentrate minds to make sure councils get it right in the first place," he said.
Mr Leithead,69, a former police superintendant with a total of 45 years experience as an officer and traffic consultant, said that, unlike police-trained wardens, council parking attendants were not trained to recognise incorrect signs.
"Their managers should ensure that enforcement officers receive proper training so they can identify illegal signs and know not to give out tickets," he said.
"But instead they are being ordered to hand out tickets anyway.
"The Sunday Telegraph "showed it was happening in Exeter, and I am absolutely certain that the problem is duplicated across other parts of the country. It's cynical, iniquitous and wrong."

Neil Herron, director of the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, said: "As an influential police figure in the switching of traffic control powers to councils Mr Leithead is in a perfect position to see what is happening on the other side.
"What he is revealing is the deliberate abuse of council powers under the guise of traffic management. Many councils are out of control and beyond censure. A full investigation is needed to expose those councils that are breaking the law to impose a stealth tax."

A spokesman for Bath and North East Somerset council said: "We are undertaking a project to make Traffic Regulation Orders mor accessible anf understandable to the public as part of our commitment to ensuring compliane with relevant legislation.
"If the council did discover any uncertainty over the validity of a Traffic Regulation Order, enforcement would be suspended until the ambiguity is cleared up."

THE WRONG WINDOW
A motorist was issued with a £40 penalty charge notice because he stuck his pay-and-display ticket in a side window rather than the windscreen.
Peter Kirby, 78, had paid the right amount to park in Croydon, south London. He wrote to Croydon council, which waived the fine.
He said: "I don't believe the fine would have been enforceable in court as the ticket said 'Place on display in the windscreen' whereas the Penalty Charge Notice merely requires the ticket to be 'displayed clearly'."
A spokesman said: " The motorist provided evidence that on this occasion he had bought a valid pay and display ticket."

THE WRONG CAR PARK TICKET
A retired businessman was ordered to pay a £60 penalty for using a £6 day ticket, valid for long-stay car parks in Scaborough, North Yorkshire, in a car park which was for short-stay-only during the summer.
Clive Dixon, 62, from Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, said there were no signs informing motorists that the car park was for short stays only.
He appealed but Scarborough council refused to back down until Mr Dixon threatened legal action and produced photographs from every angle, proving there were no signs.
Eventually officials apologised and said a mistake had been made.

THE PHANTOM TICKET
When Peter Cook popped into his local butchers to buy sausages, he left his car on double yellow lines for a few minutes. He came back to find a parking attendant starting to issue a ticket.
"We had a brief exchange and she was trying to hold me in a conversation. i got in my car and drove off," he said.
Weeks later he received a letter demanding £60 for the transgression on Chaucer Road, Gillingham.
Mr Cook, 52, a business consultant and author, told Medway council he had never received an initial ticket giving him the chance to pay at the discount rate of £30.
The council replied with a statement from the parking attendant: "Ticket handed to driver at 10.53am."
The motorist disputed the attensant's account. Eventually the council agreed to waive the fine, saying the attendant may have forgotten what had happened.

30 per cent of residents parking schemes in Plymouth not legal: Claims flood expected

2010-10-04T10:00:00.007+01:00

The council admit that lines are defective and stop enforcing. The recent decision of the High Court in the Barry Moss case and the precedent set in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners means that the council has acquired unlawfully derived income has a duty to refund such tickets.

This is Plymouth
By Keith Rossiter Political Reporter
Parking tickets may have been issued illegally on scores of city streets.
There are fears that Plymouth City Council could face a flood of claims for refunds after a motorist won her case at a parking adjudication hearing.

The ticket issued against the unnamed driver has been overturned because the lines were incorrectly painted more than a decade ago.

Now it has emerged that about 30 per cent of residents' parking chemes put in by Devon County Council when it still controlled transport in Plymouth are not legal.

Last week, the city council was working frantically to correct the mistake.

Under Government regulations, there should be single lines at the end of a residents' bay - but a third of the city's schemes have double yellow lines.

"We corrected more than half the bays by Friday, and the rest will be done within a few days," said Mr Wigens.

He refused to comment on whether the ruling would open the floodgates for people to demand refunds of parking tickets.

But Labour city councillor Brian Vincent, who drew the attention of The Herald to the problem, said he feared that it could cost the council thousands of pounds.

Jim Aspey, who has lived in Wellington Street, Greenbank for more than 30 years, said he was disgusted.

