Sunderland Councillor Dave Allen says "Herron is finished"

A council meeting for the City of Sunderland saw the District Auditor's Parking report come before the full council on Wednesday.

The DA report did not 'vindicate the council' as is claimed, it decided that it wasn't in the public interest to produce a 'public interest' report or take the matter further because of the cost involved, although his decision could be challenged in the High Court.

However, the matter has not been dropped and the case is already in the hands of the Local Government Ombudsman for one, and, as it appears as though the hands are not going to be raised and the District Auditor was not prepared to dig further then other avenues are currently being pursued (and not just by myself) ...as will be revealed shortly, BUT, a clue is the fact that for six months parking tickets were being issued that were known by a number of council officers to be unlawful.

Another Tonight with Trevor McDonald special is being prepared on a subject close to everyone's heart, and other TV Documentary crews are already at work and 'in place' on a number of bigger issues.


However, what is amusing is that Sunderland Labour Councillor, Dave Allen (pictured left) portfolio holder for 'Resources' was overheard at the full council meeting jubilantly claiming " Herron is finished!" as I was not in the public gallery and hadn't been in the papers on the issue for at least a couple of days.

I am sure that Cllr Allen will be familiar with the phrase 'calm before the storm' and perhaps he will be aware that some dark clouds are approaching.
The parking issue has certainly not gone away, and as for Herron being finished... I am sure that there are going to be some very interesting headlines in the not too distant future...and I do believe that Councillor Allen is up for election in May. I am sure that some other councillors are also shuffling uncomfortably in their seats.

Department for Transport Consultation ... Data Release and DVLA

The People’s No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA


Data Release Consultation Responses
5/20 Southside
105 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6DT

20th March 2006

Dear Sir or Madam:

Release of Vehicle Keeper Data from the UK Vehicle Register.

Consultation submission from Colin Moran on behalf of The People’s No Campaign

Before addressing the specific questions raised within the consulting paper, I believe it is absolutely necessary to challenge the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the register as it is currently compiled and distributed.

I have formed my views over a period of 35 years as a professional in the motor industry, actively involved with the register and other aspects of DVLC / DVLA development commencing 1 October 1974.
In the very beginning many other people in the industry were convinced the decision to establish a centralised and remote Vehicle / Keeper Register (VK) would result in many practical and operational problems. It might interest the Secretary of State and the department in general, that the decision to create DVLC Swansea was not preceded by any feasibility study whatsoever. The fundamental issues which, gave concern in 1974, exist today, although many unsatisfactory operational aspects of the vehicle/keeper register have been addressed. Not withstanding that fact, the flawed basis in the beginning still remains.

How is the database compiled?

i) In the main by public donation and from businesses within the motor industry.

ii) This data arrives at DVLA mainly by ordinary public post, over the counters of Local Vehicle Licensing Offices or in the case of new registrations direct from motor dealers.

iii) There is no requirement for any potential vehicle/keeper register to provide any proof of address or identity at anytime to DVLA or any other person or business. Therefore, the data registered on the vehicle/keeper register has not been authenticated in any way. Giving out this data to enquirers represents the first major hurdle for the Department for Transport and the system itself. Screened, verifiable and authenticated input is surely a mandatory requirement.


iv) Information overlap…The continued vehicle use on the public roads (quite legal) through keeper changes is and always has been a major flaw in the system. Who is the responsible vehicle keeper for any particular vehicle at any given time, cannot be determined by the system of data store and collection. All data received by DVLA is historical. This situation will exist until time and date stamping, including giving authenticated receipts to prospective vehicle keepers is involved, somewhere at source (suggest post offices or LVLOs). Data issued by DVLA on a ‘best known’ basis is not acceptable, especially in light of the amount of requests / enquiries for data arising from remote policing activities, decriminalised parking enforcement and private ‘parking enforcement’ operations.

v) Vehicles disposed of to the motor trade
This is a potentially explosive issue, and one, which for 32 years of DVLC/DVLA operation has never been addressed. The consequences of this issue has only come to my attention within the last 12 months and I would consider my own knowledge of the vehicle/keeper system as above average. I have enclosed minutes of a meeting DVLA/Motor Trade May 2005, at which this issue was discussed.
1. In 1997. at the request of Police and Home Office (so I am informed) DVLA were instructed to log vehicles disposed of to the motor trade. New V5 Registration Documents were designed and issued; disposing keeper and motor trade entity countersign, thus helping police and others to trace what previously would have been vehicles lost to the Vehicle/Keeper Register.

Vehicles in this category (around 4/5 million estimated) are given an ‘indicator’ on the Vehicle/Keeper Register, indicating disposal by last registered keeper.

DVLA do not produce a public database for the benefit of enquirers and therefore, enquiries are all completely ignoring this disposal alert. The consequences are far reaching and conflict with assurances given to vehicle keepers (see V5/5 and Notes) assuring them they are ‘no longer responsible after disposal.’

Previous vehicle keepers are routinely contacted and pursued by all enforcement agencies and others, a potentially huge legal and administrative minefield, with serious Data Protection and Human Rights Act issues, concerns and breaches.
This situation must be resolved urgently.
Our campaign office has hard evidence of previous keepers who have correctly disposed of a vehicle and completed the necessary paperwork, being prosecuted at magistrate courts in their absence, having failed to reply to communications sent illegally.

Private parking companies also pursue the last named keeper on the register (huge evidence available). This includes threats of legal action, bailiff action etc.
The London Congestion Charge is another prime example, when a vehicle quite legitimately continues to be used within the motor trade, but with previous the previous keeper being pursued.

vi) 1991 Road Traffic Act – Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE)
The effect of this Act is to completely alter the relationship and the liability of vehicle keepers under the law. DPE makes the keeper liable alone for the offences allegedly committed by any vehicle registered to them. This is regardless of who may have been the driver at the time.

Once in possession of vehicle keeper details from DVLA over 170 local authorities can proceed against vehicle keepers often resulting in bailiff action.(Camden Council issue 70,000 bailiff warrants in 1 year under DPE). For this reason the vehicle keeper details given out must be totally accurate. There are 14 million register changes annually, all historical, all without authentication.
Our campaign office has been deluged with cases from the public regarding this issue. Particularly ceased keepers who for many reasons have not been able to reply to communications they should not have received and have been pursued in absence, resulting in bailiffs etc.
This driven by misinformation from DVLA because of the reasons already outlined.



The DVLA currently conduct their complex business with the public, to the best of my knowledge, within the law and regulations that currently apply. The Department for Transport, in my view, must look to holding an in-depth assessment regarding the UK vehicle registration system and Government should then act to produce new legislation to produce a workable system, that the public and business can have complete faith in.

