£1,900,000,000 per annum and rising ...

Everything is now coming to a head and 2010 will be the year when this stealth tax is exposed and replaced with fair, proortionate, transparent and LEGAL enforcement.

Motorists hit by higher parking fees and fines
Local councils raised £1.9 billion from parking fees and fines last year, with some doubling the amount of money they squeeze out of motorists.

By James Kirkup, Political CorrespondentPublished: 9:00AM GMT 04 Jan 2010

Councils have increased parking fees and fines Photo: HEATHCLIFF O'MALLEY
Official financial returns from more than 400 local authorities for 2008/2009 show that the drivers are paying increasing amounts of money for parking their vehicles.
In 2005/06, the amount collected from parking fines, fees and permits was £1.7 billion, meaning the total has risen by 13 per cent.

Related Articles
Town halls urged to raise fees for motorists and leisure centres
Council tax may rise due to EU fines for missing landfill targets
Students 'should face graduate tax'
Banks accused of charging customers higher rates to cover losses on sale of PPI
Maria Eagle: bathroom renovated on expenses before flat was 'flipped'

Some councils increased their parking revenues by much more than the national average.
North Wiltshire’s parking revenue more than doubled, from £752,000 to £1.6 million. In North Tyneside, the increase was 94 per cent. The biggest parking revenues were in Westminster, which took in £180 million last year, a 19 per cent rise.

The disclosure comes as it emerged that motorists guilty of minor offences such as parking misdemeanours are to be hit with a £15 surcharge to help victims of domestic violence or sex attacks.

The fee will be added to fixed penalty tickets given out by police for offences such as breaking parking regulations or speeding.

The figures on parking charges were revealed in official council financial returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government.
The figures cover money paid for tickets in council car parks, sales of residents’ parking permits, and fines imposed for illegal parking.

Some councils have increased their income simply by raising parking fees. In Wolverhampton, the cost of staying for two hours in one of its car parks, at Fold Street, jumped from £1.20 to £1.50 between 2006 and 2009 while the cost of three hours at the Civic Centre, rose from £2.30 to £2.50.

The council's total take from parking fines and charges over the same period climbed from £3 million to £4.6 million over the three years, a jump of 53 per cent.
Separate figures published in November suggested that illegal parking fines raised more than £300 million for councils this year.

Privately, some council leaders say they have been forced to raise more money from parking because council tax and central government grants are not covering their rising costs.
Peter Roberts of the Drivers’ Alliance, a motoring group, said parking costs can hurt local businesses.

He said: “These figures will reinforce the belief from the driving public that they are being used as motorised cash machines by a government desperate for money.
“With the economy in dire straits and businesses needing customers, encouraging visitors to towns should be a priority.
"Instead we see insatiable money-hungry councils charging excessive parking fees which not only leave people with less spending money but also dissuades them from visiting.
"It is time for a reality check and less of the fleece-the-driver mentality.“

Jennifer Dunn, Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the figures showed councils are using drivers as “cash cow”.
She said: “Councils are generating huge amounts of revenue through parking, which has clearly become an increasingly lucrative source of income to finance rapidly growing bureaucracies in the local authorities.
“With council tax having doubled across the country, motorists in some areas where parking revenue has also doubled are being treated as cash cows.
"It is time for local government to stop seeing drivers as a means to plug their finances and acknowledge the benefits they bring to local economies, particularly in the recession.”

The Local Government Association, which speaks for councils in England, insisted that any money councils get from parking is reinvested in improving the local transport network.
Defending the use of parking fines, the LGA said: “Parking restrictions are in place to keep people safe on our streets, stop traffic jams and keep roads clear for the emergency services.
"Councils will not apologise for giving out parking tickets to stop cars parking illegally.”

Nice little earner, nice little street in Leicester

The question has to be asked of the council is that 'if the signs are clear and unambiguous why are so many people being issued with penalties?'

This is not managing restricted kerbspace, it is exploiting it.