"You've got to have a permit and we have to pay for visitors tickets as well."

He said the lines in Wellington Street had been painted more than ten years ago. About 500 permits had been issued for only 200 bays in his area.

"When the students are here, there is nowhere to park," said Mr Aspey.

He pays £25 a year for his permit, and also buys books of tickets for residents.

A council spokesman said: "As this issue applies to a minority of our resedential bays, we continue to enforce the majority.

"All of our residential bays are clearly signed and widely understood, therefore we'd urge motorists not to behave any differently, so as not to run the risk of enforcement."

Mr Wigens said: "Obviously it wouldn't have been correct for us to continue patrolling and ticketing in the normal way.

"My understanding is that a number of local authorities find themselves in a similar position.

"Councils do their best to strike a balance, protecting the interests of residents and giving them a reasonable chance to park near their homes.

"All of the bays affected were ones that came across to us from Devon County Council when Plymouth became a unitary authority in 1998.

"It does seem to many people, including myself, that these sorts of technical issues aren't within the spirit of the legislation."
Mr Vincent, the shadow Cabinet member for transport, said: "They've stopped the wardens from issuing tickets, so you've got all these wardens doing nothing. They are costing the council money and not bringing in revenue.

"This could be a bombshell if people who have been prosecuted challenge it.

"It could cost the council thousands of pounds."

Mr Vincent, who is an Efford and Lipson councillor, added: "There will be a huge loss of income until the lining is made legal.

"People who pay for residents' permits aren't going to be very happy having paid £25 a year when it turns out that anyone could park."

Ex-wardens take us on a tour to reveal sites of 'unlawful' ticketing

2010-09-29T10:54:00.008+01:00

The recent High Court decision in Moss v KPMG confirms that signs must be as prescribed. There is a great deal more to come out of the South West and the lawyers are lining up and sharpening their pencils!

Express and Echo
By Exclusive Tom Bevan

Two former traffic wardens have revealed areas of the city where they claim tickets are being issued to motorists illegally.

Drivers are being fined for parking and loading in areas of Exeter where traffic lines and signs were highlighted as unlawful to the council three years ago, the Echo can reveal.

An investigation has uncovered several parts of the city where civil enforcement officers have been told to issue tickets despite long-standing concerns about the legality of the orders.

Jo Pengilley and Sylvia Watts, who had several years as wardens and then civil enforcement officers, have now turned whistleblowers, and accompanied the Echo on a tour of the city centre, highlighting several areas of concern.

The pair, who resigned from their posts last year, said they were told to issue tickets in these areas when they worked as traffic wardens for the police as the signs were incorrect or ambiguous.

But they say they were givent the opposite instruction when control of parking enforcement was transferred to Exeter City Council in May 2008. Devon County Council has had overall responsiblity for the road signs and lines throughout.

In what has been dubbed "the great parking scandal" they said they were told to issue tickets which would be cancelled only if the motorist logged a complaint.

As revealed in the Echo, the pair and former colleague Tony Lewis are seeking damages for unfair constructive dismissal following an employment tribunal.

A decision in the case is expected soon.

The tribunal heard that around 3,000 tickets have been cancelled by the city council since May 2008 - around ten per cent of the total issued.

Speaking exclusively to the Echo, they claimed problems with non-compliant signs and lines in the part of the city centre included concerns is:

High Street

Cathedral Yard

Southernhay West

Bailey Street

Northernhay Gate

But they stress that those examples are only indicative, and the problem is widespread across the whole city.

Conservative city councillor and former police officer Percy Prowse, who ha campaigned for several years on the issue, yesterday labelled the situation "disgusting and potentially criminal" and accused the city council of "burying its head in the sand."

A chief area of concern is the High Street, where signs on the entrance conflict with other signs on the road itself on whether loading is allowed to take place there.

In an e-mail seen by the Echo, dated May last year, Steve Carnell, Exeter's parking services manager, wrote to Gary Powell at Devon County Council asking for advice on these signs.

He wrote: "CEOs [civil enforcement officers] report that the restriction signage isn't clear as it is a variable message sign and only displays the full details once the loading restrictions come into effect at 10am. Anyone driving past it before this time isn't aware what time the restriction commences.

"Do you wish to suspend enforcement where signage could be considered inappropriate or unclear?"

In reply Mr Powell said: "I am reluctant to suspend enforcement in the High Street. I am not sure they are illegal and until they are successfully challenged I think we should continue to enforce."