Key Questions: Page 8

‘Reasonable cause’ is much too vague, and especially considering the high volume of data requests since electronic era.
Consideration must be given to national security issues and the security and safety of those registered as vehicle keepers.
Any body or person or business requesting vehicle keeper data should receive it via Police supervision and scrutiny. Funding for this should be forthcoming from diverting revenue from DVLA.
Alternatively a separate department of DVLA working closely with the Police over-seeing data given to the public.
Those making data requests to be made aware of police scrutiny and a direct line of traceability for each request.

Key Questions: Page 11

DVLA seem to have adopted an entirely commercial attitude to providing data to the public. This issue is not about commercial considerations. Government should ensure that only those meeting very strict criteria should be granted any access (see response to Page 8 questions)

Key Questions: Page 13
Improved awareness of vehicle keeper

Every V5/5 document and any other form of keeper registration document (new vehicles etc) should carry the potential implications of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and the effect of DPE on vehicle keepers liability for alleged contraventions committed by a third party.
The fact is that 15 years have passed and this obvious action ( informing anyone who nominates to become a keeper of potential financial and legal implications regarding offences committed by anyone they allow to drive the vehicle) has been overlooked by successive governments.
I’m afraid this says everything about the lack of understanding within the Department for Transport.
In general vehicle keepers should be informed should their details be given to anyone other than Police or local authorities. The possible consequences should be clearly spelt out to all prospective vehicle keepers.

Key Questions: Page 14

Abuse and misuse of the register by various groups and others is directly the result of the lack of fear of their actions being scrutinised by a court. The volume of requests across the board leads users to think they would be unlucky to be caught breaking the rules or failing to follow the Voluntary Codes of Conduct.

Again, our campaign office has hard evidence of widespread abuse of the vehicle keeper register ie. the enquirers do not have the legal grounds for making the request.

The 157 Private Parking Companies give serious rise for concern. Apart from those contracted to local authorities, many of the rest are opportunists acting as landlord’s agents using threats of breaches of contract or trespass law and none are covered by on-street parking regulations such as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Regulations 2002 or 1/95 DfT Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and there appears to be no statutory guidance or scrutiny regarding their behaviour and activities.

Alleged offenders parking on private land pursued under laws of trespass and contract, through civil actions, quite often do not even know that they have been targeted, receiving a ‘Notice to Owner’ through the post some weeks later.

Once again abundant evidence is to hand that signage and notices displayed on private land does not meet the DVLA’S Code of Conduct governing the private parking companies. This is widespread throughout the country.

There appears to be no scrutiny of private parking by any inspecting or enforcement body.


Conclusion:
The submission I have made to you is only the tip of a very large iceberg.
The complexities and cross referencing of DVLA and its users could fill a book so I have submitted what I consider to be the main bullet points. I would be pleased to offer you any further assistance or information you may require should this submission direct to look further into the views expressed.
Finally may I say that DVLA cannot continue to operate the nation’s vehicle registration system any longer without a root and branch overhaul and reforms to many of its aspects of operation, implementation and scrutiny.


Questions: To the Secretary of State for Transport

Would the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that due to the inherent operating practices and procedures regarding the UK Vehicle Keepers Register that register contains a significant proportion of inaccurate data?

Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that the UK motoring public are entitled to expect personal data supplied to be given to a third party only on the basis that it is known to be accurate, and not supplied on a “best known basis”?

Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that he is aware that, many thousands of totally innocent vehicle keepers are pursued by enforcement agencies and others as a result of the operation of UK Vehicle Keepers Registers?

Does the Secretary of State for Transport have figures for the following (past three years) :

(i) The percentage and actual number of vehicles classed as ‘with the trade’ over a twelve month period?
(ii) The percentage and actual number of vehicles ‘between keepers’ at any given time?
(iii) The percentage and actual number of vehicles changing hands in a twelve month period?

A direct reply to this communication is requested from the Secretary of State, The Right Honourable Alistair Darling MP in view of the content of information made available to the Department for Transport


Yours faithfully,

Colin Moran

ENCLOSURES:
Minutes of meeting between DVLA/Motor Trade May 2005.

NOTES:
Transport Committee http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/636/63601.htm
Release of Vehicle Keeper Data from the UK Vehicle Registers
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/pdf/dft_roads_pdf_611202.pdf


cc. Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport
cc. Neil Herron, Campaign Director, The People’s No Campaign
cc. Chris Grayling MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
cc. Owen Paterson MP Shadow Minister for Transport
cc. Baroness Hanham, Shadow Minister for Transport (The Lords)
cc. Paul Rowen MP, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman.
cc. Chris Mullin MP Sunderland South Constituency MP
cc. Gwyneth Dunwoody MP, Chairman Transport Committee
cc. Dr. John Patterson, Clerk to the Transport Committee

Herron on BBC Culture Show...7.30pm and 11.20pm

Surprised?
... but Herron has no 'culcha' 'cos he's a 'shaven headed loud mouthed chav' as was once claimed by a poster on the Conservative Democratic Alliance forum....not a place I visit but it was brought to my attention.

What was quite amusing was that the forum owner had also been attacked by a couple of libellous posters ... and he traced them through the ISP and has just recently won £10k libel damages against one and it is reputed another settled out of court for £30k.

Funny thing was that he also traced the one that posted the comments about me.

I must confess that I do shave my hair ... because of male pattern baldness, not my politics. 'Loud mouthed?'... perhaps after working the markets for 17 years, and raising my head above the parapet on contentious issues could perhaps attract comment.

But 'chav?' I do not own Rockports or burberry. I drink imported lagers, beer or Guiness when the mood takes and am partial to a bottle of Pinot Grigio when dining out with the family. I do not drink White Lightning or smoke anything at all, be it legal or illegal, and I haven't got a string of 16 year old pregnant girlfriends called Tracy or Shaz and my children are not called Britney.

So who posted the offensive remarks?

Well before I reveal that, the BBC Culture Show programme was about 'urban renaissance' and the former Vaux Brewery site in Sunderland...bought on the open market by Tesco who, surprisingly want to build a supermarket there.
Trouble is that the Council and its 'urban regeneration' partner, the arc have different plans. They have spent hundreds of thousands on visions and dreams...but don't own the site.
If the Council had any vision whatsoever, they would have snapped up the 15 acre piece of prime real estate adjacent to the City centre. They didn't and now, some 6 years later they are objecting to Tesco doing what they want to do... hence the site lies derelict on right next to one of the gateways to the City.

Nice one Sunderland. The threat to compulsorily purchase will cost at least three times what they could have bought it for...and you have spent hundreds of thousands on designs for someone else's property. Bit like my neighbour putting a planning application in to build a pond in the garden next door AFTER I had bought the house!

