Allegation of Racketeering, Fraud & Illegal Conduct....by your Local Authority!

Gerald James
Address Withheld

2 April 2005

Michael Haworth-Maden Esq
District Auditor
4th Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4QP

Dear Mr Haworth-Maden

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

You may recall I wrote to you in July 2001 regarding the above Borough and its parking schemes in this and other areas.

I drew your attention to various matters in a series of correspondence but you and your colleagues like M/S Ann Shore your Audit Manager opted to do nothing.

In your letter of 13th July 2001 you pointed out that you were “concerned with the financial transactions of the audited body in the year of audit, including assessing the overall arrangements that audited bodies have established to secure probity, legality and value for money in the use of resources”.

I believe a very serious problem has arisen regarding the accounts of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames and probably all the authorities in the London area including the London Council under Mayor Livingstone.

Revenue from parking and congestion charges has become a major source of income and there is considerable evidence that the revenue is not only illegal but that it has been applied wrongly for purposes not permitted by law. A third problem is that there is now considerable evidence of racketeering, illegal conduct and fraud by these authorities who use agents or parking companies like, in the case of Richmond, Sureway Ltd.

Recently I had reason to draw the attention of the London Borough of Richmond to the judgement by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane in the Metric Martyrs Judgement of 18 February 2002. This Judgement involves the Bill of Rights 1689 and would seem to invalidate arbitrary parking fines or charges totally.

I would stress the same problems arise with Mayor Livingstone’s congestion charges.

For simplicity I enclose the relevant letter I wrote to the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Richmond, M/S Norton on 3 March 2005.

That letter had certain enclosures, which I also herewith enclose: -

A) Photocopy of a penalty charge
B) Extract of Bill of Rights 1689
C) Extract of the Metric Martyrs Judgement of 18 February 2002 referred to above.

The effect of the judgement appears to invalidate parking penalty charges unless imposed by a court. Clearly that has severe repercussions for all local authorities with parking revenue of this nature.

In other words the accounts past and present are likely to be inaccurate if not fraudulent as they do not comply with the law emanating from the February 2002 judgement in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1991.

The second problem appears to arise from the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act under which councils receive the power to designate on-street parking spaces for permit holders and to charge for the area of those spaces.

It is quite clear under the legislation that charges ­must not be levied to raise revenue but only to make appropriate traffic management provision. This was underlined by the High Court after a judicial review of an early CPZ.

There is evidence Councils are using this legislation s to raise revenue as a simple parking tax. Again accounts have not been qualified or reported on to reflect the breach of the law.

The third matter relates to a documentary television programme shown on ‘Dispatches’ on 3rd march 2005 at 9pm on Channel 4. The programme “Confessions of a Parking Attendant” involved undercover reporters filming and recording illegal and fraudulent operations of 3 councils in the London area and their fraudulent agents or parking companies to whom parking supervision is contracted. There was widespread evidence of racketeering, fraud and unacceptable and illegal conduct as agreed between parking companies and council officials.

Much of the revenue raised was illegally raised by deliberately illegal and unacceptable procedures and practices.

Again this raises serious question over the accounts as monies raised illegally or fraudulently cannot be retained and must be repaid. This in turn would alter or qualify the accounts of many councils for many years as they could not retain the proceeds of crime or civil breaches of the law.

One of the reasons much of the information came to light was the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This allied with good undercover work exposed serious illegality, criminality and misconduct of a financial nature.

I am therefore requesting you to look into all theses aspects of council finances related to parking revenue, particularly and specifically in the context of London Borough of Richmond but also generally. I do this in the public interest as I realise it indicates possible misconduct or misfeasance in public office by councillors and officials and indicates most councils accounts and inaccurate, fraudulent or in need of qualifications in this regard.

I would suggest you view the Channel 4 film or programme of 3rd March 2005.

You will also recall London Borough of Richmond refused me details of the Sureway Parking contract previously and the related arrangements. They seem to be dragging their heels now although it was requested some weeks ago under the Freedom of Information Act. I have listed the documents attached to this letter and look forward to hearing from you regarding what action you propose to take. It would seem you are legally obliged to take action and should have done so already.

If you are in any doubt about the Metric Martyrs Judgement and the points it raises for parking revenue and the treatment of such in councils’ accounts, I would suggest it is incumbent on you to state a case for an opinion by the High Court.

As regards the Dispatches programme it would seem appropriate for you to call in the Police.

Many thanks


(G R James)