£40,000 in fines issued on one of Leicester's smallest streets
Monday, January 04, 2010,
Parking wardens have issued more than £40,000 worth of fines in one small city street during the course of three years.
East Street, in the city centre, is just 400ft long, but has been the focus of so many tickets one driver believes it is a "trap" for motorists.
During the past year, 552 tickets have been issued to motorists parking on the single yellow lines in the road, with 223 of those handed out on Sundays.
One of those caught out was Adam Krupa, from Oadby, who was fined after parking there in November. He has refused to pay his £70 fine and says he will go to court to challenge the case.
Mr Krupa claims the street is seen as a parking warden's "bread and butter" and signs which warn drivers it is illegal to park there are too small and in the wrong place.
TIN.adverts.adWriteDC('article-detail-impact-tile', '452x118');


After getting the fine, Mr Krupa used the Freedom of Information Act to ask Leicester City Council how much money it had collected from other motorists in East Street since it took over parking enforcement – and discovered it was £40,000.
He said: "One of the biggest shocks was the amount of revenue generated from this tiny street.
"I'd parked for 10 minutes and went into Dunelm Mill opposite – when I got back I'd got the ticket.
"After speaking to people, I'm told this is happening day in, day out, and that everybody is getting caught because they think they can park there.
"Double yellow lines should be painted and the signs are too small – it really is a trap."
The fine for parking on yellow lines is £70, which is reduced to £35 if it is paid within 14 days.
Kim Pelham, manager of Dunelm Mill, which sells soft furnishings and home wares in East Street, agreed.
He said: "It happens all the time, especially on a Sunday.
"There are usually three or four wardens out there waiting for people, they know it's hard to tell if you can park there. The signs aren't very clear and they should really paint double yellow lines."
Last year, more than 56,000 tickets were given out in the city – equivalent to £3.6m in fines. In 2007, 65,000 tickets were issued.
According to Mr Krupa's Freedom of Information request, the most common reasons people were ticketed in East Street was because they contravened rules against waiting and loading.
Under Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 legislation, signs on the street show no parking is allowed from 7.30am to 6pm, and no loading between 4pm and 6pm Monday to Friday.
A city council spokesman said: "The signage in East Street meets all of the requirements of the relevant legislation.
"Single yellow lines always denote parking restrictions and these restrictions are clearly shown on the signs on East Street.
"In all such areas the onus is on motorists to assure themselves that they are obeying the appropriate parking restrictions for the area concerned."
Since Leicester City Council took over the enforcement of on-street parking from the police in 2007, more than 30,000 parking tickets have been challenged.
Cash generated from parking tickets must, by law, be spent on transport projects such as concessionary travel fares for pensioners.

Just a reminder of what we are up against ...

Bill of Rights Pandora's Box set to be re-opened

This is most certainly going to re-open the conflict between the Bill of Rights 1689, parking fines and the Metric Martyrs judgment.
If, as is claimed, the Bill of Rights 1689 is still in force and contains enshrined constitutional provisions, then we need to re-examine this section:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before
conviction are illegal and void;

What flows from this is that EVERY decriminalised parking fine imposed by a council is illegal and void as it is a fine which has not been imposed by the courts. Robin Decrittenden argued this before Justice Collins but was told that a parking ticket was not a fine it was a civil responsibility and that the Bill of Rights had been impliedly repealed by later statutes thereby conflicting with the Metric Martyrs Judgment which ruled certain acts had constitutional significance.
The Council had also 'no contested' the case therefore there was technically no fine or forfeiture.

Perhaps it is time for Mr. Decrittenden to get another parking ticket.

MPs claim they are above the law in expenses fraud case
Claire Newell, Jonathan Calvert, Jonathan Oliver
Sunday Times January 3, 2010

Jim Devine is alleged to have submitted a claim using a receipt bearing a bogus VAT number
Three Labour MPs being investigated for expenses fraud are arguing that they should not be prosecuted because their suspect claims are covered by parliamentary privilege.