So who was it? The poster on the CDA Forum? Who was it?

Well, the ISP was traced to the home address of the Director of the Democracy Movement, Mr. David Russell Walters.
Mr. Walters at first denied all knowledge of posting the offensive remarks and then later claimed that it must have been one of his friends when they had been visiting his house.

Hi Neil
"I've been on holiday. Baffled by your interest in this trivial matter. I didn't write it and don't understand it. If it came from my IP address then maybe one of my many political friends and guests was responsible. Why would I attack my own organisation and one of its allies? Can you think of a reason? I can't.
To be honest the whole thing is so obscure and unimportant I think it is a waste of your time to care."
Russell

I haven't met any of his friends as I have never frequented any of their 'Fever' parties I am not quite sure how they would have come to that conclusion ... unless it was just because I am from 'up Norf' and look a bit raggy round the edges and have a baldy head.

As for legal action... it would only have damaged the eurosceptic cause but it's nice to know that people care so much about what I get up to that they post things on political party websites, and besides, we all had a laugh.

Being in this game my skin has become as thick as a rhino's arse, but it has been great to have the opportunity to finally share the moment.

Newcastle Council Leader Upset...

After saying that there was no such country as England, Newcastle City Council Leader, Peter Arnold is shocked and upset at receiving hate mail.
Arnold was branded a 'loony leftie' by North East MEP Martin Callanan who also said he found his views astonishing for the leader of an English city.

After being the target myself of unwarranted, offensive e-mails and threats I would never condone the sending of such abuse, but I would say, Mr. Arnold, you entered the arena willingly, and with extreme views. It's a bit rich complaining that people take exception, especially with such highly contentious comments as 'there is no England'.

Council chief is target of hate mail
Mar 29 2006
By Peter Young, The Evening Chronicle

Read it here

Salisbury: Parking enforcement `will never be popular'

Nice to see that Salisbury decided to call their enforcers 'Parking Ambassadors.'
No matter how many times you called Vinnie Jones 'sweetie' the effect of his actions never changed.
...but please don't laugh out loud when you see their Penalty Charge Notice ... an offical legal document. Please bear in mind that these people work for us!

Parking enforcement `will never be popular'
From the Salisbury Journal, first published Thursday 8th Jul 2004
Days after the council announced plans to extend parking ambassadors' patrols until 10pm, the Journal has received a flurry of complaints from disgruntled drivers. Jill Harding spoke to some of the motorists who have fallen foul of Salisbury's parking policy


SALISBURY'S tough approach to parking enforcement often causes controversy, with many irate drivers discovering the dreaded penalty notices when they overstay by a few minutes, accidentally park in the wrong place or buy a ticket that slips off the dashboard - even if it is later produced.
Some fear the tough policy will deter people from coming to the city, while others argue ambassadors must take a hard line on those who break the rules.
Last year, the council received £648,759 from parking fines and paid £681,601 in staff wages.
Total expenditure on parking was £2,802,581 and the council, which denies being heavy-handed, says all fines are ploughed back into the service.
A spokesman said: "Enforcing car parking regulations is never going to be popular with the people who receive penalty charge notices but it is crucial that they are enforced properly.
"It is up to the driver to ensure they pay the right amount, come back to their vehicle in time and are correctly parked in the bays.
"Our ambassadors do a very difficult job and they can only enforce what the regulations ask them to, not second-guess the individual reasons why a driver might have contravened the regulations.
"That is why we give all drivers the chance to appeal any penalty charge notices they might receive and we shall look at each case fairly and impartially.
"We strongly refute claims that we are going over the top in our enforcement."

However, with the Journal's Postbag regularly full of letters and complaints from our readers, this week we highlight three cases of motorists who have received fines they felt were unjustified.

City visit `unpleasant'
IT is not only residents who have complained about the stringent parking controls. ,
John Rhodes, of Cardiff, visited Salisbury in May and was furious after he inserted enough money into the machine for three hours parking but only had 60 minutes on his ticket because the coins didn't register.
"It was pouring with rain, my wife hurried across and put two £1 coins in the meter and I displayed the ticket without looking at it - it was very wet and there was no shelter.
"On returning to the parking lot after two-and-a-half hours, we were shocked to find a penalty notice on the windscreen.
"The parking ticket had only recorded one of the two coins inserted.
"The council said our reason was insufficient and we had to pay the fine. Many honest, unsuspecting members of the public are in danger of being caught out by this problem, which leads to substantial, unjustified revenue to the council.
"It made coming to Salisbury a very unpleasant experience."

The council spokesman said drivers must check their tickets ( never a truer word spoken!), as unregistered coins are added on to the next purchase.
"Our car machines display several notices advising drivers to check that all coins have registered before pressing the green button," said the spokesman.
"It is possible that a driver arriving in Salisbury might be meeting a Metric Accent machine for the first time but, as they are in such widespread use, this would be uncommon."

Motorist took complaint to adjudicator
ONE man, Greg Condliffe, of Salisbury, took his complaint to the national parking adjudicator after he received a ticket for mistakenly parking in a disabled space outside Salisbury post office when the signs and lines were worn.
Like 50 per cent of motorists who appeal to the adjudicator (in Salisbury this should have been 1005 if the adjudicator had been competent), he was successful in overturning the fine but said the process took six months and was a battle that would deter most drivers. He said: "It is very hard to find out how to appeal in the first place.
"Most people would just have paid within 30 days but I was very angry because the sign wasn't clear. After I took it to the parking adjudicator, the council cancelled the fine, which shows they admit to making a mistake."

The council spokesman said: "We were aware that the disabled bay markings in Chipper Lane outside the post office were becoming worn and, as a result, the Salisbury joint transportation committee repainted the bay.
"However, photographs show that, before the bay was repainted, it was still clearly a disabled bay.
"The case progressed to the traffic enforcement centre.
"As the bay had since been remarked, we withdrew the case."

Woman shocked at hasty action
WHEN Julie Waters (39), of Downton, parked in Brown Street car park last Wednesday, she saw how quickly the ambassadors can act.
She said: "I went to the ticket machine on one side of the car park but, because there was a queue of about three people, I walked over to the other one.
"Then I saw an ambassador was looking at my car and writing something down.
"I ran over screaming `What are you doing?'
"I'm sure he was giving me a penalty notice without even giving me time to buy a ticket.
"It's ridiculous - they want people to shop in Salisbury but the parking ambassadors are so over-zealous."

