Firefighters reject plans for single 999 centre
by Stuart Arnold
FIREFIGHTERS in the North-East have massively rejected plans for a single fire control centre to handle all 999 emergency calls.
In a poll conducted by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), 86 per cent of firefighters said the Government should halt the project, which will replace control rooms in Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria.
The FBU said it was a "body blow" for the Government's plans, which are aimed at providing a more resilient system at times of extreme strain, such as natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Work has already begun on the new multi-million pound fire control centre in the North-East, based at Belmont Business Park, near Durham City, which is due to open in about two years.
The FBU, which questioned a random sample of its members across the North-East, said 89 per cent believed the move would not improve the response to incidents, while 92 per cent said their own safety would not be improved.
The Government has argued there is a "compelling" need to modernise and rationalise control rooms in England and has pledged that the new centres will better protect the public.
But Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary said: "The poll findings are a body blow for these plans. Those who really know the fire service and what these proposals mean, have given them a massive thumbs down. Those who will have to deal with the consequences of the proposals clearly have little confidence in them.
"Despite intense propaganda, the Government has failed to win support for these plans from those who know most about them. The clear message from the frontline is that we do not want Whitehall-imposed regional control rooms."
The FBU says much of the new technology involved is untested.
Monday, January 30, 2006
End of the Pinta?
Not in this case. For Dr. Richard North's analysis of how the Sunday Times got it wrong see here
...but on the horizon...
...but on the horizon...
The real threat, which is just starting to hit the radar, is that after 2009 there can be no reference to imperial measures in such instances as giving the price of bananas as 55p/kg or 25p/lb
Traders who bought dual-purpose scales are about to be targeted ... and reports are already coming in that this is beginning to happen in some parts of the country.
The Metric Martyrs Campaign effectively halted the enforced metrication programme and halted the prospect of any further prosecutions. Remember, there were only ever 4 prosecutions and traders across the country have continued to serve their customers in the system of measurement that they are comfortable in...but now the 'enforcers' are gathering to remove imperial for good.
The Sunday Times
January 29, 2006
Pinta and sliced loaf may face EU ban
David Cracknell, Political Editor
LAWS that threaten the British “pinta” and traditional loaf of sliced bread are set to be waved through the European parliament this week.
Dairy farmers and British MEPs are fighting a last-ditch campaign to block the moves to harmonise packaged food across the European Union.
Under the rules, which replace British imperial measures with a European metric system, the pint-sized milk carton would be cut to half a litre. But with 68 millilitres fewer in the pack, consumer groups fear the price will remain the same — short-changing customers.
The same law will affect the traditional British loaf because, unlike many other European countries, the UK packages and slices its bread.
Bakers say it would force them to abandon the standard sizes of “small” and “large” in favour of various EU sizes. This could not only add to costs but also confuse consumers.
The moves are likely to annoy British shoppers, who pay an extra £20 a week on supermarket bills because of the common agricultural policy.
British grocers and shoppers are already subject to EU laws that force them to display fruit and vegetables in metric measures.
The legislation is set to go through by a majority in the parliament in Strasbourg on Thursday, despite amendments tabled by the UK Conservatives.
The plans have come about because the European commission wants to harmonise EU rules on pre-packaged food quantities that prescribe the size of packs in which some types of food — such as milk, butter and bread — must be sold.
Chris Heaton-Harris, a Tory MEP, said: “These are unnecessary measures which will just end up confusing people or making them angry. I am in favour of protecting consumers but in this case the best way to offer that protection is to stick with what consumers know best.
“Traditions are important to us in Britain and I can quite understand people getting upset when they see those traditions under threat.”
Gordon Polson, director of the Federation of Bakers, said the old law was “an essential consumer protection measure and ensures that we keep the traditional British loaf”.
Dairies said the cost of replacing bottled pints would be prohibitive. Kirby & West, a family-run dairy business delivering milk and other products to 60,000 doorsteps in and around Leicester, said: “If we were unable to use the pint bottle at all it would basically be the end of the doorstep delivery.”
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Comments to the Sunderland Council Committee: Criminal Charges in the offing?
We have been given a copy of a submission by Captain D.W. Green who has over ten years worth of evidence on Sunderland City Council's failure to adhere to the legislation.
He also raises the point of a possible Data Protection breach with Herron being named in the report in a desultory manner!
Fax
To:
Ged Fitzgerald
Ch. Executive
City of Sunderland
Reports to Joint Meeting of the Policy and Co-Ordination and Environmental and Planning Review Committees (26.01.06) and Cabinet Meeting (27.01.06)
CC:All members
Comments on the above
Ged Fitzgerald
Ch. Executive
And Elected members
Dear Sirs,
1. I received my copies of the above report at 1600hrs on Monday 23/1/06, whilst members received their copies by post next day,
2. This appears contrary to Sec. 100B of the Local Govt. Act 1972
3. Nevertheless elected members and the public have had only one ‘clear day’ to study the contents. This is a very important report which really requires more than the customary five clear days to appreciate its contents.
4. Members should be aware that there are 2 main issues in the report, one for the motorist (whom you represent) and secondly the enforcement
5. Motorists, they are given a ’ticket’ for “contravening a traffic order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Enforcement, this previously was carried out under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, however under DPE it is enforced under the Road Traffic Act 1991. being a criminal or non-criminal offence respectively.
6. Traffic Orders: These are made strictly in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State and have been so for decades, so the procedure is well known. After the initial procedures have been carried out the order is ‘made’, however it is not in forc (i.e.unenforceable) until each and every item contained within the order has been suitably signed by a legal traffic sign (prescribed or authorized).
A public notice must be displayed stating that the order has been made and coming into force on a particular day (i.e. all necessary traffic signs will be displayed on that day) .
Thereafter, the local authority must maintain the signs for any individual item within an order to be in force where a road marking doesn’t meet the requirement as required by law the item within a particular traffic order is temporarily out of force, and a contravention cannot occur
Examples: a yellow line must be placed on the road exactly as prescribed in the regulations, noting the various tolerances (sometimes 5%, i.e. a 100mm width can be 95-105mm, such that a part worn line that doesn’t meet that requirement renders the whole length of the item in the order unenforceable. Whenever a yellow line passes over a drain cover in the gutter the yellow line it ceases to be ‘continuous’ (it should be squared off around the grating), wherever road works are carried out and sections of the line are missing, all these render the item in the order unenforceable. IN OTHER WORDS AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED
7. The report makes reference to an alleged ‘Counsel’s Opinion’, yet no evidence has been produced as to what counsel was asked and what was his/her response, until that is made evident then the assistant treasurer is reliant upon hearsay, on November 11th 2004 The Government Office of the North East (GONE) sent an Email both to myself and Sunderland Council (Legal Services) stating quite clearly that CPZ signs needed an order, yet ‘ Counsel’ allegedly disputes officers of the Secretary of State, elsewhere there are numerous official advisory pamphlets from the DfT that state similar that a CPZ sign must be displayed only to convey to the public that an order has been made. It is essential that ‘counsel’s opinion’ and the question asked made available to the members and the public
8. Why has Neil Herron’s name been referred to in such a desultory manner? Such as in para 8.5 onwards. The Data Protection Act prevents this, that is why the officers who were culpable in this mess have not been named
9. Members should be made aware that they are responsible and Criminal charges may be in the offing, I would expect members to reject this report on the grounds that it is insufficient and too little time has been given to absorb the limited information given (which in itself is damning). Recently members will have noticed pages of amendments, council officers have been CORRECTING road markings lately (i.e. they were never right in the first place and many still aren’t)
10. Whilst motorist’s may appeal, how many know how to, it could cost £200 to seek legal advice (for a £30 ticket) this is non recoverable. Myself I have had 100% success in appealing for 6 motorists ( I did it for nothing, though each case took about 30hrs preparatory work) and for myself 4 cases upon which the council refuse to respond (contrary to the constitution. Apparently Parking Services are unaware that all correspondence should be answered in 5 working days and a further letter within 21 working days if the matter is going to take longer.
11. Yes clearly there is a major problem with senior management who do not know what is going on
Capt. D.W.Green
He also raises the point of a possible Data Protection breach with Herron being named in the report in a desultory manner!
Fax
To:
Ged Fitzgerald
Ch. Executive
City of Sunderland
Reports to Joint Meeting of the Policy and Co-Ordination and Environmental and Planning Review Committees (26.01.06) and Cabinet Meeting (27.01.06)
CC:All members
Comments on the above
Ged Fitzgerald
Ch. Executive
And Elected members
Dear Sirs,
1. I received my copies of the above report at 1600hrs on Monday 23/1/06, whilst members received their copies by post next day,
2. This appears contrary to Sec. 100B of the Local Govt. Act 1972
3. Nevertheless elected members and the public have had only one ‘clear day’ to study the contents. This is a very important report which really requires more than the customary five clear days to appreciate its contents.
4. Members should be aware that there are 2 main issues in the report, one for the motorist (whom you represent) and secondly the enforcement
5. Motorists, they are given a ’ticket’ for “contravening a traffic order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Enforcement, this previously was carried out under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, however under DPE it is enforced under the Road Traffic Act 1991. being a criminal or non-criminal offence respectively.
6. Traffic Orders: These are made strictly in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State and have been so for decades, so the procedure is well known. After the initial procedures have been carried out the order is ‘made’, however it is not in forc (i.e.unenforceable) until each and every item contained within the order has been suitably signed by a legal traffic sign (prescribed or authorized).
A public notice must be displayed stating that the order has been made and coming into force on a particular day (i.e. all necessary traffic signs will be displayed on that day) .
Thereafter, the local authority must maintain the signs for any individual item within an order to be in force where a road marking doesn’t meet the requirement as required by law the item within a particular traffic order is temporarily out of force, and a contravention cannot occur
Examples: a yellow line must be placed on the road exactly as prescribed in the regulations, noting the various tolerances (sometimes 5%, i.e. a 100mm width can be 95-105mm, such that a part worn line that doesn’t meet that requirement renders the whole length of the item in the order unenforceable. Whenever a yellow line passes over a drain cover in the gutter the yellow line it ceases to be ‘continuous’ (it should be squared off around the grating), wherever road works are carried out and sections of the line are missing, all these render the item in the order unenforceable. IN OTHER WORDS AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ISSUED
7. The report makes reference to an alleged ‘Counsel’s Opinion’, yet no evidence has been produced as to what counsel was asked and what was his/her response, until that is made evident then the assistant treasurer is reliant upon hearsay, on November 11th 2004 The Government Office of the North East (GONE) sent an Email both to myself and Sunderland Council (Legal Services) stating quite clearly that CPZ signs needed an order, yet ‘ Counsel’ allegedly disputes officers of the Secretary of State, elsewhere there are numerous official advisory pamphlets from the DfT that state similar that a CPZ sign must be displayed only to convey to the public that an order has been made. It is essential that ‘counsel’s opinion’ and the question asked made available to the members and the public
8. Why has Neil Herron’s name been referred to in such a desultory manner? Such as in para 8.5 onwards. The Data Protection Act prevents this, that is why the officers who were culpable in this mess have not been named
9. Members should be made aware that they are responsible and Criminal charges may be in the offing, I would expect members to reject this report on the grounds that it is insufficient and too little time has been given to absorb the limited information given (which in itself is damning). Recently members will have noticed pages of amendments, council officers have been CORRECTING road markings lately (i.e. they were never right in the first place and many still aren’t)
10. Whilst motorist’s may appeal, how many know how to, it could cost £200 to seek legal advice (for a £30 ticket) this is non recoverable. Myself I have had 100% success in appealing for 6 motorists ( I did it for nothing, though each case took about 30hrs preparatory work) and for myself 4 cases upon which the council refuse to respond (contrary to the constitution. Apparently Parking Services are unaware that all correspondence should be answered in 5 working days and a further letter within 21 working days if the matter is going to take longer.
11. Yes clearly there is a major problem with senior management who do not know what is going on
Capt. D.W.Green
Sunderland Case may throw a spanner in the national drive towards Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
Statement
The People's No Campaign
25th January 2006
Sunderland case may halt local authorities' drive towards 'cash cow' decriminalised parking enforcement scam
...and contractor NCP Guilty of issuing 'illegal' tickets
In an unfolding case which will have national implications, Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime has now been exposed as an absolute shambles by an internal report.
The investigation, 'Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Post Implementation Review,' was initiated following a complaint from The People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron after he and colleagues uncovered massive flaws in the DPE regime.
It was Paul Davies, Head of Sunderland City Council's Internal Audit who then produced the report. which, has taken over four months to compile.
His report highlights massive failings within departments led by Development and Regeneration Director, Phil Barrett and City Solicitor, Bob Rayner and reveals ineptitude and incompetence to a staggering degree and an apparent complacency with regard to the adherence to the necessary legislative requirements. (It is believed that the two gentlemen with the main responsibilities are on combined salaries in excess of £200,000 per annum).
The exposure of this shambolic and spectacular failure to introduce DPE correctly comes at a time when a further 14 applications are before the Department for Transport to add to the 144 Local Authorities who have been granted DPE powers.
Concerns have been raised by The People's No Campaign group and evidence was submitted to the House of Commons Transport Committee in early December 2005.
Concerns include the increasing lawless nature of greedy councils desperate to adopt DPE and forego all the necessary checks and balances and abandon all principles of accountability. Draconian enforcement regimes are now driven by the cash incentive. Collection of unpaid tickets has been handed, in many instances, to bailiffs who have scant regard for procedure. The decriminalisation and therefore the removal of the courts as the 'independent arbiter' of 'process' has allowed local authorities to behave as nothing more than modern day licensed Dick Turpins.
What is alarming is that there is no official body and a lack of Statutory guidance to oversee ANY of these practices.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not tasked to examine regimes, just individual cases laid before it. However, they can issue 'circulars' to local authorities to advise them of important and significant cases. Their independence is currently being challenged (they receive 60p per ticket issued).
Sunderland City Council in their application to the Department for Transport simply 'reassured' the Secretary of State that everything would be correct and in order at the commencement of DPE.
No-one checked their claims.
No-one checked the signs, lines or Traffic Regulation Orders.
No-one checked the wording of the Penalty Charge Notices.