The MPs have hired legal experts to assert that the 1689 Bill of Rights protects them from prosecution.

The lawyers are understood to have sent detailed submissions to police and prosecutors which contend that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” and cannot be subject to scrutiny by the courts. More ...

Bah Humbug

Humbugs for 'Scrooge' councillors
BBC 24th December 2009

Getting a ticket is unlikely to leave you full of festive cheer
A motorists' group angry about the decision of "Scrooge-like" councils to issue tickets on Boxing Day has given a bag of humbugs to one authority.
Fifteen out of 32 London councils are not recognising 26 December as a bank holiday and will charge as usual.

To protest, London Motorists Action Group (LMAG) has given Westminster Council - with London's highest parking revenue - a bag of mint humbugs.
The council said 26 December is one of the year's busiest shopping days.

But LMAG Director Richard Chaumeton said: "Westminster is the biggest council and should be leading by example and make Boxing Day parking free out of a spirit of goodwill.
"The councillors' Ebenezer Scrooge-like attitude conveys an impression of money-grabbing greed."
Mr Chaumeton added: "We hope they enjoy their humbugs - courtesy of LMAG."

This smacks more of opportunism rather than a desire to keep traffic moving
Neil Herron Parking campaigner

The catchphrase of Charles Dickens' famous Christmas-hating miser Ebenezer Scrooge was: "Bah humbug!"
Westminster Council made £72m from parking last year, more than any other London borough.

Kevin Goad, Westminster Council's head of parking, said: "We understand parking enforcement is not popular but it is necessary - particularly on Boxing Day which is one of the busiest shopping days.
"Normal parking controls will apply on 26 December as it is not a bank holiday.
"We will be offering free parking to motorists on 28 December instead."

Meanwhile Neil Herron, who runs the Parking Appeals website, has promised his services free of charge to anyone ticketed on Saturday.
Of the decision to charge, Mr Herron said: "With all public buildings closed on what is widely regarded as a public holiday by all, this smacks more of opportunism rather than a desire to keep traffic moving."

The following London councils will charge for parking on Saturday:
Barking and Dagenham
Barnet
Bexley
Brent
Bromley
Ealing
Enfield
Hammersmith and Fulham
Haringey
Harrow
Havering
Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston-upon-Thames
Newham
Redbridge

Cynical cash raising ploy

Let us see how the councils attempt to justify this one. They have stated that Saturday 26th December is not a Bank Holiday but the same councils have closed public buildings ... apparently because it is a Bank Holiday. Let us see in the coming weeks what the Freedom of Information requests reveal.

Penalty Claus on Boxing
The Sun
By JANE HAMILTON
Published: 26 Dec 2009

SHOPPERS could be stung at the sales today - by Scrooge officials dishing out parking tickets.
More than three-quarters of councils have decided Boxing Day is NOT a public holiday this year because it falls on a Saturday.

And they are set to clean up as shoppers innocently park without paying in areas signed "public holidays - no charge".
Despite deeming it a non-Bank Holiday, other council services like libraries and swimming pools will be CLOSED.

Last night Paul Pearson of campaign group penaltychargenotice.co.uk blasted the grasping move. He said: "Thousands of motorists will have Christmas tarnished by a £120 ticket.
"Boxing Day is a public holiday - it shouldn't not be a public holiday because it happens to be a Saturday."
Paul said drivers face more confusion because some councils DO recognise today as a public holiday and are not imposing car park fees.

Leeds, for example, in West Yorks is not charging, while their neighbour Bradford is.
In London, half of the 32 councils are allowing free parking - but the policy may not be borough-wide. To add to the muddle nationally, some authorities will waive fees on Monday instead.
Last night Bradford Council said: "Because Boxing Day falls on a weekend, we impose weekend charges."