But the council denies the ambassador was too quick off the mark.
"This was not the case," said the spokesman.
"The ambassador was just looking at every vehicle in the car park.
"He had not taken any details of her vehicle and, even if he had, he would then have to wait two minutes before he could issue a penalty charge notice, as there is a two-minute delay built into his machinery."

Press Release: Prescott's Department says he got it wrong

Press Release
The People's No Campaign
27th March 2006

No Campaigner calls for the North East Assembly to finally be put out of its misery...
after report by Prescott's own department says he got it wrong.

The report commissioned by Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott's own department is scathing and has been slipped out during a time to bury any such bad news...at the time of Gordon Brown's budget and is another nail in the coffin for regional assemblies across the country.

The report English Regional Governance in 2004, commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and co-authored by leading Yes Campaigner, Professor John Tomaney, has issued a damning verdict of the remaining tier of unelected regional assemblies and other agencies.
It reports, "The recent strengthening of regional governance arrangements and the proliferation of regional strategies and programmes appeared to have made no discernible difference to long-run patterns of uneven regional development in England."

Mr Prescott, who was badly bruised by the scale of the rejection of an elected body in the North-East, was also told that there was no real public enthusiasm for the rest of the regional apparatus."Existing regional agencies were found to have achieved very little visibility, credibility or legitimacy in the eyes of a representative sample of regional electorates. At the same time, there was little confidence that an ERA [elected regional assembly] would make a substantial difference," said the report, overseen by Salford University.

The ODPM said last night that the report was outdated and indicated that Mr Prescott's enthusiasm for devolving power from Whitehall was undiminished."The field work undertaken for this research is now two years old," said a spokesman. "The world has moved on since then."

Neil Herron, the leading No campaigner against both the unelected and elected North East Assemby states, " Perhaps the world has moved on ... with more people realising that regional government is part of the EU dynamic and not driven by the people.
This report is yet another example of John Prescott's contempt for democracy and his personal ambition to regionalise the country by stealth. It is now becoming increasingly clearer to the public at large that regional assemblies are nothing more than useless, toothless talking shops full of the usual 'gravy train' suspects. The sooner that these unwanted bodies are disbanded the better and the money they soak up from the local ratepayer and national taxpayer spent on more worthwhile matters."

ENDS

Contact:

Neil Herron
Campaign Director
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045

Notes for Editors:

Neil Herron was the Campaign Director for the successful North East No Campaign that helped deliver the emphatic 78% 'NO' vote in the country's only ever referendum on the subject.
www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk

The People's No Campaign was initially set up to oppose the European Constitution but has now expanded to campaign against all forms of unaccountable and unacceptable governance, including unelected regional assemblies.
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk

Arrogant Prescott ignores scathing regions report

...and even his own office says he has got it wrong on the regions
By Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent
Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 25/03/2006)

The Deputy Prime Minister's dream of regional government has been severely criticised by a report from his own department, it was disclosed last night.
John Prescott's cherished hope of creating elected assemblies across England was destroyed in 2004 when a referendum in the North-East overwhelmingly rejected the idea. Now a report commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued a damning verdict of the remaining tier of unelected regional assemblies and other agencies.

The Tories claimed the embarrassing report had been "quietly slipped out" just before the Budget but was proof that "John Prescott's wasteful and unwanted regional empires must be scrapped".

The study, English Regional Governance in 2004, suggested that the existence of regional development agencies made no real impact on the North/South economic divide.
"The recent strengthening of regional governance arrangements and the proliferation of regional strategies and programmes appeared to have made no discernible difference to long-run patterns of uneven regional development in England," the study reported.

Mr Prescott, who was badly bruised by the scale of the rejection of an elected body in the North-East, was also told that there was no real public enthusiasm for the rest of the regional apparatus.
"Existing regional agencies were found to have achieved very little visibility, credibility or legitimacy in the eyes of a representative sample of regional electorates. At the same time, there was little confidence that an ERA [elected regional assembly] would make a substantial difference," said the report, overseen by Salford University.

The study also hinted at an explanation for lack of public enthusiasm, disclosing that it had "found a bewildering variety of programmes, each with their own sponsors, funding regimes, time-scales, key partners, delivery arrangements, targets and procedures for monitoring, auditing and evaluation".
The ODPM said last night that the report was outdated and indicated that Mr Prescott's enthusiasm for devolving power from Whitehall was undiminished.
"The field work undertaken for this research is now two years old," said a spokesman. "The world has moved on since then."

Too right it has ... there is now even less support, if that were at all possible!

North East Assembly leader, Alex Watson breaches Code of Conduct

Yet again one has to question the surreal world of local politics and the role of the unwanted, unelected and unaccountable North East Assembly...and this arrogant affront to democracy. This time the unelected Assembly's Chairman, Alex Watson, found guilty by the Standards Board of England.

Sunday Telegraph
Christopher Booker's Notebook
(Filed: 26/03/2006)

Prescott's Code is a blight on democracy

From one end of the land to the other, Prescott's Code is a blight on democracy. A recurrent theme of the many letters I have had on the havoc being inflicted on local councils by John Prescott's Code of Conduct is how this appears to encourage a system of double standards.

It is often used to exclude from debates councillors who oppose official policy, because this supposedly gives them a "prejudicial interest", but members supporting their council's ruling establishment seem curiously immune.

When the North-East Regional Assembly earmarked the ward represented on Derwentside council by John Pickersgill as suitable for more wind turbines, he organised a local referendum. The area already has six turbines. Faced with the prospect of 17 more, more than 80 per cent of the residents voted - and more than 80 per cent were opposed.

When Councillor Pickersgill tried to raise this in a debate on the assembly's regional planning strategy, he was excluded from the room as having a "prejudicial interest".

However, it was deemed quite acceptable for the council's leader, Alex Watson, to speak in favour of the assembly's policy, even though he did not think it necessary to declare that he was himself also the assembly's chairman.

When Mr Pickersgill raised this with the council's "monitoring officer", he was told that the leader had done nothing wrong - which seemed so bizarre that he reported the case to the Standards Board for England.

An independent inquiry ruled that Councillor Watson was in breach of the Code of Conduct after all. But Mr Pickersgill has become so disillusioned by the demoralising effect of the code on the council that he has now resigned.

In South Cambridgeshire, eyebrows were raised recently when one prominent councillor failed to declare prejudicial interest or to leave the room during interviews with representatives of five charities funded by the council - even though she is chairman of one of the charities. The monitoring officer ruled that a complaint to the Standards Board would be "inappropriate" - though no fewer than 11 complaints are currently lodged against other councillors.