The recommendations of the independent consultants brought in to advise Sunderland Council were not acted upon. No-one checked and therefore the unlawful, draconian enforcement regime was unleashed upon the City's businesses and residents using NCP as the selected cotractor.
Ultimately the Secretary of State will be forced, either through internal or external pressure, to revoke Sunderland's Special Parking Area and it will be the first council in the country to have its Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers removed and reinstated back to Police control. Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin is currently awaiting a response from the Department for Transport as to the necessary requirements to begin revocation of the City's Special Parking Area status.
This will be the first real test as to whether they will continue to endorse this lawless assault on the motorist or whether someone is prepared to call a halt on the Government's drive to bring in DPE across the country and examine the legal implications of operating such a system.
The emergency Cabinet Meeting takes place on Friday after the official publication of the internal report.
The fact that the Council 'misled' the Secretary of State is one major issue, but one aspect which we are about to reveal ties in with what we have uncovered nationally (FoI requests in to all DPE authorities) reveal millions of pounds of monies taken from the public unlawfully AND knowingly by the contractors, NCP (National Car Parks)
The line we have uncovered now implicates NCP (recently taken over by 3i Venture Caplitalists for £555m) in what is perceived by many as being a massive fraud.
Overview:
Sunderland Council became aware that tickets issued on Taxi Ranks made under the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act were not enforceable under DPE powers. It was uncovered in October 2003 in Sunderland. Council told NCP to stop issuing. NCP told Parking Attendants to keep issuing and cancel tickets to anyone who appealed (former Senior NCP attendant made a witness statement to that effect). 78 further tickets were issued AFTER they were told to stop.
We have evidence that NCP continued to issue in other parts of the country in the same circumstance.
We have responses from over 100 Local Authorities, a number of whom have issued in similar circumstances. The amount is close to £1m
At the same time Sunderland Council sought advice on the legality of Blue Badge Holders parking in loading bays. Counsel's advice revealed that Regulation 8 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemption for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 provides an exemption for Blue Badge Holders. Based on that advice it was decided to issue refunds to Blue Badge Holders who had parked in loading bays (involved going back over all photo records and PAs notebooks).
However, many, in fact most, local authorities are not aware of this exemption and continue to issue such tickets...including, it appears, those operated by NCP who are aware of the Sunderland situation. I am sure that many Blue Badge Holders will welcome this unexpected windfall.
Again, we have the responses from all the DPE local authorities and the amount of revenue generated from Code 25s runs into many millions. The task of identifying and refunding Blue Badge Holders who have been wrongly ticketed for parking in loading bays will be an enormous, and costly, one for the local authorities.
Currently the Department for Transport is stonewalling the question.
However, the big one is this, and this is where the allegations of fraud (Obtaining Money by Deception under the 1996 Theft (Amendment) Act and the 1968 Theft Act) comes into play.
Sunderland City Council became aware on 16th May 2005 after NPAS Circular 04/05 (MacArthur v Bury) that the wording on their tickets didn't conform to statute (Section 66(3)c 1991 RTA)
On 16th May 2005 Head of Transport sough advice from City Solicitor
On 14th June 2005 Assistant Solicitor recommended tickets be changed immediately.
On 16th June 2005 NCP were told to add 'Date of Issue' to their electronic version of the ticket.
This has only just been done Dec / Jan.
The consequence is that NCP were issuing tickets for six months KNOWING that they were illegal. They had been informed.
What is being highlighted here with the Sunderland case is the absolute lawlessness of the DPE regime in this city. This situation is not unique to Sunderland and is being replicated right across the country.
There is a solution, and it is the only solution.
The Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area for Sunderland must be revoked and parking control must revert back to Police control. That is the only way that public confidence can be restored. Failure to do so will result in contempt for an unworkable and unacceptable system which will be challenged at every turn and lead to a massive and continuing administrative nightmare for the Council.
Sunderland Council are attempting to stop massive blood loss from multiple amputations with a packet of elastoplasts. The time has come to end the suffering.
Ends:
Contact:
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
0191 565 7143
0191 514 4606
07776 202045
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/ and http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
Notes:
In the case of Rochdale Metroploitan Borough Council, 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices were issued with wording which did not conform to statutory requirements. There had been over 50 appeals to the National Parking Adjudication Service before the error was discovered.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (which purports to be independent but receives 60p from each ticket issued) received a total of £45,000 from Sunderland. To date it has heard over 250 appeals and has not once indicated that the wording on the tickets was unlawful...Question has to be asked again as to why this evidence was not even checked and flagged up earlier. This undoubtedly brings NPAS into disrepute.
The lack of scrutiny of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement by the Department for Transport is also leading to the setting up of private companies who are now operating similar schemes on private land, including large retail parks, and accessing the DVLA data base purporting to be parking companies and effectively demanding money with menaces. Numerous examples are coming in to this office every day.
Notes: The Campaign
The People's No Campaign is a growing 'umbrella' campaign group opposed to all forms of unacceptable and unaccountable governance.
Exposure of the 'out of control' Decriminalised Parking scam which the Government and Department for Transport fails to recognise can be viewed here.
Exposure of the false 'independence' by the National Parking Adjudication Service can be viewed here.and here
Recent news on how local authorities are defying the law to rake in millions here
More can be seen at www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
The People's No Campaign has grown out of the Metric Martyrs and the North East No Campaign (massively defeated Prescott in the 2004 Elected Assembly Referendum).
The group also created the No Campaign against the European Constitution.
Neil Herron along with Steven Thoburn were European Campaigners of the Year in 2001 with the Metric Martyrs Campaign beating Head of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, and his launch of the Euro Notes and Coins.
'Decriminalised Parking Enforcement: Post Implementation Review' ... e-mail us at mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk and we can provide a pdf version of the report.
The People's No Campaign
25th January 2006
Sunderland case may halt local authorities' drive towards 'cash cow' decriminalised parking enforcement scam
...and contractor NCP Guilty of issuing 'illegal' tickets
In an unfolding case which will have national implications, Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime has now been exposed as an absolute shambles by an internal report.
The investigation, 'Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Post Implementation Review,' was initiated following a complaint from The People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron after he and colleagues uncovered massive flaws in the DPE regime.
It was Paul Davies, Head of Sunderland City Council's Internal Audit who then produced the report. which, has taken over four months to compile.
His report highlights massive failings within departments led by Development and Regeneration Director, Phil Barrett and City Solicitor, Bob Rayner and reveals ineptitude and incompetence to a staggering degree and an apparent complacency with regard to the adherence to the necessary legislative requirements. (It is believed that the two gentlemen with the main responsibilities are on combined salaries in excess of £200,000 per annum).
The exposure of this shambolic and spectacular failure to introduce DPE correctly comes at a time when a further 14 applications are before the Department for Transport to add to the 144 Local Authorities who have been granted DPE powers.
Concerns have been raised by The People's No Campaign group and evidence was submitted to the House of Commons Transport Committee in early December 2005.
Concerns include the increasing lawless nature of greedy councils desperate to adopt DPE and forego all the necessary checks and balances and abandon all principles of accountability. Draconian enforcement regimes are now driven by the cash incentive. Collection of unpaid tickets has been handed, in many instances, to bailiffs who have scant regard for procedure. The decriminalisation and therefore the removal of the courts as the 'independent arbiter' of 'process' has allowed local authorities to behave as nothing more than modern day licensed Dick Turpins.
What is alarming is that there is no official body and a lack of Statutory guidance to oversee ANY of these practices.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not tasked to examine regimes, just individual cases laid before it. However, they can issue 'circulars' to local authorities to advise them of important and significant cases. Their independence is currently being challenged (they receive 60p per ticket issued).
Sunderland City Council in their application to the Department for Transport simply 'reassured' the Secretary of State that everything would be correct and in order at the commencement of DPE.
No-one checked their claims.
No-one checked the signs, lines or Traffic Regulation Orders.
No-one checked the wording of the Penalty Charge Notices.
The recommendations of the independent consultants brought in to advise Sunderland Council were not acted upon. No-one checked and therefore the unlawful, draconian enforcement regime was unleashed upon the City's businesses and residents using NCP as the selected cotractor.
Ultimately the Secretary of State will be forced, either through internal or external pressure, to revoke Sunderland's Special Parking Area and it will be the first council in the country to have its Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers removed and reinstated back to Police control. Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin is currently awaiting a response from the Department for Transport as to the necessary requirements to begin revocation of the City's Special Parking Area status.
This will be the first real test as to whether they will continue to endorse this lawless assault on the motorist or whether someone is prepared to call a halt on the Government's drive to bring in DPE across the country and examine the legal implications of operating such a system.
The emergency Cabinet Meeting takes place on Friday after the official publication of the internal report.
The fact that the Council 'misled' the Secretary of State is one major issue, but one aspect which we are about to reveal ties in with what we have uncovered nationally (FoI requests in to all DPE authorities) reveal millions of pounds of monies taken from the public unlawfully AND knowingly by the contractors, NCP (National Car Parks)
The line we have uncovered now implicates NCP (recently taken over by 3i Venture Caplitalists for £555m) in what is perceived by many as being a massive fraud.
Overview:
Sunderland Council became aware that tickets issued on Taxi Ranks made under the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act were not enforceable under DPE powers. It was uncovered in October 2003 in Sunderland. Council told NCP to stop issuing. NCP told Parking Attendants to keep issuing and cancel tickets to anyone who appealed (former Senior NCP attendant made a witness statement to that effect). 78 further tickets were issued AFTER they were told to stop.
We have evidence that NCP continued to issue in other parts of the country in the same circumstance.
We have responses from over 100 Local Authorities, a number of whom have issued in similar circumstances. The amount is close to £1m
At the same time Sunderland Council sought advice on the legality of Blue Badge Holders parking in loading bays. Counsel's advice revealed that Regulation 8 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemption for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 provides an exemption for Blue Badge Holders. Based on that advice it was decided to issue refunds to Blue Badge Holders who had parked in loading bays (involved going back over all photo records and PAs notebooks).
However, many, in fact most, local authorities are not aware of this exemption and continue to issue such tickets...including, it appears, those operated by NCP who are aware of the Sunderland situation. I am sure that many Blue Badge Holders will welcome this unexpected windfall.
Again, we have the responses from all the DPE local authorities and the amount of revenue generated from Code 25s runs into many millions. The task of identifying and refunding Blue Badge Holders who have been wrongly ticketed for parking in loading bays will be an enormous, and costly, one for the local authorities.
Currently the Department for Transport is stonewalling the question.
However, the big one is this, and this is where the allegations of fraud (Obtaining Money by Deception under the 1996 Theft (Amendment) Act and the 1968 Theft Act) comes into play.
Sunderland City Council became aware on 16th May 2005 after NPAS Circular 04/05 (MacArthur v Bury) that the wording on their tickets didn't conform to statute (Section 66(3)c 1991 RTA)
On 16th May 2005 Head of Transport sough advice from City Solicitor
On 14th June 2005 Assistant Solicitor recommended tickets be changed immediately.
On 16th June 2005 NCP were told to add 'Date of Issue' to their electronic version of the ticket.
This has only just been done Dec / Jan.
The consequence is that NCP were issuing tickets for six months KNOWING that they were illegal. They had been informed.
What is being highlighted here with the Sunderland case is the absolute lawlessness of the DPE regime in this city. This situation is not unique to Sunderland and is being replicated right across the country.
There is a solution, and it is the only solution.
The Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area for Sunderland must be revoked and parking control must revert back to Police control. That is the only way that public confidence can be restored. Failure to do so will result in contempt for an unworkable and unacceptable system which will be challenged at every turn and lead to a massive and continuing administrative nightmare for the Council.
Sunderland Council are attempting to stop massive blood loss from multiple amputations with a packet of elastoplasts. The time has come to end the suffering.
Ends:
Contact:
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
0191 565 7143
0191 514 4606
07776 202045
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/ and http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
Notes:
In the case of Rochdale Metroploitan Borough Council, 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices were issued with wording which did not conform to statutory requirements. There had been over 50 appeals to the National Parking Adjudication Service before the error was discovered.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (which purports to be independent but receives 60p from each ticket issued) received a total of £45,000 from Sunderland. To date it has heard over 250 appeals and has not once indicated that the wording on the tickets was unlawful...Question has to be asked again as to why this evidence was not even checked and flagged up earlier. This undoubtedly brings NPAS into disrepute.
The lack of scrutiny of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement by the Department for Transport is also leading to the setting up of private companies who are now operating similar schemes on private land, including large retail parks, and accessing the DVLA data base purporting to be parking companies and effectively demanding money with menaces. Numerous examples are coming in to this office every day.
Notes: The Campaign
The People's No Campaign is a growing 'umbrella' campaign group opposed to all forms of unacceptable and unaccountable governance.
Exposure of the 'out of control' Decriminalised Parking scam which the Government and Department for Transport fails to recognise can be viewed here.
Exposure of the false 'independence' by the National Parking Adjudication Service can be viewed here.and here
Recent news on how local authorities are defying the law to rake in millions here
More can be seen at www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
The People's No Campaign has grown out of the Metric Martyrs and the North East No Campaign (massively defeated Prescott in the 2004 Elected Assembly Referendum).
The group also created the No Campaign against the European Constitution.
Neil Herron along with Steven Thoburn were European Campaigners of the Year in 2001 with the Metric Martyrs Campaign beating Head of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, and his launch of the Euro Notes and Coins.
'Decriminalised Parking Enforcement: Post Implementation Review' ... e-mail us at mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk and we can provide a pdf version of the report.
Another Victory: Carlisle City Council quashes ticket
Neil,
You may recall that we spoke last year about a PCN issued against me by Carlisle City Council.
I made my representations, as per your template letter, and they have told me that they are cancelling the PCN and Notice to Owner!!
I had also pointed out, along with the Bill of Rights argument, that the photo of my car (taken as evidence of the parking contravention) showed me at the wheel (this is because I took the ticket off the warden and got into the car then he took the photo - I didn't tell them that!)
The Appeals Panel has apparently decided that my car "was not stationary when the PCN was issued".
They say that is the reason they are cancelling the ticket. They also say they reject the Bill of Rights argument.
This makes me laugh - do they really believe that one of their own wardens issued a PCN against a moving car???!