Read more:

Watching the Watchers

Keep sending the photographs.
If they maintain that parking on double yellow lines impedes the traffic flow and creates a safety hazard then we can't have one rule for one ...

"It's a new stealth tax"

A 'victim's levy now for parking offences! This is nothing more than another stealth tax.
"Oh no it isn't"insist the Government in a claim worthy of the worst pantomime and a claim few would believe.
2010 is when Britain's motorists will finally reach tipping point and begin the fightback.


Motorists face new £15 'victims levy'
BBC News 2nd January 2010
Motorists in England and Wales fined for minor offences face having to pay bigger penalties under a government scheme to compensate victims of crime.
Since 2007, a £15 surcharge has been added to the fines of all people convicted of a crime, to raise money for support services for crime victims.
Now ministers want to extend the scheme to on-the-spot fines and fixed penalty notices for a range of offences.
They say the offences that could be targeted are not victimless crimes.
Under the current scheme, anyone fined by the courts pays an extra £15.

'Stealth tax denial'
However, ministers believe the amount raised could be significantly increased if it was extended to include people issued with on-the-spot fines or fixed penalty notices.
This could include motorists caught speeding or flouting parking restrictions and those guilty of disorder offences such as shoplifting, writing graffiti or being drunk and disorderly.
Under the plans, a fine of £60 for speeding, using a mobile phone while driving or not wearing a seatbelt would be increased to £75.
Government officials deny the move amounts to a stealth tax.

They argue that such offences are not "victimless crimes", saying thousands are killed or injured on Britain's roads every year and others have their lives ruined by anti-social behaviour.
The current levy, which was introduced in England and Wales as part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, works in conjunction with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme that pays compensation to the victims of violent crime.

Prior to its launch, the Home Office - which was responsible for the initiative at the time - said the surcharge was part of a series of moves to "rebalance" the criminal justice system in favour of victims.

Will 2010 be the end of the offensive parking stealth tax?

News set to break in the New Year will send shockwaves through town halls who have spent the last 15 years collectively using parking fines to fill black holes in council budgets.
We have evidence of malpractice in every one of the councils listed below.
The High Court case detailed at www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk will create the focus.
Other matters will come into the public domain in a matter of weeks.

GREEDY councils are exploiting motorists by raking in almost £2 BILLION a year in parking fees and fines.
Tom Latchem
News of the World
20th December 2009

Last year drivers paid a record £1.9bn to town halls in England - 8 per cent up on the previous year and TREBLE the £638m for 1997/98 when Labour came to power.

That means around £60 a year is going straight from the pocket of every motorist into town hall coffers. Experts fear councils are ripping off car owners to plug gaps in their finances as the squeeze on public spending tightens.

The revenue bonanza is biggest in areas like central London and Brighton where parking is scarcest - and many town halls are believed to make most of their money in fines.
Figures released by the Department of Communities and Local Government do not differentiate between meter charges and penalties.

But a spokesman said: "Parking charges are a tool to manage demand for road use and should not be used for raising revenue.
Jennifer Dunn of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "Motorists are being treated like cash cows. Too often we see unscrupulous and target-driven enforcement of parking."

Top ten revenue earners in London:
1. Westminster £180m
2. Camden £80m
3. Kensington & Chelsea £77m
4. Islington £55m
5. Wandsworth £51m
6. Hammersmith & Fulham £47m
7. Lambeth £40m
9. Ealing £30m
10. Hackney £29m.

Top ten elsewhere:
1. Brighton & Hove £38m
2. Birmingham £24m
3. Manchester £20m
4. Leeds £19m
5. Milton Keynes £16m
6. Newcastle upon Tyne £15m
7. Kent £15m
8. Bristol £14m
9. Liverpool £14m
10. City of Nottingham £13m.

"One rule for them and another for everyone else..."

Warden under fire for parking on yellow line
Sunday, December 13, 2009, 07:00

OTFORD shoppers have hit out at a traffic warden who slapped parking tickets on windscreens – while blocking the traffic in the village's High Street.