From Dorset, Richard Thomas - a town councillor in Shaftesbury known for frank criticism of the council's establishment - asks whether having had 10 complaints about him lodged with the Standards Board by fellow councillors constitutes a record. One investigation, which cost in the region of £20-30,000, was eventually found to be based on a false allegation. All 10 complaints were eventually rejected or dropped. Whether or not Mr Thomas holds the record, I hear similar stories from all over England.

Labour Councillors vote with the Tories...oops!

The senior Labour councillors made a mistake and pressed the wrong button was the claim. Let us hope and pray that Sunderland never has its own nuclear deterrent with these two in charge.

Councillors apologise after voting with Tories over budget plans
Sunderland Echo
Thursday March 23, 2006
by Jeremy Wicking

Sunderland's Mayor has been given a warning by party political bosses after "accidently" voting for the wrong side.
The Mayor Bill Stephenson and Councillor Peter Gibson, who held the ceremonial post a year ago, both plumped for Tory spending plans instead of Labour's at the recent big budget vote.
They've now been disciplined by the party's chief whip Coun. Les Scott, who manages 60 Labour politicians on the 75-strong city council.
Coun Scott said: "We realises that the opposition had more votes than they should have had, so checked the voting record print-out and two Labour councillors, Coun Stephenson and Coun Gibson, had inadvertently pressed the wrong button."
The final voting came in at 43 in favour of the budget and 11 against.
Coun Scott said: "They have both apologised, been told to be more careful and, after determining that there was no intent, that's the end of the matter."
Coun Stephenson, who has said it was his opposition to Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that had inspired him to enter politics, said the pro-Tory vote was totally unintentional.
He said: I thought I was doing quite well as chairman of the meeting up until that last and final vote when my concentration slipped.
"It's the first time that I've ever had to be spoken to by the whips, who were very understanding, and I can advise the Tories that it will never, ever happen again."
It is not the forst time that there has been confusion among councillors on who and what to vote for as last year's budget saw cries of "shambles" as councillors trooped in and out of the chamber. A re-organisation of the system saw the number of votes cut this year.
Coun Scott added that he had now laid down the law to the Labour group after questions were raised on whether the smoking ban applied to the council's underground civic car park.
Labour and Conservative groups had allowed smoking in their group rooms up until last year. A ban in council committee rooms and offices has been in place since the mid 1990s and anyone wanting to feed their nicotine habit must leave council property.
Coun Scott said: "Any smokers need to step completely off council premises. A number of councillors had raised the issue of whether the ban applied to the underground car park and it does."

Third suspension at Sunderland Magistrates' court

This is the Magistrates Court where Metric Martyr, Steve Thoburn, was initially tried and convicted.
A summons (below) was served and the case first came before a bench of three lay Magistrates who were removed and District Judge Morgan parachuted in. Steve was subsequently convicted and the Judge issued a statement which included the line that 'in signing the 1972 European Communities Act we voluntarily surrendered our sovereignty to the European Union.'
The question must be asked is what procedural advice did the Court Clerk provide to the bench in the first hearing to force them to stand down and what involvement did the court clerk have with the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Sunderland City Council?

THE SUMMONS
This was delivered to Mr Thoburn's solicitors on 6.10.00
INFORMATION has this day been laid by Colin G Langley, Director of Administration and duly authorised Officer of the Council of the City of Sunderland of Civic Centre, Sunderland, being the local weights and measures authority for the said City THAT on the fourth day of July, 2000 at The Market, Southwick, Sunderland in the County of Tyne and Wear, you did have in your possession for use for trade a non-automatic weighing machine, namely a System 30 weighing machine, serial number 190073, which did not bear a stamp indicating that it had been passed by an Inspector or approved verifier as fit for such use, which was not defaced otherwise than by reason of fair wear and tear.
CONTRARY to Section 11 (2) of the Weights and Measures Act, 1985.
YOU are hereby summoned to appear before the Magistrates' Court sitting at Gillbridge Avenue, Sunderland on Tuesday the 7th day of November 2000 at the hour of 2:00 p.m. to answer the said Information.
Clerk to the Justices for the Petty Sessional Division of Sunderland

In what appears now to be something approaching surreality of Alice in Wonderland proportions, the Clerk to the Justices, along with two other senior officials, have been suspended following allegations of fraud.
The late David Jude (the lead Magistrate on the first bench) was so incensed that he had been removed and prevented from hearing the case that he agreed to become a Trustee of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund. Tragically he died of cancer some months later but his principled stand and sense of justice made me proud to know him.
I am sure that there will be more startling revelations to come.

Police called in to investigate allegations of fraud
Sunderland Echo
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
by Lisa Hodge

A third member of staff has been suspended from duty at Sunderland Magistrates' Court as part of a fraud investigation.
Two of the city's most senior court officials were suspended after police were called in.
It is understood that Sunderland Magistrates' Court chief clerk Peter Rowbottom and his deputy, Ed Cleery, are at the centre of the probe and have both been suspended pending the results of an inquiry.
It is not known yet who the third person is or what their position is in the court.
The circumstances surrounding the allegations have not been revealed, but the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which governs magistrates, has confirmed an investigation is under way.
A spokesman for the department said: "There are now three members of court staff who have been suspended from Sunderland Magistrates' Court. Police are conducting an investigation into a possible fraud at the court.
"Officers at Her Majesty's Court service are assisting police with their inquiries."
Mr Rowbottom took over as Chief Clerk to the Justices when predecessor David Yorke left more than five years ago, and Mr Cleery has advised Sunderland magistrates since the early 1990s.
The clerk is usually a barrister or solicitor appointed to assist magistrates in court.
Usually with more than five years experience, the court clerk provides advice about legal practice and procedure. The clerk does not assist the magistrate in deciding a verdict.
A Northumbria Police spokeswoman said: "Police are aware of the suspension of two people but this is not as a result of any criminal investigation by the police."

"There is no England," says Newcastle City Council Leader

Our great political leaders cannot help putting their foot in it time and time again. First we had LibDim North East Party Leader, Chris Foote Wood, and his Wear Valley District Council removing the Cross of St. George and replacing it with the EU's 'ring of stars' and now we have Peter Arnold, the Lib Dim Leader of Newcastle City Council saying that there is 'no such thing as England.'

It is important that such views are challenged and exposed. Mr. Arnold conveniently omitted his political title when replying to a letter in the Independent newspaper. It was well spotted and passed to us and we have assisted the local press in bringing it to everyone's attention. The story is running with a full page in the Newcastle Journal and the Council Leader's comments have created news and debate on Radio Newcastle. It appears as though everyone's wrath is turned on Mr. Arnold's statement.