There was a similar situation in Cathedral Green, where the entrance and the roadside signs regarding loading and access again contradict each other.

In other areas, such as Southernhay West, some double yellow lines were also so poorly maintained and broken that Miss Pengilley said there was no way they would issue tickets as traffic wardens. But she said that as soon as the council took control they were told to book vehicles in any case.

They also showed the Echo one spot where they booked vehicles for parking on what was pricate land, at the back of Waterstone's.

Miss Pengilley said that whether or not their claim for constructive dismissal was successful, they felt justified in highlighting the issue of illegal signs and lines.

"What we have shown you is just in the city centre," she said.

"If it is wrong here it is wrong outside. For us this has never been about getting money,

"It was about proving the council wrong and whether we lose our tribunal or not, I think we have done that. The public now know what was going on, and that had been our objective from the start.

"We just wanted to be fair to the motorists. When we were traffic wardens we would not issue tickets as the signs are so clearly wrong and unlawful. But as soon as we came under control of the council everything changed.

"We were told to forget everything we had done over the years and issue tickets in areas we would not have dreamt of doing previously."

Cllr Prowse said: "Both the county and the city council have really messed up on the issue of civil parking enforcement. The interesting one is the High Street, which I first raised with the council three years ago.

"The council is fully aware of the problem but has chosen to bury its head in the sand.

"It has continued to issue tickets unlawfully, and it must border on the verge of a criminal matter - I am tempted to report it to the police. The county council has never answered any of my letters. There are so many problems."

Cllr Prowse uncovered another error by Devon County Council after the handover in 2008 that has led to thousands of pounds being paid back to city drivers.

Penalty tickets were issued to drivers in three large parking zones in the city before the council discovered that the areas weren't covered by the relevant traffic order.

The mix-up, first highlighted by the Echo, meant the county council had to pay back the cost of fiens dished out to drivers in Pennsylvania, Duryard and the Regent's Park residents' parking zones between May 2008 and February last year.

Cllr Prowse said this was just part of a catalogue of errors he had uncovered since the handover.

He said: " I had to ask them what a triple yellow line means recently. It means nothing.

"It would be great if the county council would make a full and frank admission that it has not got things right. It is disgusting that things have been allowed to get to this stage and we are no further forward in resolving it. It is an embarrassment to the council."

A spokesman for the city council, said it carried out the enforcement of on-street parking in Exeter on behalf of Devon County Council.

He said: " Ever since we took on the role of civil parking enforcement on May 2008 we have consistently referred issues about on-street parking restrictions to Devon County Council for policy directions as to whether they are enforceable.

"This decision rests with them as a highway authority, and we follow the direction they give to us."

A county council spokesman said: "District councils are instructed to enforce where the intent of the signs and lines clearly communicate the relevant restrictions.

"Civil Enforcement Officers will make the appropriate observations before deciding whether a contravention of the restriction is being made.

"Minor deviations in markings from the requirements of the regulationswill not automatically invalidate a Penalty Charge Notice.

"If anyone believes they have been issued a Penalty Charge Notice incorrectly, they should appeal as directed on the notice and their appeal will be thoroughly considered."

The worm turns ...

2010-08-18T12:01:00.003+01:00

It is going to be an uncomfortable few months for private landowners who have failed to regulate their clamping agents.

Case papers are being prepared against one firm who allowed the clamping of a 68 year old war veteran on an empty car park whilst his Blue Badge was clearly displayed.

Lawyers are starting to line up for cases set to hit County Courts across the land.
It is likely that there will be more actions like the one below surfacing in the near future.

Hats off to Norman Baker MP and Lynn Featherstone MP for acting quickly and decisively on a matter which is classed as 'theft and extortion' North of the Border.

Blackmail charges follow wheel-clamping firm probe
Wigan Today
18th August 2010

A total of six people have been charged with conspiracy to commit blackmail after a lengthy inquiry in the West Midlands into a wheel-clamping firm, police said.

The charges against five men and a woman were announced by West Mercia Constabulary after a joint investigation which also involved Worcestershire's trading standards department and the Security Industry Agency.

A police spokesman said the inquiry had focused on the activities of Redditch-based Midland Parking Contracts, now known as iWatch Security Services Ltd, which operated across the West Mercia, West Midlands, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire areas.

Those charged, who have not been named, will appear before magistrates in Redditch next Tuesday.

People's Champ beats Clamps

2010-08-17T14:10:00.001+01:00

Read the full story here