I have written to the Council asking them to confirm that they are taking disciplinary action against this rogue warden, who jumps onto moving cars to issue tickets.
Incidentally, the Council also failed to comply with a request I made under the FoIA for a copy of the PCN. I reported them to the Information Commissioner (useless quango) and broke their 100% compliance record.
It gives me great satisfaction to hang these jumped up functionaries by their own rules and regulations!
If I can be of any help with the campaign - ie by releasing information on my case, please let me know.
Best wishes
David
You may recall that we spoke last year about a PCN issued against me by Carlisle City Council.
I made my representations, as per your template letter, and they have told me that they are cancelling the PCN and Notice to Owner!!
I had also pointed out, along with the Bill of Rights argument, that the photo of my car (taken as evidence of the parking contravention) showed me at the wheel (this is because I took the ticket off the warden and got into the car then he took the photo - I didn't tell them that!)
The Appeals Panel has apparently decided that my car "was not stationary when the PCN was issued".
They say that is the reason they are cancelling the ticket. They also say they reject the Bill of Rights argument.
This makes me laugh - do they really believe that one of their own wardens issued a PCN against a moving car???!
I have written to the Council asking them to confirm that they are taking disciplinary action against this rogue warden, who jumps onto moving cars to issue tickets.
Incidentally, the Council also failed to comply with a request I made under the FoIA for a copy of the PCN. I reported them to the Information Commissioner (useless quango) and broke their 100% compliance record.
It gives me great satisfaction to hang these jumped up functionaries by their own rules and regulations!
If I can be of any help with the campaign - ie by releasing information on my case, please let me know.
Best wishes
David
Press Release: Sunderland MP Drawn into Parking Row
Press Release: Immediate
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin, now involved in Sunderland's DecriminalisedParking Shambles...Secretary of State asked to Revoke DPE status
Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin's office yesterday confirmed that there was still no response from the Department for Transport or the Minister to the series of questions raised by the group behind the exposure of SunderlandCity Council's shambolic Decriminalised Parking enforcement regime.
The questions were put for Mr. Mullin to table in Parliament (see below).
An extraordinary meeting of two committees takes place today at Sunderland Council with a meeting of the Leader and Cabinet tomorrow to discuss the findings of the scathing and damning report..."Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Post Implementation Review," produced by the Head of Internal Audit, Paul Davies.
Campaigner Neil Herron states, "The report is absolutely scathing and exposes wholesale failures in the department responsible for the oversight and operation of parking enforcement and the legal department. What is absolutely clear is that Sunderland City Council, perhaps in their haste to initiate DPE, misled the Secretary of State in their application to theDepartment for Transport, 'Application for Designation Order for Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area' which allowed them, when granted byParliament, to begin DPE.
What must be borne in mind is that this has allowed them to collect millions of pounds which has gone into the Local Authority's accounts and into the pockets of a private company... all on the basis of reassurances given bySunderland Council Officers but which were based on an absolute falsehood.
Those reassurances were never checked.
Now as a result of our complaint and the internal investigation's revelations we expect nothing more than full refunds to every member of the public and resignations from all those involved in this shambolic episode.
We expect the Secretary of State to revoke the SPA / PPA for Sunderland and reinstate parking control back to the Police and Police employed Traffic Wardens."
Notes for Editors:
The Application from the City of Sunderland to the Department for Transport seeking to introduce a SPA / PPA pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991 to allow the authority to implement a decriminalised parking enforcement regime was submitted on 30th April 2002.
On 14th November 2001 the Cabinet had approved the proposals including adecision to join the National Parking Adjudication Service.
The proposed commencement date was 14th October 2002 (later put back toFebruary 3rd 2003).
In the application it states:
'The authority has carried out, or set in motion, all of the necessary steps required to enable proper and successful implementation of new powers.
Specifically it has
...undertaken an extensive review of its waitingand loading restriction traffic regulation orders...
The objective of this exercise have been:
- to provide clear, unambiguous TROs for the relevant adjudication service
- to ensure the accuracy of the representation on the ground of the TROs,including signs and lines
- to ensure the appropriateness of the TROs
The work will be completed well before the commencement date.
It is clear from the Internal Investigation that not only was this work not completed, but it still had not been completed when the investigation commenced and we have witnessed to date seven full pages of corrected TROs in the local press and lines and signs being corrected, removed or replacedby the hundred.
Therefore, answers to the questions tabled by Chris Mullin MP become very critical to the outcome of this whole sorry saga.
We are now thirty six daysand waiting.
Parliamentary questions for Chris Mullin
To:Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
3 The Esplanade
Sunderland
SR2 7BQ
19th December 2005
Parliamentary Questions for Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
1) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What is the procedure is for revoking a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order and what criteria or evidence would be required for the Secretary of State for Transport to initiate such a revocation?'
2) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What procedures are in place at the Department for to check the accuracy of statements made by a Local Authority within a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport?'
3) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'Who is responsible for checking the claims of a local authority in theirDecriminalised Parking Enforcement application that their signs, lines andTraffic Regulation Orders are correct and in force before the commencementof Decriminalised Parking Enforcement?'
4) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'If it is the case, and can be shown to be the case, that the Secretary of State for Transport has been misinformed and/or misled into granting a Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order, what provision is there for reimbursing motorists wrongly levied with fines and what provision is there to provide compensation for motorists who have suffered losses at the hands of bailiffs?'
5) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority orCouncil Officers, should it be proven that they:-
(i) Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to theDepartment for Transport knowing that the enforcement regime would not or could not be in force legally because at the time DPE was due to commencethere were numerous errors with regard to on-street signage and incorrectTraffic Regulation Orders?
(ii)Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport but due to incompetence were unaware that there were numerous on-street signage errors and incorrect Traffic RegulationOrders?
6) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority orCouncil Officers, should it be proven that they are continuing to allowPenalty Charge Notices to be issued knowing that aspects of theDecriminalised Parking Enforcement regime are unlawful?'
7) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What are the financial and audit implications for a Local Authority found to have been issuing Penalty Charge Notices without the correct lawful authority and deriving income from unlawfully issued Penalty Charge Notices?'
8) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'Could he please advise as to his view of the current status of the Declaration and Bill of Rights insomuch as the1991 Road Traffic Act appearsto be unlawful and fails to expressly repeal, and therefore conflicts withthe provisions of the Constitution.'
Contact:
Neil Herron
Office 0191 565 7143
Office 0191 514 4606
Mobile 07776 202045
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin, now involved in Sunderland's DecriminalisedParking Shambles...Secretary of State asked to Revoke DPE status
Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin's office yesterday confirmed that there was still no response from the Department for Transport or the Minister to the series of questions raised by the group behind the exposure of SunderlandCity Council's shambolic Decriminalised Parking enforcement regime.
The questions were put for Mr. Mullin to table in Parliament (see below).
An extraordinary meeting of two committees takes place today at Sunderland Council with a meeting of the Leader and Cabinet tomorrow to discuss the findings of the scathing and damning report..."Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Post Implementation Review," produced by the Head of Internal Audit, Paul Davies.
Campaigner Neil Herron states, "The report is absolutely scathing and exposes wholesale failures in the department responsible for the oversight and operation of parking enforcement and the legal department. What is absolutely clear is that Sunderland City Council, perhaps in their haste to initiate DPE, misled the Secretary of State in their application to theDepartment for Transport, 'Application for Designation Order for Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area' which allowed them, when granted byParliament, to begin DPE.
What must be borne in mind is that this has allowed them to collect millions of pounds which has gone into the Local Authority's accounts and into the pockets of a private company... all on the basis of reassurances given bySunderland Council Officers but which were based on an absolute falsehood.
Those reassurances were never checked.
Now as a result of our complaint and the internal investigation's revelations we expect nothing more than full refunds to every member of the public and resignations from all those involved in this shambolic episode.
We expect the Secretary of State to revoke the SPA / PPA for Sunderland and reinstate parking control back to the Police and Police employed Traffic Wardens."
Notes for Editors:
The Application from the City of Sunderland to the Department for Transport seeking to introduce a SPA / PPA pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991 to allow the authority to implement a decriminalised parking enforcement regime was submitted on 30th April 2002.
On 14th November 2001 the Cabinet had approved the proposals including adecision to join the National Parking Adjudication Service.
The proposed commencement date was 14th October 2002 (later put back toFebruary 3rd 2003).
In the application it states:
'The authority has carried out, or set in motion, all of the necessary steps required to enable proper and successful implementation of new powers.
Specifically it has
...undertaken an extensive review of its waitingand loading restriction traffic regulation orders...
The objective of this exercise have been:
- to provide clear, unambiguous TROs for the relevant adjudication service
- to ensure the accuracy of the representation on the ground of the TROs,including signs and lines
- to ensure the appropriateness of the TROs
The work will be completed well before the commencement date.
It is clear from the Internal Investigation that not only was this work not completed, but it still had not been completed when the investigation commenced and we have witnessed to date seven full pages of corrected TROs in the local press and lines and signs being corrected, removed or replacedby the hundred.
Therefore, answers to the questions tabled by Chris Mullin MP become very critical to the outcome of this whole sorry saga.
We are now thirty six daysand waiting.
Parliamentary questions for Chris Mullin
To:Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
3 The Esplanade
Sunderland
SR2 7BQ
19th December 2005
Parliamentary Questions for Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
1) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What is the procedure is for revoking a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order and what criteria or evidence would be required for the Secretary of State for Transport to initiate such a revocation?'
2) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What procedures are in place at the Department for to check the accuracy of statements made by a Local Authority within a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport?'
3) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'Who is responsible for checking the claims of a local authority in theirDecriminalised Parking Enforcement application that their signs, lines andTraffic Regulation Orders are correct and in force before the commencementof Decriminalised Parking Enforcement?'
4) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'If it is the case, and can be shown to be the case, that the Secretary of State for Transport has been misinformed and/or misled into granting a Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order, what provision is there for reimbursing motorists wrongly levied with fines and what provision is there to provide compensation for motorists who have suffered losses at the hands of bailiffs?'
5) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority orCouncil Officers, should it be proven that they:-
(i) Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to theDepartment for Transport knowing that the enforcement regime would not or could not be in force legally because at the time DPE was due to commencethere were numerous errors with regard to on-street signage and incorrectTraffic Regulation Orders?
(ii)Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport but due to incompetence were unaware that there were numerous on-street signage errors and incorrect Traffic RegulationOrders?
6) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority orCouncil Officers, should it be proven that they are continuing to allowPenalty Charge Notices to be issued knowing that aspects of theDecriminalised Parking Enforcement regime are unlawful?'
7) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'What are the financial and audit implications for a Local Authority found to have been issuing Penalty Charge Notices without the correct lawful authority and deriving income from unlawfully issued Penalty Charge Notices?'
8) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
'Could he please advise as to his view of the current status of the Declaration and Bill of Rights insomuch as the1991 Road Traffic Act appearsto be unlawful and fails to expressly repeal, and therefore conflicts withthe provisions of the Constitution.'
Contact:
Neil Herron
Office 0191 565 7143
Office 0191 514 4606
Mobile 07776 202045
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
Thirty Six Days and Counting
Below is a list of questions submitted to Sunderland MP Chris Mullin which will lead the way to the revocation of Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforecment regime which has now, following the scathing internal report, descended into an absolute shambles.
However, we are now at thirty six days and counting ... still no response from the Department for Transport.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Parliamentary questions for Chris Mullin
To:Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
3 The Esplanade
Sunderland
SR2 7BQ
19th December 2005
Parliamentary Questions for Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
1) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What is the procedure is for revoking a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order and what criteria or evidence would be required for the Secretary of State for Transport to initiate such a revocation?’
2) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What procedures are in place at the Department for to check the accuracy of statements made by a Local Authority within a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport?’
3) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘Who is responsible for checking the claims of a local authority in their Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application that their signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders are correct and in force before the commencement of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement?’
4) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘If it is the case, and can be shown to be the case, that the Secretary of State for Transport has been misinformed and/or misled into granting a Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order, what provision is there for reimbursing motorists wrongly levied with fines and what provision is there to provide compensation for motorists who have suffered losses at the hands of bailiffs?’
5) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority or Council Officers, should it be proven that they:-
(i) Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport knowing that the enforcement regime would not or could not be in force legally because at the time DPE was due to commence there were numerous errors with regard to on-street signage and incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders?
(ii)Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport but due to incompetence were unaware that there were numerous on-street signage errors and incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders?
6) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority or Council Officers, should it be proven that they are continuing to allow Penalty Charge Notices to be issued knowing that aspects of the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime are unlawful?’
7) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What are the financial and audit implications for a Local Authority found to have been issuing Penalty Charge Notices without the correct lawful authority and deriving income from unlawfully issued Penalty Charge Notices?’
8) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘Could he please advise as to his view of the current status of the Declaration and Bill of Rights insomuch as the1991 Road Traffic Act appears to be unlawful and fails to expressly repeal, and therefore conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution.'
However, we are now at thirty six days and counting ... still no response from the Department for Transport.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Parliamentary questions for Chris Mullin
To:Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
3 The Esplanade
Sunderland
SR2 7BQ
19th December 2005
Parliamentary Questions for Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
1) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What is the procedure is for revoking a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order and what criteria or evidence would be required for the Secretary of State for Transport to initiate such a revocation?’
2) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What procedures are in place at the Department for to check the accuracy of statements made by a Local Authority within a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport?’
3) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘Who is responsible for checking the claims of a local authority in their Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application that their signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders are correct and in force before the commencement of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement?’
4) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘If it is the case, and can be shown to be the case, that the Secretary of State for Transport has been misinformed and/or misled into granting a Special Parking Area / Permitted Parking Area Order, what provision is there for reimbursing motorists wrongly levied with fines and what provision is there to provide compensation for motorists who have suffered losses at the hands of bailiffs?’
5) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority or Council Officers, should it be proven that they:-
(i) Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport knowing that the enforcement regime would not or could not be in force legally because at the time DPE was due to commence there were numerous errors with regard to on-street signage and incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders?
(ii)Submitted a Decriminalised Parking Enforcement application to the Department for Transport but due to incompetence were unaware that there were numerous on-street signage errors and incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders?
6) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What action, and by whom, could be taken against a Local Authority or Council Officers, should it be proven that they are continuing to allow Penalty Charge Notices to be issued knowing that aspects of the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime are unlawful?’
7) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘What are the financial and audit implications for a Local Authority found to have been issuing Penalty Charge Notices without the correct lawful authority and deriving income from unlawfully issued Penalty Charge Notices?’
8) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport:
‘Could he please advise as to his view of the current status of the Declaration and Bill of Rights insomuch as the1991 Road Traffic Act appears to be unlawful and fails to expressly repeal, and therefore conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution.'
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
DPE Scam exposed. National implications.
Press Release:Immediate
The People's No Campaign
25th January 2006
Sunderland case may halt local authorities' drive towards 'cash cow' decriminalised parking enforcement scam
...and contractor NCP Guilty of issuing 'illegal' tickets
In an unfolding case which will have national implications, Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime has now been exposed as an absolute shambles by an internal report.
The investigation, 'Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Post Implementation Review,' was initiated following a complaint from The People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron after he and colleagues uncovered massive flaws in the DPE regime.
It was Paul Davies, Head of Sunderland City Council's Internal Audit who then produced the report. which, has taken over four months to compile.
His report highlights massive failings within departments led by Development and Regeneration Director, Phil Barrett and City Solicitor, Bob Rayner and reveals ineptitude and incompetence to a staggering degree and an apparent complacency with regard to the adherence to the necessary legislative requirements. (It is believed that the two gentlemen with the main responsibilities are on combined salaries in excess of £200,000 per annum).
The exposure of this shambolic and spectacular failure to introduce DPE correctly comes at a time when a further 14 applications are before the Department for Transport to add to the 144 Local Authorities who have been granted DPE powers.
Concerns have been raised by The People's No Campaign group and evidence was submitted to the House of Commons Transport Committee in early December 2005.
Concerns include the increasing lawless nature of greedy councils desperate to adopt DPE and forego all the necessary checks and balances and abandon all principles of accountability. Draconian enforcement regimes are now driven by the cash incentive. Collection of unpaid tickets has been handed, in many instances, to bailiffs who have scant regard for procedure. The decriminalisation and therefore the removal of the courts as the 'independent arbiter' of 'process' has allowed local authorities to behave as nothing more than modern day licensed Dick Turpins.
What is alarming is that there is no official body and a lack of Statutory guidance to oversee ANY of these practices.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not tasked to examine regimes, just individual cases laid before it. However, they can issue 'circulars' to local authorities to advise them of important and significant cases. Their claim to be ‘independent’ is currently being challenged (they receive 60p per ticket issued).
Sunderland City Council in their application to the Department for Transport simply 'reassured' the Secretary of State that everything would be correct and in order at the commencement of DPE.
No-one checked their claims.
No-one checked the signs, lines or Traffic Regulation Orders.
No-one checked the wording of the Penalty Charge Notices.
The recommendations of the independent consultants brought in to advise Sunderland Council were not acted upon.
No-one checked and therefore the unlawful, draconian enforcement regime was unleashed upon the City's businesses and residents using NCP as the selected contractor.
Ultimately the Secretary of State will be forced, either through internal or external pressure, to revoke Sunderland's Special Parking Area and it will be the first council in the country to have its Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers removed and reinstated back to Police control. Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin is currently awaiting a response from the Department for Transport as to the necessary requirements to begin revocation of the City's Special Parking Area status.
This will be the first real test as to whether the Department for Transport will continue to endorse this lawless assault on the motorist or whether someone, either politically or legally, is prepared to call a halt on the Government's drive to bring in DPE across the country and examine the legal implications of operating such a system.
The emergency Cabinet Meeting takes place in Sunderland Council chamber to discuss the internal report.
The fact that the Council 'misled' the Secretary of State is one major issue, but one aspect which we are about to reveal ties in with what we have uncovered nationally (FoI requests in to all 144 DPE authorities) reveals millions of pounds of monies taken from the public unlawfully AND knowingly by the contractors, in this instance NCP (National Car Parks), and /or local authorities.
The line we have uncovered now implicates NCP (recently taken over by 3i Venture Capitalists for £555m) in covering up matters raised in Sunderland.
It will undoubtedly be the case that any allegations of fraud would require a Police investigation.
Overview:
Sunderland Council became aware that tickets issued on Taxi Ranks made under the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act were not enforceable under DPE powers. It was uncovered in October 2003 in Sunderland. Council told NCP to stop issuing. NCP told Parking Attendants to keep issuing and cancel tickets to anyone who appealed (former Senior NCP attendant made a witness statement to that effect). 78 further tickets were issued AFTER they were told to stop.
We have evidence of dozens of local authorities and their contractors across the country issuing Penalty Charge Notices on Taxi Ranks made under the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
NCP Head Office were made aware in 2003 that there were no DPE powers to issue on such Taxi Ranks.
At the same time Sunderland Council sought advice on the legality of Blue Badge Holders parking in loading bays. Counsel's advice revealed that Regulation 8 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemption for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 provides an exemption for Blue Badge Holders. Based on that advice it was decided to issue refunds to Blue Badge Holders who had parked in loading bays (involved going back over all photo records and PAs notebooks).
However, many, in fact most, local authorities are not aware of this exemption and continue to issue such tickets...but the Government Office for the North East and the Department for Transport have confirmed that they considered Blue Badge Holders were exempt from this parking restriction. Counsel’s advice confirmed that this exemption was valid in August 2005.
The implications for this are enormous nationally as many millions will have to be repaid to motorists wrongly targeted.
NCP were aware therefore in October 2003 and had this confirmed in August 2005.
We have evidence of many millions of pounds of tickets issued in the very same circumstances.
Disabled Motorists groups will, I am sure, welcome this unexpected windfall for many of their members.
However, the big one is this, and this is where the fraud (Obtaining Money by Deception under the 1996 Theft (Amendment) Act and the 1968 Theft Act) comes into play.
Sunderland Council became aware on 16th May 2005 after NPAS Circular 04/05 that the wording on their tickets didn't conform to statute (Section 66(3)c 1991 RTA)
On 16th May 2005 Head of Transport sough advice from City Solicitor
On 14th June 2005 Assistant Solicitor recommended tickets be changed immediately.
On 16th June 2005 NCP were told to add 'Date of Issue' to their electronic version of the ticket.
This has only just been done on the handheld computers. It appears that some of the manual issue pads were corrected at some time in October 2005.
The consequence is that NCP were issuing tickets KNOWING that they were ‘illegal’ and did not contain the correct wording.
They had been informed.
The question is was this information then passed on to NCP Head Office and how many other local authorities and contractors are operating with ‘unlawfully’ worded Penalty Charge Notices?
We are now attempting to check tickets in other areas to see if the matter has been brought to the attention of other authorities.
What is being highlighted here is the absolute lawlessness of the DPE regimes across the country.
We submitted a great deal of general evidence to the Transport Committee in early December highlighting all this and are currently advising a number of MPs on the subject matter.
Another aspect of the story is that the National Parking Adjudication Service (which purports to be independent but receives 60p from each ticket issued) received a total of £45,000 from Sunderland. To date it has heard over 250 appeals and has not once indicated that the wording on the tickets was unlawful...Question has to be asked as to why this evidence was not even checked and flagged up earlier.
Ends:
Contact:
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
0191 565 7143
0191 514 4606
07776 202045
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/ and http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
Notes for Editors:
In the case of Rochdale Metroploitan Borough Council, 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices were issued with wording which did not conform to statutory requirements.
The lack of scrutiny of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement by the Department for Transport is also leading to the setting up of private companies who are now operating similar schemes on private land, including large retail parks, and accessing the DVLA data base and effectively demanding money with menaces. Numerous examples are coming in to this office every day.
Notes for Editors:
The People's No Campaign is a growing 'umbrella' campaign group opposed to all forms of unacceptable and unaccountable governance.
Exposure of the 'out of control' Decriminalised Parking scam which the Government and Department for Transport fails to recognise can be viewed here.
Exposure of the false 'independence' by the National Parking Adjudication Service can be viewed here.and here
Recent news on how local authorities are defying the law to rake in millions here
More can be seen at http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/
The People's No Campaign has grown out of the Metric Martyrs and the North East No Campaign (massively defeated Prescott in the 2004 Elected Assembly Referendum).
The group also created the No Campaign against the European Constitution.
Neil Herron along with Steven Thoburn were European Campaigners of the Year in 2001 with the Metric Martyrs Campaign beating Head of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, and his launch of the Euro Notes and Coins.
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement: Post Implementation Review ... e-mail us at mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk and we can provide a pdf version of the report.
Questions:
Why did NPAS fail to notice all the other PCNs which came before them did not contain the correct wording? They have dealt with 250+ appeals from Sunderland and received over £45,000 from Sunderland City Council.
Did NCP inform all its other contracts of the Taxi Rank and Blue Badge Holder problem?
Did they immediately suspend enforcement of those Code 45s and Code 25s or did they continue to issue?
The People's No Campaign
25th January 2006
Sunderland case may halt local authorities' drive towards 'cash cow' decriminalised parking enforcement scam
...and contractor NCP Guilty of issuing 'illegal' tickets
In an unfolding case which will have national implications, Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime has now been exposed as an absolute shambles by an internal report.
The investigation, 'Decriminalised Parking Enforcement - Post Implementation Review,' was initiated following a complaint from The People's No Campaign Director, Neil Herron after he and colleagues uncovered massive flaws in the DPE regime.
It was Paul Davies, Head of Sunderland City Council's Internal Audit who then produced the report. which, has taken over four months to compile.
His report highlights massive failings within departments led by Development and Regeneration Director, Phil Barrett and City Solicitor, Bob Rayner and reveals ineptitude and incompetence to a staggering degree and an apparent complacency with regard to the adherence to the necessary legislative requirements. (It is believed that the two gentlemen with the main responsibilities are on combined salaries in excess of £200,000 per annum).
The exposure of this shambolic and spectacular failure to introduce DPE correctly comes at a time when a further 14 applications are before the Department for Transport to add to the 144 Local Authorities who have been granted DPE powers.
Concerns have been raised by The People's No Campaign group and evidence was submitted to the House of Commons Transport Committee in early December 2005.
Concerns include the increasing lawless nature of greedy councils desperate to adopt DPE and forego all the necessary checks and balances and abandon all principles of accountability. Draconian enforcement regimes are now driven by the cash incentive. Collection of unpaid tickets has been handed, in many instances, to bailiffs who have scant regard for procedure. The decriminalisation and therefore the removal of the courts as the 'independent arbiter' of 'process' has allowed local authorities to behave as nothing more than modern day licensed Dick Turpins.
What is alarming is that there is no official body and a lack of Statutory guidance to oversee ANY of these practices.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not tasked to examine regimes, just individual cases laid before it. However, they can issue 'circulars' to local authorities to advise them of important and significant cases. Their claim to be ‘independent’ is currently being challenged (they receive 60p per ticket issued).
Sunderland City Council in their application to the Department for Transport simply 'reassured' the Secretary of State that everything would be correct and in order at the commencement of DPE.
No-one checked their claims.
No-one checked the signs, lines or Traffic Regulation Orders.
No-one checked the wording of the Penalty Charge Notices.
The recommendations of the independent consultants brought in to advise Sunderland Council were not acted upon.
No-one checked and therefore the unlawful, draconian enforcement regime was unleashed upon the City's businesses and residents using NCP as the selected contractor.
Ultimately the Secretary of State will be forced, either through internal or external pressure, to revoke Sunderland's Special Parking Area and it will be the first council in the country to have its Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers removed and reinstated back to Police control. Sunderland MP, Chris Mullin is currently awaiting a response from the Department for Transport as to the necessary requirements to begin revocation of the City's Special Parking Area status.
This will be the first real test as to whether the Department for Transport will continue to endorse this lawless assault on the motorist or whether someone, either politically or legally, is prepared to call a halt on the Government's drive to bring in DPE across the country and examine the legal implications of operating such a system.
The emergency Cabinet Meeting takes place in Sunderland Council chamber to discuss the internal report.
The fact that the Council 'misled' the Secretary of State is one major issue, but one aspect which we are about to reveal ties in with what we have uncovered nationally (FoI requests in to all 144 DPE authorities) reveals millions of pounds of monies taken from the public unlawfully AND knowingly by the contractors, in this instance NCP (National Car Parks), and /or local authorities.
The line we have uncovered now implicates NCP (recently taken over by 3i Venture Capitalists for £555m) in covering up matters raised in Sunderland.
It will undoubtedly be the case that any allegations of fraud would require a Police investigation.
Overview:
Sunderland Council became aware that tickets issued on Taxi Ranks made under the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act were not enforceable under DPE powers. It was uncovered in October 2003 in Sunderland. Council told NCP to stop issuing. NCP told Parking Attendants to keep issuing and cancel tickets to anyone who appealed (former Senior NCP attendant made a witness statement to that effect). 78 further tickets were issued AFTER they were told to stop.
We have evidence of dozens of local authorities and their contractors across the country issuing Penalty Charge Notices on Taxi Ranks made under the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
NCP Head Office were made aware in 2003 that there were no DPE powers to issue on such Taxi Ranks.
At the same time Sunderland Council sought advice on the legality of Blue Badge Holders parking in loading bays. Counsel's advice revealed that Regulation 8 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemption for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 provides an exemption for Blue Badge Holders. Based on that advice it was decided to issue refunds to Blue Badge Holders who had parked in loading bays (involved going back over all photo records and PAs notebooks).
However, many, in fact most, local authorities are not aware of this exemption and continue to issue such tickets...but the Government Office for the North East and the Department for Transport have confirmed that they considered Blue Badge Holders were exempt from this parking restriction. Counsel’s advice confirmed that this exemption was valid in August 2005.
The implications for this are enormous nationally as many millions will have to be repaid to motorists wrongly targeted.
NCP were aware therefore in October 2003 and had this confirmed in August 2005.
We have evidence of many millions of pounds of tickets issued in the very same circumstances.
Disabled Motorists groups will, I am sure, welcome this unexpected windfall for many of their members.
However, the big one is this, and this is where the fraud (Obtaining Money by Deception under the 1996 Theft (Amendment) Act and the 1968 Theft Act) comes into play.