This is not the first time he has created controversy. Some months back he branded the unelected North East Assembly 'boring, invisible and a waste of money' whilst at the same time committing tens of thousands of pounds of public money to the body and allowing the Assembly to use the prestigious Guildhall Building on the Newcastle Quayside rent free.
He again claimed he was merely voicing his personal opinion.

If people across England wish to remind Mr. Arnold through the letters page of the Newcastle Journal that there is such a country called England and it is not, as Labour MEP Stephen Hughes mistakenly points out, 'just a collection of regions,' then they can send an e-mail to jnl.letters@ncjmedia.co.uk

The Journal story can be seen below...

Council leader sparks debate over 'mongrel nation'
Newcastle Journal
Monday, March 20, 2006
by Ross Smith











It may mean a new set of maps, a bank with an identity crisis and thousands of confused supporters at the World Cup.
But the leader of Newcastle Council has declared that there is no such thing as England.
The somewhat surprising statement was made in a letter by civic centre chief Peter Arnold to a national newspaper.
He wrote: "There is no need for an English parliament because there is no England."
He said that while Scotland, Wales and Ireland are "fairly homogenous", England is "the genuine mongrel nation, and I welcome that".
And he continued: "I regard myself first and foremost as a Northumbrian, then as British, and finally as European.
"Here in the North-East we only began to be part of the nation after 1603. Before that, the independent kingdoms of England and Scotland played havoc with the area, and used it (and abused us) for their own dynastic ends. I have no loyalty to England."
Coun Arnold last night revealed he had received "vitriolic" emails since the letter was published, accusing him of being a traitor to the country.
He said he was writing in a personal capacity, rather than on behalf of Newcastle Council or the Liberal Democrats.
But his views raised eyebrows among his political opponents.
Conservative Euro-MP Martin Callanan said: "I find those views astonishing for the leader of a major English city.
"I'm not sure what fantasy land Peter Arnold is living in - clearly not England.
"If he hates England so much, he can always nip across the border and bore the Scots with his tedious politics."
Labour MEP Stephen Hughes added: "It's not a viewpoint I share. I know what he means, because there are distinct regions in the North.
"We are a nation of regions, but we have shared traditions we can be really proud of. I think we rank up there with the best."
Political campaigner Neil Herron said: "To say there's no such thing as England is bizarre, to say the least.
"I wonder who he will be cheering for in the World Cup, as neither Northumbria nor Great Britain have qualified."

Points of view
Proud to be whoever it is we are ...
North-Easterners yesterday seemed unsure whether an English identity actually exists.
Although most people said they still considered themselves to be English, they found it difficult to describe what exactly they associated with their national identity.
Adrian Snell, 34, of Gosforth, Newcastle, said: "There are a lot of things English people can be proud of. We invented the English language not to mention the beautiful game. And we'll always have World Cup in 1966 to remember.
"I do think the English identity still exists, but people have definately started to think of themselves as coming more from a region. I know I think of myself as being from the North-East and that's a big part of my identity."
Ted Reay, 56, of Festival Square, Gateshead, said: I'm proud to have been born in England, but I don't really know what you would associate with being English any more.
"It used to be things like hunting, playing cricket, and drinking tea, but I think a lot of people from other countries would probably associate us with football hooligans these days.
"Because of that kind of behaviour it's almost seen as being wrong to be patriotic, but if someone asked me where I was from I'd definately say I was English."
Ted's wife Rosaline Reay, 51, also of Festival Square, Gateshead, said: Well I'm Irish, but I definately think the English identity is not promoted as well as other nations.
"Take St Patrick's Day, for instance. It's celebrated all over the world, but I doubt many people even know when St Georges' Day is. English people don't seem to celebrate their identity as passionately as the Irish, Scottish or Welsh."
Norman Atkinson, 61, of Carlisle, Cumbria, said: "I always put down that I am English whenever I get the opportunity. We are a fantastic nation with a proud history and culture.
"I think the English identity should be promoted as much as that of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish."
Ian Simpson, 43, an Army major, of Hartlepool, said: "I consider myself to be British rather than English. But I don't think people are really encouraged to have an English identity any more.
"A strong sense of national identity isn't encouraged in this country the same way as in Scotland, for example. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, however, and I'm happy to call myself British."

Another Invite to Robocop Mayor

...but in light of his broken leg it may be a while before he can make it to Sunderland again.

Northern Echo
Hear all Sides
18th March 2006

PIES THE LIMIT
READING Ray Mallon's column, How the mighty have fallen (Echo, Mar 10) I first assumed that he was referring to the unsuccessful Yes campaigners from the North East regional assembly referendum, many of whom have slunk away from public view.

Sir John Hall blamed me personally for "costing the North-East its best opportunity for decades". Sorry, Sir John, but I think that there were another 686,000 who were equally responsible.

However, Ray was talking about something perhaps more important than politics to many of the North-East public - football.

I invited Ray to Sunderland after he had branded the No campaigners "southern Tories" to meet the No campaigners who were certainly not Tories and definitely not southerners.
As the cameras clicked, the debate on politics lasted minutes, as I knew, and I think Ray did too, that an elected North East Assembly had about as much chance of happening as Sunderland have of avoiding relegation.

The conversation then turned to football and, being somewhat younger, my memories were of a different era but we surprisingly both found ourselves sharing the same passion for Sunderland Football Club.
However, at the time, Sunderland were not in the dire straits we are in now. Ray, along with the whole of Sunderland, hopes that we can salvage some pride from the season and achieve a victory in the Easter Monday game against Newcastle at the Stadium of Light.
At our meeting, Ray Mallon kindly offered me an invitation to a Middlesbrough match.

Ray, I wish to return the compliment. We need as much support as we can muster in our hour of need and I have a couple of spare tickets.
I hope you can join me - and I'll buy the pies.

Neil Herron
Sunderland.

DVLA Data Release Consultation

The People’s No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA


Data Release Consultation Responses
5/20 Southside
105 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6DT

20th March 2006

Dear Sir or Madam:

Release of Vehicle Keeper Data from the UK Vehicle Register.

Consultation submission from Colin Moran on behalf of The People’s No Campaign

Before addressing the specific questions raised within the consulting paper, I believe it is absolutely necessary to challenge the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the register as it is currently compiled and distributed.

I have formed my views over a period of 35 years as a professional in the motor industry, actively involved with the register and other aspects of DVLC / DVLA development commencing 1 October 1974.
In the very beginning many other people in the industry were convinced the decision to establish a centralised and remote Vehicle / Keeper Register (VK) would result in many practical and operational problems. It might interest the Secretary of State and the department in general, that the decision to create DVLC Swansea was not preceded by any feasibility study whatsoever. The fundamental issues which, gave concern in 1974, exist today, although many unsatisfactory operational aspects of the vehicle/keeper register have been addressed. Not withstanding that fact, the flawed basis in the beginning still remains.