Passers-by said a Sevenoaks District Council car parked on a single yellow line caused an unnecessary queue of traffic, and delayed a police car responding to an emergency siren.
The traffic warden was giving out parking tickets to drivers who were also parked in the road.
Ivonne Kaina, of London Road, Dunton Green, said she was "infuriated" by the situation, which she became aware of when she was shopping on Saturday (December 5) between 2 and 3pm.

She said: "I heard someone complaining that they got a ticket.

"We heard a police siren and when I looked out of the window the reason the police car couldn't get through was that the guy who was giving out tickets was stopping it.
"It was so cheeky. It's one set of rules for one. They are a law unto themselves."
"People are Christmas shopping – it's such a nasty thing to do at this time of year."

She added she thought the traffic warden's parked position created more problems for passing motorists than the cars which were illegally parked.
Miss Kaina had left her own car in the village car park, although she acknowledged that it was very busy at the time.

Sue Camp, who is on Sevenoaks Town Council, has previously hit out at Sevenoaks District Council over illegal parking.
She said: "I think there shouldn't be one rule for them and another for everyone else."
"No-one is meant to park there, so what gives them the right to do it?
"They should still be held accountable."

District council spokesman Daniel Whitmarsh said the photo sent in by Miss Kaina does not give the full picture as there were several illegally parked cars in front of it.
He added: "In this instance the council's civil enforcement officers were responding to a number of illegally parked vehicles on yellow lines, which were causing local traffic congestion.
"The officer parked directly behind the illegally parked cars so they would not cause additional traffic congestion and issued a total of three penalty charge notices.
"Civil enforcement officers are permitted to park in restricted areas when enforcing parking restrictions and will usually only do so if there is nowhere else to park."

More flaws in St. Alban's Traffic Orders ... who checked?

In applying to the Department for Transport fro Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers a local authority is required to give assurances to the DfT that all lines, signs and Traffic Orders have been checked and made compliant ready for DPE.

The fundamental difference between DPE and the previous criminalised regime is that there is a shift from driver to keeper liability. The St. Alban's TRO retained the driver liability ... a fundamental flaw in a legal document which allowed the council to be unjustly enriched.

Any claims that 'anyone who paid accepted liability' doesn't and shouldn't wash with any investigation as it is a fundamental requirement that the council acts lawfully!

In advance of a formal complaint to the Police or court action from one of the victims, especially one who has suffered at the hands of bailiffs, it may be wise for the council to seek proper legal advice.

St Albans District Council under fire again for parking blunder
1:43pm Thursday 10th December 2009
By Manisha Mistry »

A REVIEW into the district council's parking enforcement which came under fire in October after a shocking blunder was revealed has discovered more flaws in the system.
The car parking working party, which met last night, discussed a report undertaken by the chief finance officer.

In October the Review revealed how the council's Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was deemed invalid by an adjudicator at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal forcing more than £24,000 worth of unpaid fines to be waived.

Further to the details discovered at the time the fresh investigation has revealed the incorrect terminology in the TRO had been there since 2005 – longer than the council originally thought.
The officer comments: “The current problems have cost the council money and been damaging to its reputation.
“From the review it is clear that the problem of terminology in the TRO has been wrong since 2005 – when the new regime for off street parking was introduced."

Another damning finding highlights the lack of efficiency because there were no check lists and procedures which prevented this problem, or its reoccurrence.
A review of the workload was suggested and the creation of some clear check-lists.
At the time the technical error was discovered the chief executive at the council Daniel Goodwin apologised to residents.

Commenting on the results of the review, Councillor Julian Daly said: “This looks like something that did not need to happen.”
He mentioned a meeting of the council's scrutiny committee in 2007 which warned cabinet members to address the heavy workload of the council's engineering team which is responsible for the TRO.
Councillor Daly added: “Clearly this warning was ignored. The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone.”

Stop your stolen car dead in its tracks ...