Sunderland Council became aware on 16th May 2005 after NPAS Circular 04/05 that the wording on their tickets didn't conform to statute (Section 66(3)c 1991 RTA)
On 16th May 2005 Head of Transport sough advice from City Solicitor
On 14th June 2005 Assistant Solicitor recommended tickets be changed immediately.
On 16th June 2005 NCP were told to add 'Date of Issue' to their electronic version of the ticket.
This has only just been done on the handheld computers. It appears that some of the manual issue pads were corrected at some time in October 2005.
The consequence is that NCP were issuing tickets KNOWING that they were ‘illegal’ and did not contain the correct wording.
They had been informed.
The question is was this information then passed on to NCP Head Office and how many other local authorities and contractors are operating with ‘unlawfully’ worded Penalty Charge Notices?
We are now attempting to check tickets in other areas to see if the matter has been brought to the attention of other authorities.
What is being highlighted here is the absolute lawlessness of the DPE regimes across the country.
We submitted a great deal of general evidence to the Transport Committee in early December highlighting all this and are currently advising a number of MPs on the subject matter.
Another aspect of the story is that the National Parking Adjudication Service (which purports to be independent but receives 60p from each ticket issued) received a total of £45,000 from Sunderland. To date it has heard over 250 appeals and has not once indicated that the wording on the tickets was unlawful...Question has to be asked as to why this evidence was not even checked and flagged up earlier.
Ends:
Contact:
Neil Herron
Campaign Director
0191 565 7143
0191 514 4606
07776 202045
mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/ and http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
Notes for Editors:
In the case of Rochdale Metroploitan Borough Council, 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices were issued with wording which did not conform to statutory requirements.
The lack of scrutiny of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement by the Department for Transport is also leading to the setting up of private companies who are now operating similar schemes on private land, including large retail parks, and accessing the DVLA data base and effectively demanding money with menaces. Numerous examples are coming in to this office every day.
Notes for Editors:
The People's No Campaign is a growing 'umbrella' campaign group opposed to all forms of unacceptable and unaccountable governance.
Exposure of the 'out of control' Decriminalised Parking scam which the Government and Department for Transport fails to recognise can be viewed here.
Exposure of the false 'independence' by the National Parking Adjudication Service can be viewed here.and here
Recent news on how local authorities are defying the law to rake in millions here
More can be seen at http://www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk/
The People's No Campaign has grown out of the Metric Martyrs and the North East No Campaign (massively defeated Prescott in the 2004 Elected Assembly Referendum).
The group also created the No Campaign against the European Constitution.
Neil Herron along with Steven Thoburn were European Campaigners of the Year in 2001 with the Metric Martyrs Campaign beating Head of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, and his launch of the Euro Notes and Coins.
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement: Post Implementation Review ... e-mail us at mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk and we can provide a pdf version of the report.
Questions:
Why did NPAS fail to notice all the other PCNs which came before them did not contain the correct wording? They have dealt with 250+ appeals from Sunderland and received over £45,000 from Sunderland City Council.
Did NCP inform all its other contracts of the Taxi Rank and Blue Badge Holder problem?
Did they immediately suspend enforcement of those Code 45s and Code 25s or did they continue to issue?
Maori Spokesman contacts the No Campaign
Skip Maheno, spokesman for the Tribal Council for the Confederation of United Tribes contacted The People's No Campaign this morning. They have been following the No Campaign's various fights and campaigns to maintain the sovereignty of the people and uphold the principles of our common law and are impressed with the way 'the people' are standing up to be counted and taking on the establishment.
Skip states, "We are in the process of challenging our Government who we say have No' jurisdiction over our sovereign tribe known as Patu Koraha or Te Paatu pronounced ( tear as in rip and part 2 ) . Please keep in contact as our own media is avoiding us. Any help would be appreciated."
Neil Herron states, "It is humbling to think that our various campaigns that show we are making a difference are being closely followed even as far away as New Zealand and inspiring others to stand up and fight for their own principles and cause. I am sure the fact that they have contacted us and made us aware of their plight will generate news headlines for their campaign over here."
Northland Age Community News, New Zealand
Frustration boiled over at Pamapuria yesterday as protesters once again blocked traffic on State Highway 1, in continuation of a dispute with Transit New Zealand over the fate of a small piece of land that will no longer be needed when long-delayed roadworks have been completed.
The local people believe the land will be surplus and should be returned to Te Paatu, while Transit’s response is that it will be required as a safety zone, and that it has no role to play in disputes over the ownership of Crown land.
The officer in charge of the Kaitaia Police District, Senior Sergeant Gordon Gunn, drove out at the scene yesterday morning, then returned to Kaitaia after a discussion with protesters. The highway was still open at that stage. He returned at around 9.30, by which time traffic had been brought to a halt in both lanes. Two television crews had also arrived, while traffic had built up considerably both north and south.
Senior Sergeant Gunn said he had been anxious to resolve the issue without arresting anyone, but had been forced to make one arrest (a man was later charged with obstructing the highway and resisting police).
At that point he was told that he was trespassing on sovereign land and was himself subject to arrest, in which event he would be taken to Te Paatu Marae and held there.Senior Sergeant Gunn informed the protesters that that would be tantamount to kidnapping.
The arrested man was released, however, and reinforcements were called from Kaitaia.The road was eventually reopened and the arrested man placed in a patrol car, after a scuffle. The arrested man, Skip Maheno, told The Northland Age that he had taken his frustrations out on the police car (kicking a door as he was placed inside it, saying he was sorry it had had to go that way), but had taken care not to strike any of the police officers present.
Obesity in the ranks
Te Whakaminenga o Te Patu are very concerned with their subservient police force and other various government departments as there seems to be a problem with obesity within the ranks. We are so concerned we’ve written to the Minister of Justice and also the Minister of Health, informing them that strict healthy diet and exercise be implemented so overweight officers fit their uniforms properly, saving the taxpayer an extra three buttons or so.The Whakaminenga is also concerned that some members of MFish are indescriminately showing the public where the confiscated shellfish is held (in their big bellies). We have advised the Health Minister to move on this topic before our serfs grow out of control, and we also reminded the Justice Minister to brief all police on the matter of sovereignty.
Skip Maheno
Te Patu Tribal Council
Pamapuria,
Thursday, 27 October 2005
New Zealand in History
Declaration of Independence
Skip states, "We are in the process of challenging our Government who we say have No' jurisdiction over our sovereign tribe known as Patu Koraha or Te Paatu pronounced ( tear as in rip and part 2 ) . Please keep in contact as our own media is avoiding us. Any help would be appreciated."
Neil Herron states, "It is humbling to think that our various campaigns that show we are making a difference are being closely followed even as far away as New Zealand and inspiring others to stand up and fight for their own principles and cause. I am sure the fact that they have contacted us and made us aware of their plight will generate news headlines for their campaign over here."
Northland Age Community News, New Zealand
Frustration boiled over at Pamapuria yesterday as protesters once again blocked traffic on State Highway 1, in continuation of a dispute with Transit New Zealand over the fate of a small piece of land that will no longer be needed when long-delayed roadworks have been completed.
The local people believe the land will be surplus and should be returned to Te Paatu, while Transit’s response is that it will be required as a safety zone, and that it has no role to play in disputes over the ownership of Crown land.
The officer in charge of the Kaitaia Police District, Senior Sergeant Gordon Gunn, drove out at the scene yesterday morning, then returned to Kaitaia after a discussion with protesters. The highway was still open at that stage. He returned at around 9.30, by which time traffic had been brought to a halt in both lanes. Two television crews had also arrived, while traffic had built up considerably both north and south.
Senior Sergeant Gunn said he had been anxious to resolve the issue without arresting anyone, but had been forced to make one arrest (a man was later charged with obstructing the highway and resisting police).
At that point he was told that he was trespassing on sovereign land and was himself subject to arrest, in which event he would be taken to Te Paatu Marae and held there.Senior Sergeant Gunn informed the protesters that that would be tantamount to kidnapping.
The arrested man was released, however, and reinforcements were called from Kaitaia.The road was eventually reopened and the arrested man placed in a patrol car, after a scuffle. The arrested man, Skip Maheno, told The Northland Age that he had taken his frustrations out on the police car (kicking a door as he was placed inside it, saying he was sorry it had had to go that way), but had taken care not to strike any of the police officers present.
Obesity in the ranks
Te Whakaminenga o Te Patu are very concerned with their subservient police force and other various government departments as there seems to be a problem with obesity within the ranks. We are so concerned we’ve written to the Minister of Justice and also the Minister of Health, informing them that strict healthy diet and exercise be implemented so overweight officers fit their uniforms properly, saving the taxpayer an extra three buttons or so.The Whakaminenga is also concerned that some members of MFish are indescriminately showing the public where the confiscated shellfish is held (in their big bellies). We have advised the Health Minister to move on this topic before our serfs grow out of control, and we also reminded the Justice Minister to brief all police on the matter of sovereignty.
Skip Maheno
Te Patu Tribal Council
Pamapuria,
Thursday, 27 October 2005
New Zealand in History
Declaration of Independence
Sandwell Council Parking Office takes the pee
Thirty four weeks pregnant, Lisa McDonnell called the No Campaign hotline to relate this tale.
Driving through Sandwell, heavily pregnant, felt the call of nature. Conscious of the fact that there are limited public conveniences across the borough she spotted a pub. In desperation, and due to lack of parking places, she parked briefly in a disabled bay, and rushed into the pub.
Minutes later she returned to find that she had been given a Penalty Charge Notice.
Feeling that this was rather unjust to be fined £60 for such a piddling matter she contacted the Council Parking Services Department and related the details hoping that they would use their discretion to take account of the mitigating circumstances and cancel the ticket.
No such luck. She was told, "You chose to get pregnant so pay the ticket."
In desperation she rang us. The story will be running tomorrow in the local press and on the Adrian Goldberg Breakfast Show on BBC Radio West Midlands.
Please keep the calls coming. We will assist wherever able.
Driving through Sandwell, heavily pregnant, felt the call of nature. Conscious of the fact that there are limited public conveniences across the borough she spotted a pub. In desperation, and due to lack of parking places, she parked briefly in a disabled bay, and rushed into the pub.
Minutes later she returned to find that she had been given a Penalty Charge Notice.
Feeling that this was rather unjust to be fined £60 for such a piddling matter she contacted the Council Parking Services Department and related the details hoping that they would use their discretion to take account of the mitigating circumstances and cancel the ticket.
No such luck. She was told, "You chose to get pregnant so pay the ticket."
In desperation she rang us. The story will be running tomorrow in the local press and on the Adrian Goldberg Breakfast Show on BBC Radio West Midlands.
Please keep the calls coming. We will assist wherever able.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Town halls defy law to milk millions from parking ticket fines
Telegraph
23rd January,2006
by David Millward
Town halls are illegally using motorists as a cash cow by flouting government guidelines and turning parking control into a money-making business.
While Whitehall insists that local authorities should use their powers only to improve traffic management, increasing numbers of motorists are finding that town halls see parking as a multi-million-pound source of revenue.
This is despite the efforts of the parking industry to improve its image while satisfying the demands of local authorities that employ them.
An investigation by The Daily Telegraph has uncovered an array of abuses.
They include the issuing of thousands of illegal parking tickets, many of which are quashed on appeal. Some contractors have set "benchmarks" for the number of penalty charge notices that each attendant should issue on their shifts.
On occasions fines are increased substantially when collection is handed over to debt enforcement agencies that obtain county court judgments against motorists who are unaware that any "hearing" has taken place.
While the biggest problems are in London - where local authorities have been responsible for parking control since 1994 - motorists elsewhere are now starting to face similar treatment.
There are 144 councils outside the capital that have been given the power to police parking within their area and the Department of Transport is considering applications from a further 18.
According to Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, complaints about parking enforcement are directly linked to the process of "decriminalisation" - handing over enforcement to town halls.
"We have had a lady in Norfolk whose pay and display ticket fell off the windscreen because of condensation and she was issued with a ticket. She was able to prove she had paid, but the council refused to quash the ticket," he said.
Other incidents include a woman being issued with a penalty charge notice because she had not returned to her car from the pay and display machine quickly enough.
Earlier this week the National Parking Adjudication Service, which handles appeals against parking tickets, singled out Bristol for criticism after a motorist's car was towed away because the driver had underpaid a parking fee by £1.50.
Motorists can appeal to an independent adjudicator, but lose the 50 per cent discount for swift payment.
While contractors maintain that incentive schemes linking parking attendants' pay and job security to the number of tickets issued have been scrapped in recent years, some examples remain.
The Transport and General Workers Union is in dispute with Central Parking Systems, the contractor in Hackney, east London, over a proposed bonus scheme that depends on the number of vehicles clamped.
Last year a central London industrial tribunal was told that a parking attendant in Kensington was expected to issue 1.4 tickets an hour. Delivery drivers and courier drivers have complained of wrongly being issued with scores of parking tickets.
In December the House of Commons Transport Select Committee was told that Tradeteam, which delivers beer, successfully appealed against 1,039 parking tickets in 2004, saving itself £70,000.
Tony Scott, 46, a courier in London, has received about 100 parking tickets over the past two years. All except one were quashed on appeal.
Other complaints in London include the number of judgments entered against motorists at Northampton county court on behalf of 33 London authorities. In 2003-4 the figure reached nearly 875,000.
One of those to fall foul of that court was Tom Conti, the actor. "I was given a parking ticket and you could not read the registration number of the car," he said. "I contacted Camden council."
His initial challenge was rejected. "At the beginning of this year I received something saying judgment had been entered against me at Northampton county court.
"I was not told a hearing was taking place. It is amazingly Stalinist." With additional costs, his parking fine had reached £390.
Keith Banbury, chief executive of the British Parking Association, admitted that public confidence in his industry was low and called for fundamental reforms in the contracts agreed between contractors and councils
23rd January,2006
by David Millward
Town halls are illegally using motorists as a cash cow by flouting government guidelines and turning parking control into a money-making business.
While Whitehall insists that local authorities should use their powers only to improve traffic management, increasing numbers of motorists are finding that town halls see parking as a multi-million-pound source of revenue.
This is despite the efforts of the parking industry to improve its image while satisfying the demands of local authorities that employ them.
An investigation by The Daily Telegraph has uncovered an array of abuses.