How is the database compiled?

i) In the main by public donation and from businesses within the motor industry.

ii) This data arrives at DVLA mainly by ordinary public post, over the counters of Local Vehicle Licensing Offices or in the case of new registrations direct from motor dealers.

iii) There is no requirement for any potential vehicle/keeper register to provide any proof of address or identity at anytime to DVLA or any other person or business. Therefore, the data registered on the vehicle/keeper register has not been authenticated in any way. Giving out this data to enquirers represents the first major hurdle for the Department for Transport and the system itself. Screened, verifiable and authenticated input is surely a mandatory requirement.


iv) Information overlap…The continued vehicle use on the public roads (quite legal) through keeper changes is and always has been a major flaw in the system. Who is the responsible vehicle keeper for any particular vehicle at any given time, cannot be determined by the system of data store and collection. All data received by DVLA is historical. This situation will exist until time and date stamping, including giving authenticated receipts to prospective vehicle keepers is involved, somewhere at source (suggest post offices or LVLOs). Data issued by DVLA on a ‘best known’ basis is not acceptable, especially in light of the amount of requests / enquiries for data arising from remote policing activities, decriminalised parking enforcement and private ‘parking enforcement’ operations.

v) Vehicles disposed of to the motor trade
This is a potentially explosive issue, and one, which for 32 years of DVLC/DVLA operation has never been addressed. The consequences of this issue has only come to my attention within the last 12 months and I would consider my own knowledge of the vehicle/keeper system as above average. I have enclosed minutes of a meeting DVLA/Motor Trade May 2005, at which this issue was discussed.
1. In 1997. at the request of Police and Home Office (so I am informed) DVLA were instructed to log vehicles disposed of to the motor trade. New V5 Registration Documents were designed and issued; disposing keeper and motor trade entity countersign, thus helping police and others to trace what previously would have been vehicles lost to the Vehicle/Keeper Register.

Vehicles in this category (around 4/5 million estimated) are given an ‘indicator’ on the Vehicle/Keeper Register, indicating disposal by last registered keeper.

DVLA do not produce a public database for the benefit of enquirers and therefore, enquiries are all completely ignoring this disposal alert. The consequences are far reaching and conflict with assurances given to vehicle keepers (see V5/5 and Notes) assuring them they are ‘no longer responsible after disposal.’

Previous vehicle keepers are routinely contacted and pursued by all enforcement agencies and others, a potentially huge legal and administrative minefield, with serious Data Protection and Human Rights Act issues, concerns and breaches.
This situation must be resolved urgently.
Our campaign office has hard evidence of previous keepers who have correctly disposed of a vehicle and completed the necessary paperwork, being prosecuted at magistrate courts in their absence, having failed to reply to communications sent illegally.

Private parking companies also pursue the last named keeper on the register (huge evidence available). This includes threats of legal action, bailiff action etc.
The London Congestion Charge is another prime example, when a vehicle quite legitimately continues to be used within the motor trade, but with previous the previous keeper being pursued.

vi) 1991 Road Traffic Act – Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE)
The effect of this Act is to completely alter the relationship and the liability of vehicle keepers under the law. DPE makes the keeper liable alone for the offences allegedly committed by any vehicle registered to them. This is regardless of who may have been the driver at the time.

Once in possession of vehicle keeper details from DVLA over 170 local authorities can proceed against vehicle keepers often resulting in bailiff action.(Camden Council issue 70,000 bailiff warrants in 1 year under DPE). For this reason the vehicle keeper details given out must be totally accurate. There are 14 million register changes annually, all historical, all without authentication.
Our campaign office has been deluged with cases from the public regarding this issue. Particularly ceased keepers who for many reasons have not been able to reply to communications they should not have received and have been pursued in absence, resulting in bailiffs etc.
This driven by misinformation from DVLA because of the reasons already outlined.



The DVLA currently conduct their complex business with the public, to the best of my knowledge, within the law and regulations that currently apply. The Department for Transport, in my view, must look to holding an in-depth assessment regarding the UK vehicle registration system and Government should then act to produce new legislation to produce a workable system, that the public and business can have complete faith in.

Key Questions: Page 8

‘Reasonable cause’ is much too vague, and especially considering the high volume of data requests since electronic era.
Consideration must be given to national security issues and the security and safety of those registered as vehicle keepers.
Any body or person or business requesting vehicle keeper data should receive it via Police supervision and scrutiny. Funding for this should be forthcoming from diverting revenue from DVLA.
Alternatively a separate department of DVLA working closely with the Police over-seeing data given to the public.
Those making data requests to be made aware of police scrutiny and a direct line of traceability for each request.

Key Questions: Page 11

DVLA seem to have adopted an entirely commercial attitude to providing data to the public. This issue is not about commercial considerations. Government should ensure that only those meeting very strict criteria should be granted any access (see response to Page 8 questions)

Key Questions: Page 13
Improved awareness of vehicle keeper

Every V5/5 document and any other form of keeper registration document (new vehicles etc) should carry the potential implications of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and the effect of DPE on vehicle keepers liability for alleged contraventions committed by a third party.
The fact is that 15 years have passed and this obvious action ( informing anyone who nominates to become a keeper of potential financial and legal implications regarding offences committed by anyone they allow to drive the vehicle) has been overlooked by successive governments.
I’m afraid this says everything about the lack of understanding within the Department for Transport.
In general vehicle keepers should be informed should their details be given to anyone other than Police or local authorities. The possible consequences should be clearly spelt out to all prospective vehicle keepers.

Key Questions: Page 14

Abuse and misuse of the register by various groups and others is directly the result of the lack of fear of their actions being scrutinised by a court. The volume of requests across the board leads users to think they would be unlucky to be caught breaking the rules or failing to follow the Voluntary Codes of Conduct.

Again, our campaign office has hard evidence of widespread abuse of the vehicle keeper register ie. the enquirers do not have the legal grounds for making the request.

The 157 Private Parking Companies give serious rise for concern. Apart from those contracted to local authorities, many of the rest are opportunists acting as landlord’s agents using threats of breaches of contract or trespass law and none are covered by on-street parking regulations such as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Regulations 2002 or 1/95 DfT Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and there appears to be no statutory guidance or scrutiny regarding their behaviour and activities.

Alleged offenders parking on private land pursued under laws of trespass and contract, through civil actions, quite often do not even know that they have been targeted, receiving a ‘Notice to Owner’ through the post some weeks later.

Once again abundant evidence is to hand that signage and notices displayed on private land does not meet the DVLA’S Code of Conduct governing the private parking companies. This is widespread throughout the country.