North East boffin who beat the speed cameras in court with his vehicle tracker now set to beat the car thieves.

Car device to put brakes on thieves
Sunderland Echo
9th December 2009

By David MacLean

AN INVENTOR has created a device which he says can halt a stolen vehicle anywhere in the world in seconds.

Dr Phillip Tann, 48, claims his new gadget has the potential to put car thieves out of action and massively reduce car insurance premiums.The immobilisation invention's wizardry is contained in a box less than the size of a matchbox.It allows the owner to remotely send a signal which cuts the ignition as soon as the vehicle stops.

The product has been developed and released by Fleet M8, based at the Hi-Tech Village in Boldon.

Dr Tann said: "We were approached by one of our customers who hire out very expensive motors and they required not only the ability to track their vehicles, but also to immobilise and recover them should they be stolen."

As soon as the vehicle's ignition is turned off the vehicle cannot be restarted and the system pinpoints the vehicle's location to an accuracy of less than one metre. The vehicle can then be recovered by the owner or the police."

"We can remotely immobilise a vehicle from anywhere in the world."

The immobiliser connects to the vehicle's existing electrical system. It allows the owner to remotely immobilise a vehicle using their PC or mobile phone. A user sends a stop signal to FleetM8's server and once the vehicle has come to a stop, the engine is immobilised. When the owner chooses to mobilise the vehicle again a start signal is sent by the FleetM8 server.

A vehicle can be immobilised when it enters a virtual fenced area or by a simple button on their mobile phone and can happen in under one second.

Dr Tann hit the headlines two years ago when his vehicle tracking device proved that he wasn't speeding at 42mph as the police had alleged. He was able to prove it with evidence provided by his prototype device.

He teamed up with motoring expert Neil Herron and they launched the FleetM8 System, which has been fitted to a number of vehicle fleets and most recently to Arriva buses in Scotland.

Enquiries email paul@fleetm8.com or call 0191 519 2379

Another success and more refunds but ...

the council is going to end up in a lot more trouble should someone who has paid a PCN take legal action or make a criminal complaint of misconduct or fraud.

The issue at the core of this is that the Traffic Order referred to the driver being responsible for the fine, not the Registered Keeper as civil parking enforcement requires. Therefore, the statement that there should not be refunds due to the fact that the person paying 'admitted liability' is offensive and wrong. If their legal document stated that the driver was responsible and they then sent a Notice to Owner claiming that the owner or registered keeper was liable, then that is a false representation. The TRO may have been 'in force' having been made but it misrepresented the position relating to the primary legislation.

Therefore, ALL monies must be refunded otherwise the council has been unjustly enriched and risks investigation by the District Auditor and, should anyone make a criminal complaint, by the Police.

The Fraud Act 2006 is explicit
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Matters are far from concluded. The BBC report is shown below.

Parking Fine Error Costs £24,000
BBC
10th December 2009

A Hertfordshire council lost £24,000 in revenue from parking fines because enforcement orders were out of date.
St Albans Council's parking rules said a vehicle driver was liable for parking fines but it should have been the vehicle's keeper.
Colm O'Callaghan, the council's chief finance officer, said the blunder made it "impossible" to enforce the fines.

Terminology in the order had been wrong since 2005, when a new regime for off-street parking was introduced.
In a report to the council about the mistake, Mr O'Callaghan said: "Legal advice was that this did not invalidate the traffic order.
"But it did make it impossible for the council to pursue further enforcement action and brought financial cost."

Workload review
Initially the council had said it thought the cost of the error could be as high as £32,000.
In October a tribunal investigating a claim against a £50 ticket ruled that it was invalid as legal wording had not been updated.
The council has since decided to write off 1,621 penalty charge notices.

"The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone"Julian Daly, Conservative group, St Albans Council

The tickets were issued at off-street car parks between 31 March 2008 and 5 November 2009.