They include the issuing of thousands of illegal parking tickets, many of which are quashed on appeal. Some contractors have set "benchmarks" for the number of penalty charge notices that each attendant should issue on their shifts.
On occasions fines are increased substantially when collection is handed over to debt enforcement agencies that obtain county court judgments against motorists who are unaware that any "hearing" has taken place.
While the biggest problems are in London - where local authorities have been responsible for parking control since 1994 - motorists elsewhere are now starting to face similar treatment.
There are 144 councils outside the capital that have been given the power to police parking within their area and the Department of Transport is considering applications from a further 18.
According to Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, complaints about parking enforcement are directly linked to the process of "decriminalisation" - handing over enforcement to town halls.
"We have had a lady in Norfolk whose pay and display ticket fell off the windscreen because of condensation and she was issued with a ticket. She was able to prove she had paid, but the council refused to quash the ticket," he said.
Other incidents include a woman being issued with a penalty charge notice because she had not returned to her car from the pay and display machine quickly enough.
Earlier this week the National Parking Adjudication Service, which handles appeals against parking tickets, singled out Bristol for criticism after a motorist's car was towed away because the driver had underpaid a parking fee by £1.50.
Motorists can appeal to an independent adjudicator, but lose the 50 per cent discount for swift payment.
While contractors maintain that incentive schemes linking parking attendants' pay and job security to the number of tickets issued have been scrapped in recent years, some examples remain.
The Transport and General Workers Union is in dispute with Central Parking Systems, the contractor in Hackney, east London, over a proposed bonus scheme that depends on the number of vehicles clamped.
Last year a central London industrial tribunal was told that a parking attendant in Kensington was expected to issue 1.4 tickets an hour. Delivery drivers and courier drivers have complained of wrongly being issued with scores of parking tickets.
In December the House of Commons Transport Select Committee was told that Tradeteam, which delivers beer, successfully appealed against 1,039 parking tickets in 2004, saving itself £70,000.
Tony Scott, 46, a courier in London, has received about 100 parking tickets over the past two years. All except one were quashed on appeal.
Other complaints in London include the number of judgments entered against motorists at Northampton county court on behalf of 33 London authorities. In 2003-4 the figure reached nearly 875,000.
One of those to fall foul of that court was Tom Conti, the actor. "I was given a parking ticket and you could not read the registration number of the car," he said. "I contacted Camden council."
His initial challenge was rejected. "At the beginning of this year I received something saying judgment had been entered against me at Northampton county court.
"I was not told a hearing was taking place. It is amazingly Stalinist." With additional costs, his parking fine had reached £390.
Keith Banbury, chief executive of the British Parking Association, admitted that public confidence in his industry was low and called for fundamental reforms in the contracts agreed between contractors and councils
Chance of Mayoral Elections in Sunderland
As Sunderland Council lurches from one crisis to another the political leadership is conspicuous by its absence.
No comment from the Labour Leader, Mr. Symonds, over the Decriminalised Parking shambles.
What is apparent from the comments from the invisible Mr. Symonds is that something is troubling him.
As part of the No Campaign against an elected Regional Assembly our objection was to more unwanted politicians and more unwanted bureaucracy. The Council leader supported the 'Yes' perspective. The people endorsed the 'No' vote and a 78% rejection of Precott's folly was achieved.
Mr. Symonds did not speak out against the prosecution of Steve Thoburn. Again he, and his fellow Labour councillors were on the wrong side of public opinion.
The Council's Cabinet was in favour of the draconian parking enforcement regime that has angered the City's residents and businesses and been exposed as an absolute shambles by a damning internal investigation. The people were never consulted.
All of the above have been exposed by exhaustive investigation and campaigning in the public interest, paid for by voluntary public donations while Mr. Symonds collects his £40,000+ salary from the public purse.
All of the matters and concerns raised have been very much in the interest of the people of Sunderland and the silence of the Leader has been deafening. Yet he now speaks...and questions whether the Mayors of Hartlepool and Middlesbrough have made a differnce.
The petition hasn't even begun to collect signatures for the Mayoral referendum and already the Labour Leader of Sunderland Council has attempted to personalise it.
What are you frightened of Mr. Symonds...the people of Sunderland or the shining of the spotlight on the competence of the current political structures?
Perhaps it is time to let the people of Sunderland speak on the subject.
Sunderland Echo
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunderland could have its own elected mayor in a year's time - if voters want one.
Although a referendum rejected the idea five years ago, a time limit on a second referendum has been lifted and there could be a new election in 2007.
Rules dictate more than 10,000 signatures - five per cent of the city's 210,000 electorate - have to be collected to start a ballot on whether Sunderland gets its own version of Middlesbrough's "Robo-cop", Hartlepool's "monkey" or even Ken Livingstone.
City council leader Bob Symonds said his Labour party was monitoring developments and would see what the people wanted or decided.
Neil Herron, who has campaigned against a North East regional assembly and highlighted loopholes in Sunderland's parking rules, said he was not planning to stand as a candidate yet.
Mr Herron said: "I would have to think about it and I have no plans at the moment to stand. But, there's a lot of groups that are disappointed with the political landscape of the city and it may be that now is the right time to look again at the system."
Labour dominates the city council and opposition Tories, who have 12 councillors compared with Labour's 60, are debating whether they are for or against a mayoral system over the next few weeks.
In the North East, Middlesbrough has a directly elected mayor, "Robo-cop" Ray Mallon and Hartlepool's Stuart Drummond who stood for election dressed as a "monkey".
Coun Symonds said: "They have a profile, but I would question whether or not directly elected mayors have made a difference to those towns. I do not believe it has."
Coun Symonds said voters had spoken on whether or not they wanted a change in the political system when there was the referendum for a regional assembly in 2004 and a city election was looming.
"Somebody such as Neil Herron is always questioning layers of bureaucracy and Government so would he be standing for the people of Sunderland or is it a matter of personal ambition?"
Some surveys have suggested that mayors, who include Ken Livingstone in London, are better than a traditional council leader.
No comment from the Labour Leader, Mr. Symonds, over the Decriminalised Parking shambles.
What is apparent from the comments from the invisible Mr. Symonds is that something is troubling him.
As part of the No Campaign against an elected Regional Assembly our objection was to more unwanted politicians and more unwanted bureaucracy. The Council leader supported the 'Yes' perspective. The people endorsed the 'No' vote and a 78% rejection of Precott's folly was achieved.
Mr. Symonds did not speak out against the prosecution of Steve Thoburn. Again he, and his fellow Labour councillors were on the wrong side of public opinion.
The Council's Cabinet was in favour of the draconian parking enforcement regime that has angered the City's residents and businesses and been exposed as an absolute shambles by a damning internal investigation. The people were never consulted.
All of the above have been exposed by exhaustive investigation and campaigning in the public interest, paid for by voluntary public donations while Mr. Symonds collects his £40,000+ salary from the public purse.
All of the matters and concerns raised have been very much in the interest of the people of Sunderland and the silence of the Leader has been deafening. Yet he now speaks...and questions whether the Mayors of Hartlepool and Middlesbrough have made a differnce.
The petition hasn't even begun to collect signatures for the Mayoral referendum and already the Labour Leader of Sunderland Council has attempted to personalise it.
What are you frightened of Mr. Symonds...the people of Sunderland or the shining of the spotlight on the competence of the current political structures?
Perhaps it is time to let the people of Sunderland speak on the subject.
Sunderland Echo
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunderland could have its own elected mayor in a year's time - if voters want one.
Although a referendum rejected the idea five years ago, a time limit on a second referendum has been lifted and there could be a new election in 2007.
Rules dictate more than 10,000 signatures - five per cent of the city's 210,000 electorate - have to be collected to start a ballot on whether Sunderland gets its own version of Middlesbrough's "Robo-cop", Hartlepool's "monkey" or even Ken Livingstone.
City council leader Bob Symonds said his Labour party was monitoring developments and would see what the people wanted or decided.
Neil Herron, who has campaigned against a North East regional assembly and highlighted loopholes in Sunderland's parking rules, said he was not planning to stand as a candidate yet.
Mr Herron said: "I would have to think about it and I have no plans at the moment to stand. But, there's a lot of groups that are disappointed with the political landscape of the city and it may be that now is the right time to look again at the system."
Labour dominates the city council and opposition Tories, who have 12 councillors compared with Labour's 60, are debating whether they are for or against a mayoral system over the next few weeks.
In the North East, Middlesbrough has a directly elected mayor, "Robo-cop" Ray Mallon and Hartlepool's Stuart Drummond who stood for election dressed as a "monkey".
Coun Symonds said: "They have a profile, but I would question whether or not directly elected mayors have made a difference to those towns. I do not believe it has."
Coun Symonds said voters had spoken on whether or not they wanted a change in the political system when there was the referendum for a regional assembly in 2004 and a city election was looming.
"Somebody such as Neil Herron is always questioning layers of bureaucracy and Government so would he be standing for the people of Sunderland or is it a matter of personal ambition?"
Some surveys have suggested that mayors, who include Ken Livingstone in London, are better than a traditional council leader.
City sees stirring of Political Revolution
Campaign for US-style mayor rises again
The Journal
Tuesday January 24, 2006
by Ross Smith
The North's biggest city appears likely to have a second referendum on whether it wants an elected mayor, after politicians and campaigners backed calls for a fresh vote.
Sunderland rejected the idea of a directly elected mayor in a referendum in 2001.
But a five-year moratorium on a second referendum ends this autumn, and supporters of the idea are already preparing a campaign.
A city-wide ballot could be staged if the city council passed a motion calling for one.
But while the ruling Labour group is thought unlikely to do that, a petition containing 10,500 signatures, representing 5% of the city's population, would force a vote.
A string of figures in the town said yesterday they would be prepared to support a petition, saying people were dissatisfied with Labour's leadership of the council.
Council leader Bob Symonds said last night: "We will continue to monitor developments to see what the people of Sunderland want or decide to do."
Conservative group leader Peter Wood said: "There's certainly a coalition of interest in the city, which I think is likely to come together in the near future and probably raise this petition. "There's a feeling that the leadership provided by the Labour group is pretty lacklustre."
Independent councillor Michael Tansey, a former Labour member, said: "I don't think Labour is working for the people of Sunderland and I would like to see a high profile person stand.
"I'm confident that in the not too distant future, those of us who are despondent about what's happening will get the required number of signatures."
Colin Wakefield, chairman of the Residents against Toxic Site group in Houghton-le-Spring said: "We cannot just lie down and see people not being properly represented because of the good of the [Labour] party."
Sunderland activist Neil Herron, who led the North East No Campaign against a regional assembly, also signalled his support for a vote.
He said: "It's nice to have a political fuse lit in Sunderland that would excite and enthuse the public."
There were suggestions that Mr Herron might stand in a mayoral election if one was staged. He insisted last night he had no plans to do so, but did not rule it out.
There are elected mayors in Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, both independents, and in North Tyneside Labour recently won the post from the Conservatives.
The Journal
Tuesday January 24, 2006
by Ross Smith
The North's biggest city appears likely to have a second referendum on whether it wants an elected mayor, after politicians and campaigners backed calls for a fresh vote.
Sunderland rejected the idea of a directly elected mayor in a referendum in 2001.
But a five-year moratorium on a second referendum ends this autumn, and supporters of the idea are already preparing a campaign.
A city-wide ballot could be staged if the city council passed a motion calling for one.
But while the ruling Labour group is thought unlikely to do that, a petition containing 10,500 signatures, representing 5% of the city's population, would force a vote.
A string of figures in the town said yesterday they would be prepared to support a petition, saying people were dissatisfied with Labour's leadership of the council.
Council leader Bob Symonds said last night: "We will continue to monitor developments to see what the people of Sunderland want or decide to do."
Conservative group leader Peter Wood said: "There's certainly a coalition of interest in the city, which I think is likely to come together in the near future and probably raise this petition. "There's a feeling that the leadership provided by the Labour group is pretty lacklustre."
Independent councillor Michael Tansey, a former Labour member, said: "I don't think Labour is working for the people of Sunderland and I would like to see a high profile person stand.
"I'm confident that in the not too distant future, those of us who are despondent about what's happening will get the required number of signatures."
Colin Wakefield, chairman of the Residents against Toxic Site group in Houghton-le-Spring said: "We cannot just lie down and see people not being properly represented because of the good of the [Labour] party."
Sunderland activist Neil Herron, who led the North East No Campaign against a regional assembly, also signalled his support for a vote.
He said: "It's nice to have a political fuse lit in Sunderland that would excite and enthuse the public."
There were suggestions that Mr Herron might stand in a mayoral election if one was staged. He insisted last night he had no plans to do so, but did not rule it out.
There are elected mayors in Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, both independents, and in North Tyneside Labour recently won the post from the Conservatives.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Are the rats preparing to leave the Sunderland Titanic?
Is the ship going down?
The internal investigation conducted by Assistant Treasurer, Paul Davies is scathing, especially of the Development and Regeneration Directorate led by Phil Barrett and the Solicitor's Department with Bob Rayner at the head.
A council insider reveals that Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration is in talks with an old acquaintance at ONE (One North East) the regional development agency.
There are rumours that others are considering early retirement.
What is becoming apparent that there has been full departmental failure on all levels. More is to be revealed as the scope of the investigation broadens.
The contractor, NCP, previously has used the excuse ... "We were only doing what the Council told us to do" are now going to come under the spotlight. More to be revealed soon.
The internal investigation conducted by Assistant Treasurer, Paul Davies is scathing, especially of the Development and Regeneration Directorate led by Phil Barrett and the Solicitor's Department with Bob Rayner at the head.
A council insider reveals that Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration is in talks with an old acquaintance at ONE (One North East) the regional development agency.
There are rumours that others are considering early retirement.
What is becoming apparent that there has been full departmental failure on all levels. More is to be revealed as the scope of the investigation broadens.
The contractor, NCP, previously has used the excuse ... "We were only doing what the Council told us to do" are now going to come under the spotlight. More to be revealed soon.
NCP Mole reveals fear amongst Parking Attendants
Pulling up outside a newsagent opposite the Chesters pub other night and briefly parking on a double yellow to run in and pick up the Sunderland Echo (and causing no obstruction) I caught glimpse of a Parking Attendant in the rear view mirror some 50 yards away.
I saw him pull out his radio and disappear up the backlane.
Paper collected and in the car he appeared in front after coming from the blind side.
I turned the engine off and made a quick phone call as he appeared at the driver's window.
"You are parked on a double yellow line," he told me.
"You have no Traffic Orders and are acting illegally," I replied.
He began, reluctantly, to write a ticket. Another call came in from my son asking to be picked up from school. Sadly I had to drive away before he had chance to place the ticket on the windscree.
However, there is more to this little story.
As well as my former NCP Parking Attendant contact, I now have another two who are starting to leak information from within the organisation.
Apparently my code name is now 'Citizen Smith.'
The radio conversation in this instance would have made amusing listening.
"His car (Citizen Smith's) is parked on Chester Road. What do I do?"
"Just issue as normal."
"Do I have to? Can no-one else come up and do it?"
I saw him pull out his radio and disappear up the backlane.
Paper collected and in the car he appeared in front after coming from the blind side.
I turned the engine off and made a quick phone call as he appeared at the driver's window.
"You are parked on a double yellow line," he told me.
"You have no Traffic Orders and are acting illegally," I replied.
He began, reluctantly, to write a ticket. Another call came in from my son asking to be picked up from school. Sadly I had to drive away before he had chance to place the ticket on the windscree.
However, there is more to this little story.
As well as my former NCP Parking Attendant contact, I now have another two who are starting to leak information from within the organisation.
Apparently my code name is now 'Citizen Smith.'
The radio conversation in this instance would have made amusing listening.
"His car (Citizen Smith's) is parked on Chester Road. What do I do?"
"Just issue as normal."
"Do I have to? Can no-one else come up and do it?"
Parking fines pass the £500,000 mark
Burnley News
Wednesday 18th January 2006
by Dominic Wiggan
MOTORISTS have coughed up more than half a million pounds in fines in the 16 months that Parkwise wardens have patrolled the streets of Burnley.
Since the controversial scheme began in September 2004 – following the de-criminalisation of parking – about 25,000 tickets have been slapped on drivers' windscreens in the borough.
This means that £520,450.97 has found its way to the coffers of Lancashire County Council and Burnley Borough Council.
And ticket numbers could soon increase as a stretch of road in Burnley town centre that was free from the wrath of parking attendants could soon lose its exempt status.
In September, the Express featured a battle between motorist Mr Nigel Crosby and the borough council, which resulted in a campaign by the driver to have the parking ticket he was issued in the street in question, quashed.
His successful argument was that the stretch of road had been omitted from the Traffic Regulation Orders 1999 to 2005.
Council bosses have recently applied to amend the order and include Bankfield, however Mr Crosby confirmed that avenues of objections will still be investigated.A council spokesman said: "The process is under way to include the short stretch of Bankfield that is not currently covered by the Traffic Regulation Order, which already applies to the rest of Bankfield.
"As part of that process we will advertise the TRO in the local media on Friday, January 20th.
"Providing there are no objections, the TRO will be confirmed towards the end of March and it will then become illegal in all of Bankfield.
"If there are objections the matter will have to go before a council committee."
Figures show that £4,170-worth of refunds have been paid out for tickets issued in Bankfield alone – 133 at £30 and two at £90. However, many more motorists are still to make their claim as there were a reported 800 tickets issued before the embargo was set.
The spokesman added: "Until the order is confirmed, Parkwise attendants will not issue tickets to vehicles parked on the stretch of Bankfield between Standish Street and Curzon Street, but only on the Standish Street side of the road."Traffic regulations still apply on the rest of Bankfield."
Wednesday 18th January 2006
by Dominic Wiggan
MOTORISTS have coughed up more than half a million pounds in fines in the 16 months that Parkwise wardens have patrolled the streets of Burnley.
Since the controversial scheme began in September 2004 – following the de-criminalisation of parking – about 25,000 tickets have been slapped on drivers' windscreens in the borough.
This means that £520,450.97 has found its way to the coffers of Lancashire County Council and Burnley Borough Council.
And ticket numbers could soon increase as a stretch of road in Burnley town centre that was free from the wrath of parking attendants could soon lose its exempt status.
In September, the Express featured a battle between motorist Mr Nigel Crosby and the borough council, which resulted in a campaign by the driver to have the parking ticket he was issued in the street in question, quashed.
His successful argument was that the stretch of road had been omitted from the Traffic Regulation Orders 1999 to 2005.
Council bosses have recently applied to amend the order and include Bankfield, however Mr Crosby confirmed that avenues of objections will still be investigated.A council spokesman said: "The process is under way to include the short stretch of Bankfield that is not currently covered by the Traffic Regulation Order, which already applies to the rest of Bankfield.
"As part of that process we will advertise the TRO in the local media on Friday, January 20th.
"Providing there are no objections, the TRO will be confirmed towards the end of March and it will then become illegal in all of Bankfield.
"If there are objections the matter will have to go before a council committee."
Figures show that £4,170-worth of refunds have been paid out for tickets issued in Bankfield alone – 133 at £30 and two at £90. However, many more motorists are still to make their claim as there were a reported 800 tickets issued before the embargo was set.
The spokesman added: "Until the order is confirmed, Parkwise attendants will not issue tickets to vehicles parked on the stretch of Bankfield between Standish Street and Curzon Street, but only on the Standish Street side of the road."Traffic regulations still apply on the rest of Bankfield."
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The way thousands of drivers can avoid paying parking fines
By Ben Webster,
Transport Correspondent
The Times
January 18, 2006
THOUSANDS of drivers are paying unfair parking penalties because councils fail to make clear that they have a right to appeal to an independent body, a study suggests.
A record eight million parking penalties were issued in England and Wales in 2004, one for every three cars on the road. But only 60,000 drivers appealed to independent adjudicators against their fines. Nearly two thirds (62 per cent) of those who did were successful.
Two councils, Islington and Trafford, lost more than 90 per cent of motorists’ appeals made against their fines. In contrast, Harrogate lost only 21 per cent of appeals.
More than half of all drivers do not realise that they can ask for their case to be considered by an independent lawyer, according to a survey by Birmingham University, commissioned by the National Parking Ajudication Service (NPAS).
The overwhelming majority of drivers who did not appeal believed that they would not have got a fair hearing. But 91 per cent of those who went through the appeals process believed that it was “completely impartial”.
Councils fail to mention on parking tickets that there is a right of appeal to an independent body. Drivers are informed of this only if they write to the council to contest the ticket and have their case rejected.
Caroline Sheppard, the chief parking adjudicator, said that many drivers who believed a penalty had been imposed unfairly chose to pay it anyway.
Drivers are offered a 50 per cent discount if they pay within 14 days but have to pay the full rate if they pursue the case through to an appeal and lose.
Ms Sheppard told The Times: “People do not know at the beginning of the process that if they feel strongly that the ticket was unfair, they can have their case decided by an independent lawyer.
“It would help if councils made that clear at the outset.”
A lack of awareness of the appeals process meant that thousands of drivers were paying fines that would probably have been cancelled had they appealed.
“If you are a gambling person, your chances of winning an appeal are high. But if you lose, you will probably have to pay the full rate,” she said. The full rate in London is £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. Outside London, the full rate is £60, with £30 discount.
Ms Sheppard said that councils had ignored her request to publish annual reports on their parking performance. She said that this allowed failing councils to conceal poor records.Nick Lester, of the Association of London Government, said: “We are changing penalty charge notices to make them more explanatory.”
The NPAS report also warned that some councils may risk breaking article one of the Human Rights Act if they clamped and towed away vehicles in unreasonable situations.
HOW TO APPEAL
Step 1 Object in writing to the council within 14 days
Step 2 Council sends “Notice to Owner” to you, giving you 28 more days to make formal representation
Step 3 If council refuses to waive charge it will issue a “Notice of Rejection of Representations”. You have 28 days to appeal to the independent adjudicator, based on written material or at a personal hearing
Transport Correspondent
The Times
January 18, 2006
THOUSANDS of drivers are paying unfair parking penalties because councils fail to make clear that they have a right to appeal to an independent body, a study suggests.
A record eight million parking penalties were issued in England and Wales in 2004, one for every three cars on the road. But only 60,000 drivers appealed to independent adjudicators against their fines. Nearly two thirds (62 per cent) of those who did were successful.
Two councils, Islington and Trafford, lost more than 90 per cent of motorists’ appeals made against their fines. In contrast, Harrogate lost only 21 per cent of appeals.
More than half of all drivers do not realise that they can ask for their case to be considered by an independent lawyer, according to a survey by Birmingham University, commissioned by the National Parking Ajudication Service (NPAS).
The overwhelming majority of drivers who did not appeal believed that they would not have got a fair hearing. But 91 per cent of those who went through the appeals process believed that it was “completely impartial”.
Councils fail to mention on parking tickets that there is a right of appeal to an independent body. Drivers are informed of this only if they write to the council to contest the ticket and have their case rejected.
Caroline Sheppard, the chief parking adjudicator, said that many drivers who believed a penalty had been imposed unfairly chose to pay it anyway.
Drivers are offered a 50 per cent discount if they pay within 14 days but have to pay the full rate if they pursue the case through to an appeal and lose.
Ms Sheppard told The Times: “People do not know at the beginning of the process that if they feel strongly that the ticket was unfair, they can have their case decided by an independent lawyer.
“It would help if councils made that clear at the outset.”
A lack of awareness of the appeals process meant that thousands of drivers were paying fines that would probably have been cancelled had they appealed.
“If you are a gambling person, your chances of winning an appeal are high. But if you lose, you will probably have to pay the full rate,” she said. The full rate in London is £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. Outside London, the full rate is £60, with £30 discount.
Ms Sheppard said that councils had ignored her request to publish annual reports on their parking performance. She said that this allowed failing councils to conceal poor records.Nick Lester, of the Association of London Government, said: “We are changing penalty charge notices to make them more explanatory.”
The NPAS report also warned that some councils may risk breaking article one of the Human Rights Act if they clamped and towed away vehicles in unreasonable situations.
HOW TO APPEAL
Step 1 Object in writing to the council within 14 days
Step 2 Council sends “Notice to Owner” to you, giving you 28 more days to make formal representation
Step 3 If council refuses to waive charge it will issue a “Notice of Rejection of Representations”. You have 28 days to appeal to the independent adjudicator, based on written material or at a personal hearing
Labour MP Bill Etherington does some work...well, sort of
Party Lines
The Journal
by Zoe Hughes
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Sometimes it's just damned hard work being an MP, especially if you happen to be Sunderland North's MP Bill Etherington.
Not a man renowned for regular contributions to the Commons chamber; Mr Etherington was asked to fulfil one of the more mundane tasks of being an elected representative in Parliament last week - by presenting a petition on behalf of his constituents.
Generally well-meaning and uncontroversial, petitions require nothing more than the MP staying until the end of the business day to present a document that keeps voters happy by raising small local issues in the heart of British democracy.
Not for Mr Etherington. Unhappy at the task he'd been presented with, the MP launched a full-blown discussion with the Speaker; Michael Martin, about his disagreement with the subject matter.
"I have never come across a situation where an MP has brought a petition that he does not agree with," the MP said before warning the Speaker the man who'd handed him the document had had a "long-running dispute with just about everyone in society about asbestos in his house". Mr McQuillan, the man who'd organised the petition, had, Mr Etherington explained, "managed to get a few people to support him".
That would of course have been it for the MP had he not also forgotten to bring the petition into the Commons with him.
"It's in the table office," he admitted after being challenged on its whereabouts.
In the end it required another appearance in the Commons during which MPs left lingering on the green benches were told the petition - calling for improved testing of domestic warm air heating units and signed by 67 people - "goes into great length to lay blame as to how the situation it describes has come about. I made my views plain last night".
It's certainly a novel way of keeping voters happy.
The Journal
by Zoe Hughes
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Sometimes it's just damned hard work being an MP, especially if you happen to be Sunderland North's MP Bill Etherington.
Not a man renowned for regular contributions to the Commons chamber; Mr Etherington was asked to fulfil one of the more mundane tasks of being an elected representative in Parliament last week - by presenting a petition on behalf of his constituents.
Generally well-meaning and uncontroversial, petitions require nothing more than the MP staying until the end of the business day to present a document that keeps voters happy by raising small local issues in the heart of British democracy.
Not for Mr Etherington. Unhappy at the task he'd been presented with, the MP launched a full-blown discussion with the Speaker; Michael Martin, about his disagreement with the subject matter.
"I have never come across a situation where an MP has brought a petition that he does not agree with," the MP said before warning the Speaker the man who'd handed him the document had had a "long-running dispute with just about everyone in society about asbestos in his house". Mr McQuillan, the man who'd organised the petition, had, Mr Etherington explained, "managed to get a few people to support him".
That would of course have been it for the MP had he not also forgotten to bring the petition into the Commons with him.
"It's in the table office," he admitted after being challenged on its whereabouts.
In the end it required another appearance in the Commons during which MPs left lingering on the green benches were told the petition - calling for improved testing of domestic warm air heating units and signed by 67 people - "goes into great length to lay blame as to how the situation it describes has come about. I made my views plain last night".
It's certainly a novel way of keeping voters happy.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Newcastle Council avoids 'fine mess' in Parking Ticket stitch up
My head is still being scratched over this one.
The case in question related to a disputed Excess Charge Notice issued by Newcastle City Council to a vehicle in Newcastle United's St. James' Park football ground.
I had parked the vehicle (October 2004) when we attended a regional assembly debate at the Stadium.
We were advised by the event organisers to enter off Strawberry Lane (not possible now as the traffic flow has changed) and pull into the football club car park. I parked the vehicle after going through the red and white barrier (my remark that it was the only red and white thing I saw all night in the Mag's home territory brought a rebuke from the bench) and attended the function.
When we returned to the vehicle an Excess Charge Notice had been stuck on the windscreen.
To keep the story short, representations were made to the Council and these were dismissed. As the alleged offence had been committed under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act I actually insisted that the Council issue a summons against me to have the matter resolved in a court of law.
They did and it finally reached a conclusion yesterday after being adjourned twice. The first time was because there wasn't enough time to hear it.