People who have already paid the fines are considered to have admitted liability, although since the error was revealed some have submitted requests for refunds.

Mr O'Callaghan's report identified a protracted line of responsibility from the parking contract manager to the city and district engineer, who it said had a heavy workload.
In its response to the mistake, the council is to consider the creation of a clear procedure and check-list for work to be signed off and the implementation of a workload review.

Leaders blamed
The management responsible have been invited to put forward a plan to implement these recommendations.
Julian Daly, leader of the Conservative opposition group on the council, said management and the political leadership of the Liberal Democrat ruling party were responsible for the mistake.

He said: "Traffic orders were not subject to review by the council's legal team and there was some absence of prioritisation in the relevant team which contributed to the error."

He backed the call for a workload review but said the relevant portfolio holders should ensure the engineering and technical services section were adequately resourced or that its workload was reduced accordingly.

"The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone," Mr Daly said.

Council writes off parking fines (05 Nov 09 Beds/Bucks/Herts )

Parking tickets could be invalid (28 Oct 09 Beds/Bucks/Herts )

Council motoring fines 'illegal' (29 May 08 UK )

'Fairer' parking deal for drivers (31 Mar 08 Wales )

Parking goldmine lures fat cat enforcer to Westminster

London Evening Standard
Simon English
01.12.09

In the lucrative world of car parking contracts, Westminster Council is the bonanza prize, the jackpot at the end of the rainbow. Around 600,000 vehicles come into Westminster's 8.5 square miles every day.

That's like a giant school of plankton in a small pond to your average traffic warden whale — open wide and ticket. There are too many cars chasing too few parking spaces and in the frustrations of an average working day, some drivers take a chance in the usually false hope that they might just be lucky…

The council itself says it's not legally allowed to make a profit from parking enforcement. Its “surplus income” from parking — £35 million last year, thanks very much — goes to pay for the men on the streets and for other transport projects.

For the firms running the enforcement deal, however, it's a goldmine, worth around £12 million a year. For the last seven years the contract has been held by NSL, the former services arm of National Car Parks which split from the main company and is now owned by private equity.

Now it's up for grabs. This week firms who want to bid for the right to be parking enforcer for the next four years — with an option for two more after that — have to submit their final proposals. In the running, I am told, are three firms: NSL again, Apcoa (formerly the Airport Parking Company of America), and Mouchel, a publicly listed company formed in 2003 from the merger of two engineering firms, Mouchel and Parkman.

A preferred bidder shortlist will be approved in January, with a decision taken shortly after. Mouchel is perhaps the most interesting of the three in the frame. It only entered parking enforcement relatively recently and has been making headway in winning contracts, securing deals in Newham (the so-called Olympic borough) and Hillingdon among others.

In chatting to officials about which firm might win the prestigious Westminster deal, an intriguing name came up. Stuart Lawrenson is, to those in the know, one of the most successful players in the UK parking industry — a fat cat enforcer, you might say. He is also the former chief executive of Central Parking Ltd where he was accused of misappropriating assets belonging to the American firm for his own benefit. Lawrenson resigned as a director of the company and paid £130,000, as well as forfeiting Central Parking shares, in settlement of the allegations.

In filings to the Securities & Exchange Commission, Central Parking blamed former managers of its UK arm for “unauthorised related party transactions and improper and inaccurate accounting entries”. Lawrenson is back in the game. I'm told he attended a meeting with council officials at a Westminster hotel last month to discuss the parking enforcement contract, allegedly in the pay of Mouchel.

I asked the company what role Lawrenson plays for them, and got the following: “Mouchel does not comment on the details of live procurements as these are confidential and commercially sensitive. Stuart Lawrenson is not, nor ever has been, an employee of Mouchel but works for a company that provides technology products to the parking industry. In common with other companies, we use some of these as part of our parking enforcement offer.”

Lawrenson has paid his fine and is perhaps entitled to continue his career. As long as everyone involved knows of his history, there's probably no cause for concern.