The second time was to allow the Council's solicitor to prepare a skeleton argument against the legal point that I had raised that their car park signs did not conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
In court it was stated that the signs were 7ft off the ground 'so people didn't bang their heads.'
The fact that you couldn't read what was written on them seemed not to concern the bench.
The Court Clerk advised the bench on the flaws in the skeleton argument and stated that the signs must be of a 'similar' nature to those on street. The ones Newcastle Council used in all their car parks differed greatly from those prescribed in the legislation.
A further argument was that at the head of the five bays where I parked there was a 5ft x 3ft sign which stated 'Newcastle United Football Club.' We had therefore assumed after being told by a club official to park there that this was the club car park. There were no 'pay and display signs' beside these five bays.
Photographs were supplied.
The bench deliberated for 45 minutes.
The Court Clerk reappeared and did not make eye contact with the Council solicitor whose opinion she had questioned and challenged. Her paperwork was placed rather forcefully back on her desk.
Perhaps what follows may have had a bearing on her demeanour.
The bench of three magistrates re-entered the court.
" Mr. Herron. We find you guilty of failing to pay the Excess Charge. We find that Newcastle City Council have conformed to the requirements of the Of Street Parking Places Order 2001 and that the signage in the St. James' Car Park is also valid.
However, because you were advised to park where you did by a Stadium official we give you an absolute discharge on failing to pay the excess charge due to mitigating circumstances."
Newcastle's Solicitor applied for costs of £385.
The bench awarded costs against me of £45...£15 less than the excess charge notice that I didn't have to pay.
The Bench pointed out that I had 28 days to pay.
The Court Clerk pointed out that I had 21 days to decide whether I wished to appeal the decision to the Crown Court.
I have splinters in my fingers from scratching my head as to how I could be guilty of failing to pay an excess charge which I had been given an absolute discharge for.
I must point out that the signs the Bench had to take into consideration are the same all over the Newcastle City Council area. If it had been decided that the signs were not prescribed (they clearly are not) or not authorised (they clearly are not) then every excess charge notice could be challenged on the same grounds that I raised in court. Perhaps a couple of£m at stake on that decision...or would it be best to come up with what they came up with?
The case in question related to a disputed Excess Charge Notice issued by Newcastle City Council to a vehicle in Newcastle United's St. James' Park football ground.
I had parked the vehicle (October 2004) when we attended a regional assembly debate at the Stadium.
We were advised by the event organisers to enter off Strawberry Lane (not possible now as the traffic flow has changed) and pull into the football club car park. I parked the vehicle after going through the red and white barrier (my remark that it was the only red and white thing I saw all night in the Mag's home territory brought a rebuke from the bench) and attended the function.
When we returned to the vehicle an Excess Charge Notice had been stuck on the windscreen.
To keep the story short, representations were made to the Council and these were dismissed. As the alleged offence had been committed under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act I actually insisted that the Council issue a summons against me to have the matter resolved in a court of law.
They did and it finally reached a conclusion yesterday after being adjourned twice. The first time was because there wasn't enough time to hear it.
The second time was to allow the Council's solicitor to prepare a skeleton argument against the legal point that I had raised that their car park signs did not conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
In court it was stated that the signs were 7ft off the ground 'so people didn't bang their heads.'
The fact that you couldn't read what was written on them seemed not to concern the bench.
The Court Clerk advised the bench on the flaws in the skeleton argument and stated that the signs must be of a 'similar' nature to those on street. The ones Newcastle Council used in all their car parks differed greatly from those prescribed in the legislation.
A further argument was that at the head of the five bays where I parked there was a 5ft x 3ft sign which stated 'Newcastle United Football Club.' We had therefore assumed after being told by a club official to park there that this was the club car park. There were no 'pay and display signs' beside these five bays.
Photographs were supplied.
The bench deliberated for 45 minutes.
The Court Clerk reappeared and did not make eye contact with the Council solicitor whose opinion she had questioned and challenged. Her paperwork was placed rather forcefully back on her desk.
Perhaps what follows may have had a bearing on her demeanour.
The bench of three magistrates re-entered the court.
" Mr. Herron. We find you guilty of failing to pay the Excess Charge. We find that Newcastle City Council have conformed to the requirements of the Of Street Parking Places Order 2001 and that the signage in the St. James' Car Park is also valid.
However, because you were advised to park where you did by a Stadium official we give you an absolute discharge on failing to pay the excess charge due to mitigating circumstances."
Newcastle's Solicitor applied for costs of £385.
The bench awarded costs against me of £45...£15 less than the excess charge notice that I didn't have to pay.
The Bench pointed out that I had 28 days to pay.
The Court Clerk pointed out that I had 21 days to decide whether I wished to appeal the decision to the Crown Court.
I have splinters in my fingers from scratching my head as to how I could be guilty of failing to pay an excess charge which I had been given an absolute discharge for.
I must point out that the signs the Bench had to take into consideration are the same all over the Newcastle City Council area. If it had been decided that the signs were not prescribed (they clearly are not) or not authorised (they clearly are not) then every excess charge notice could be challenged on the same grounds that I raised in court. Perhaps a couple of£m at stake on that decision...or would it be best to come up with what they came up with?
Friday, January 13, 2006
Restauranteur wants lower parking fines for businesses
The Scotsman
Wednesday 11th January 06
Brian Ferguson City Council Reporter
A LEADING restaurateur who racks up a dozen parking tickets a year outside his premises has called for business owners to be given reduced fines.
Malcolm Duck, who is head of the Edinburgh Restaurateurs Association, is leading a campaign to get special treatment from Edinburgh's Enforcers under the city council's ongoing parking review.
The association wants a scheme allowing them to pay just £5 per parking infringement, instead of the current fine of £30.
The Federation of Small Businesses has called for the idea to be explored along with proposals to provide special parking permits for businesses and tradespeople for the first time.
Mr Duck said he received an average of one parking ticket a month outside his business - Duck's at Le Marche Noir - in Eyre Place, in the New Town.
He believes discounted parking fines should be available to all small and independent businesses because of the costs involved in settling parking fines.
Mr Duck said: "The city has to decide whether it wants businesses like ours in the city centre. We are being hammered all the time by the parking attendants and there is no leeway given at all.
"It seems entirely reasonable to me to allow small businesses to pay a reduced fine if they are caught infringing the regulations outside their business.
"We are actually trying to run a business and are not deliberately breaking the parking rules. It is just that it is vital that we are able to park outside even if it is just for five minutes."
The council's parking review was ordered more than a year ago by council leader Donald Anderson, who admitted the current rules were too tough on some firms.
Under proposals unveiled in November, which are currently subject to a massive consultation exercise, business owners with premises outwith the current central parking zone would be entitled to one permit, as long as they had a liveried van.
Business permits are not currently planned to be available to firms in the very heart of the city because of the large number.
However, the council's plans are still under discussion with business leaders, with a final report not due to be confirmed by the local authority until March.
Other plans being discussed include exploring the possibility of free on-street parking on Saturday afternoons, cheaper residential permits for smaller cars and banning cars parking on yellow lines on Sundays.
Tim Steward, of the Federation of Small Businesses, warned: "Businesses will simply move out of the city centre if this kind of thing continues to happen. The council needs to start looking sympathetically at the needs of business owners."
City transport leader Andrew Burns said: "Although we are still discussing options with businesses, discounted parking tickets for businesses would not be appropriate."
Wednesday 11th January 06
Brian Ferguson City Council Reporter
A LEADING restaurateur who racks up a dozen parking tickets a year outside his premises has called for business owners to be given reduced fines.
Malcolm Duck, who is head of the Edinburgh Restaurateurs Association, is leading a campaign to get special treatment from Edinburgh's Enforcers under the city council's ongoing parking review.
The association wants a scheme allowing them to pay just £5 per parking infringement, instead of the current fine of £30.
The Federation of Small Businesses has called for the idea to be explored along with proposals to provide special parking permits for businesses and tradespeople for the first time.
Mr Duck said he received an average of one parking ticket a month outside his business - Duck's at Le Marche Noir - in Eyre Place, in the New Town.
He believes discounted parking fines should be available to all small and independent businesses because of the costs involved in settling parking fines.
Mr Duck said: "The city has to decide whether it wants businesses like ours in the city centre. We are being hammered all the time by the parking attendants and there is no leeway given at all.
"It seems entirely reasonable to me to allow small businesses to pay a reduced fine if they are caught infringing the regulations outside their business.
"We are actually trying to run a business and are not deliberately breaking the parking rules. It is just that it is vital that we are able to park outside even if it is just for five minutes."
The council's parking review was ordered more than a year ago by council leader Donald Anderson, who admitted the current rules were too tough on some firms.
Under proposals unveiled in November, which are currently subject to a massive consultation exercise, business owners with premises outwith the current central parking zone would be entitled to one permit, as long as they had a liveried van.
Business permits are not currently planned to be available to firms in the very heart of the city because of the large number.
However, the council's plans are still under discussion with business leaders, with a final report not due to be confirmed by the local authority until March.
Other plans being discussed include exploring the possibility of free on-street parking on Saturday afternoons, cheaper residential permits for smaller cars and banning cars parking on yellow lines on Sundays.
Tim Steward, of the Federation of Small Businesses, warned: "Businesses will simply move out of the city centre if this kind of thing continues to happen. The council needs to start looking sympathetically at the needs of business owners."
City transport leader Andrew Burns said: "Although we are still discussing options with businesses, discounted parking tickets for businesses would not be appropriate."
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Tories vow not to fly Euro flag alongside Union 'Jack'
TORIES VOW NOT TO FLY EURO FLAG ALONGSIDE UNION 'JACK'
Tamworth Herald
29 December 2005
Conservatives in Tamworth have insisted that they will never allow the European flag to fly alongside the Union 'Jack' over Marmion House.
The pledge follows a decision from John Prescott to give the EU banner the same status as Britain's Union flag.
"We promised to encourage pride in our town and in our country. That is why we fly the Union Jack over Marmion House," said Robert Pritchard cabinet councillor.
"There is no way we are going to hoist the EU banner on equal terms with our own flag."
Tory spokesman Christopher Pincher added: "I am absolutely behind our council in resisting the government's agenda of 'creeping federalism'."
Tamworth Herald
29 December 2005
Conservatives in Tamworth have insisted that they will never allow the European flag to fly alongside the Union 'Jack' over Marmion House.
The pledge follows a decision from John Prescott to give the EU banner the same status as Britain's Union flag.
"We promised to encourage pride in our town and in our country. That is why we fly the Union Jack over Marmion House," said Robert Pritchard cabinet councillor.
"There is no way we are going to hoist the EU banner on equal terms with our own flag."
Tory spokesman Christopher Pincher added: "I am absolutely behind our council in resisting the government's agenda of 'creeping federalism'."
Changes ordered after parking ticket chaos
Sunderland Echo
27th December 05
COUNCILLORS are trying to close a loophole that has forced them to return tens of thousands of pounds-worth of parking tickets.
Sunderland Council is examining its parking orders to make sure there is no repeat of the refund fiasco – which saw £34,000 handed back to motorists wrongly booked for stopping in taxi bays.
The council admits some of the orders as “ambiguous” and need to be reviewed.
The changes have been ordered after a massive review that began when campaigners picked holes in Sunderland Council’s parking and traffic regulations.
Traffic regulation orders are made by the council to make sure that people park safely and conveniently.
Because some of the rules on traffic orders were missing, campaigners claim the council’s move over to decriminalised parking has been “unlawful”.
The council says mistakes were made in the changes but the system is “lawful”, unless there is a successful legal challenge. Hundreds of updated traffic orders are now needed to clear the air and put it “beyond doubt”.
Neil Herron, anti-regional assembly campaigner and so-called “metric martyr”, said: “If Sunderland City Council wish for people to observe the law then it, too, has a duty to observe the law and it failed in that requirement with the parking regulations.”
There are murmurings among city councillors on how much the whole parking exercise is costing council tax payers, when it emerged that recommendations from consultants were not followed through before the 2003 change over.
Mr Herron added: “You don’t change ‘correct’ traffic orders to make them more ‘correct’, it was wrong in the first instance so the council is now rectifying its mistakes. ”
Phil Barrett, the city’s director of development and regeneration, states in a report to the latest meeting of the council’s highways and planning committee, there was “ambiguity” about the wording on some waiting, loading and parking places in Sunderland.
He said the new orders were “to put the matter beyond doubt” and added: “In summary, the proposed changes to the orders comprise: the amalgamation of orders; updated terminology; corrections to descriptions of parking places no longer in existence or where no charges are made.”
27th December 05
COUNCILLORS are trying to close a loophole that has forced them to return tens of thousands of pounds-worth of parking tickets.
Sunderland Council is examining its parking orders to make sure there is no repeat of the refund fiasco – which saw £34,000 handed back to motorists wrongly booked for stopping in taxi bays.
The council admits some of the orders as “ambiguous” and need to be reviewed.
The changes have been ordered after a massive review that began when campaigners picked holes in Sunderland Council’s parking and traffic regulations.
Traffic regulation orders are made by the council to make sure that people park safely and conveniently.
Because some of the rules on traffic orders were missing, campaigners claim the council’s move over to decriminalised parking has been “unlawful”.
The council says mistakes were made in the changes but the system is “lawful”, unless there is a successful legal challenge. Hundreds of updated traffic orders are now needed to clear the air and put it “beyond doubt”.
Neil Herron, anti-regional assembly campaigner and so-called “metric martyr”, said: “If Sunderland City Council wish for people to observe the law then it, too, has a duty to observe the law and it failed in that requirement with the parking regulations.”
There are murmurings among city councillors on how much the whole parking exercise is costing council tax payers, when it emerged that recommendations from consultants were not followed through before the 2003 change over.
Mr Herron added: “You don’t change ‘correct’ traffic orders to make them more ‘correct’, it was wrong in the first instance so the council is now rectifying its mistakes. ”
Phil Barrett, the city’s director of development and regeneration, states in a report to the latest meeting of the council’s highways and planning committee, there was “ambiguity” about the wording on some waiting, loading and parking places in Sunderland.
He said the new orders were “to put the matter beyond doubt” and added: “In summary, the proposed changes to the orders comprise: the amalgamation of orders; updated terminology; corrections to descriptions of parking places no longer in existence or where no charges are made.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