There appears to be no scrutiny of private parking by any inspecting or enforcement body.


Conclusion:
The submission I have made to you is only the tip of a very large iceberg.
The complexities and cross referencing of DVLA and its users could fill a book so I have submitted what I consider to be the main bullet points. I would be pleased to offer you any further assistance or information you may require should this submission direct to look further into the views expressed.
Finally may I say that DVLA cannot continue to operate the nation’s vehicle registration system any longer without a root and branch overhaul and reforms to many of its aspects of operation, implementation and scrutiny.


Questions: To the Secretary of State for Transport

Would the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that due to the inherent operating practices and procedures regarding the UK Vehicle Keepers Register that register contains a significant proportion of inaccurate data?

Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that the UK motoring public are entitled to expect personal data supplied to be given to a third party only on the basis that it is known to be accurate, and not supplied on a “best known basis”?

Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that he is aware that, many thousands of totally innocent vehicle keepers are pursued by enforcement agencies and others as a result of the operation of UK Vehicle Keepers Registers?

Does the Secretary of State for Transport have figures for the following (past three years) :

(i) The percentage and actual number of vehicles classed as ‘with the trade’ over a twelve month period?
(ii) The percentage and actual number of vehicles ‘between keepers’ at any given time?
(iii) The percentage and actual number of vehicles changing hands in a twelve month period?

A direct reply to this communication is requested from the Secretary of State, The Right Honourable Alistair Darling MP in view of the content of information made available to the Department for Transport


Yours faithfully,

Colin Moran

ENCLOSURES:
Minutes of meeting between DVLA/Motor Trade May 2005.

NOTES:
Transport Committee http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/636/63601.htm
Release of Vehicle Keeper Data from the UK Vehicle Registers
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/pdf/dft_roads_pdf_611202.pdf


cc. Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport
cc. Neil Herron, Campaign Director, The People’s No Campaign
cc. Chris Grayling MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
cc. Owen Paterson MP Shadow Minister for Transport
cc. Baroness Hanham, Shadow Minister for Transport (The Lords)
cc. Paul Rowen MP, Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman.
cc. Chris Mullin MP Sunderland South Constituency MP
cc. Gwyneth Dunwoody MP, Chairman Transport Committee
cc. Dr. John Patterson, Clerk to the Transport Committee

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement across the country about to crash...London authorities in a state of panic

Barnet Council admits that if it lost the case it would many tickets issued by Barnet and other London authorities unenforceable.
Looks like the Grim DPE Reaper is sharpening his scythe.

When Moses was mentioned in relation to motoring offences in the Bible it had something to do with 'coming down the mountain in his Triumph'

It may well be another Moses that leads motorists to the promised land ... a land where motorists are not treated with such contempt by modern day highway robbers and where fairness, justice and common sense prevails.

Now who is going to ask the question, "if the PCNs are unenforceable what about all the fines that have been raised with such unlawful documents?"

Barnet and Potters Bar Times
Thursday 16th March 2006

Parking ruling stands
By Alex Galbinski
The ruling that effectively labels all Barnet Council's parking tickets invalid will not be overturned or reviewed, the parking and traffic appeals service (PATAS) said last week.

The council had asked PATAS to overturn the ruling in mid-February which said that two tickets given to motorist Hugh Moses in Golders Green were unlawful, partly due to the fact that council penalty charge notices (PCNs) do not state the date of issue of each ticket.

The council argued that its PCNs state the date of contravention tickets are issued when a contravention is spotted and that the decision would cause many of its PCNs to be regarded as non-compliant and unenforceable.

But Austin Wilkinson, PATAS's duty adjudicator, wrote last week: "I nevertheless find it a somewhat curious concept that a legal finding of a potentially widespread failure of compliance with statute in a penal system could possibly be regarded as unduly detrimental to good administration of the council and other London authorities'.

"Surely good administration commences with compliance with the law?"

Parking campaigner Barrie Segal, of web site AppealNow.com, which helps motorists fight incorrect or illegal parking tickets, believes that all the council's parking tickets can now be considered illegal' and not enforceable.
"The rejection document is one of the most important documents to be published in the history of parking," he said.
"The council argues on its web site that the decisions in the original two cases are one-offs and do not affect the validity of its other parking tickets. Yet in its submission to the adjudicator it astonishingly states that if it lost its appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet Council and other London authorities unenforceable."

Both the council and the Association of London Government (ALG), which funds PATAS, argue that the tickets are valid.

A council spokeswoman said: "We are surprised we didn't get an opportunity to explain our position to PATAS. We feel that a number of the points raised by PATAS are not relevant to our case and we are, therefore, dissatisfied with the decision.
"We are now discussing with our solicitors how the matter might best be further pursued."

The ALG's director of transport, environment and planning, Nick Lester, said: "All cases that come before the independent adjudicators are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
"They are decided on the evidence provided for that individual case. No decision by an adjudicator sets a legal precedent for other cases."

Mr Segal argues that no parking adjudicator has ever contradicted a previous adjudicator's ruling.
10:28am Thursday 16th March 2006

Read the full story here

Council Tax Pensioners Told by Court "Pay up or Leave the Country"

Press Release (on behalf of John and Lesley Kelly)
Friday 17th March 2006

Pensioners denied a fair trial !!"
"Pay Up or Leave the Country," says Court

In a remarkable day in court, Wednesday 15th March, Lesley and John Kelly were denied the opportunity to present their case as to why they have been withholding a portion of their council tax for the last 3 years, in the latest case of pensioners being pursued by local councils. It had been made clear at all previous cases in Devon and Cornwall courts, that magistrates have no discretion when assessing a councils application for a liability order, and the Kellys therefore submitted a request in law for their case to be heard by the European Court of Justice.

Read the full story here

Get your own house in order first

Sunderland Echo
Letters Page
Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Colin Anderson's letter in the Echo on March 2 about Liberal "paralysis" was laughable.
How on earth has Coun Anderson got the time and inclination to criticise the Liberal council of another city like Newcastle?
Coun Anderson should just look around Sunderland and see what Labour has done for the city?
I'm not a Liberal. Indeed, I find modern politics an absolute shambles, both at local and national level.
On Wearside the arrogance of the controlling Labour council is well known. I would like to see the formal qualifications that many of our fancily-titled councillors actually have.
As Neil Herron said, it is time for Sunderland to rise politically, to refuse to bow to the Newcastle-Gateshead axis, and for our elected councillors to be people of vision, people of intuition and inventiveness.
To those who vote for those currently in power, I say, have a look at your city. Is this the best Sunderland, the former biggest shipbuilding town in the world, major contributor to the winning of World War II, can do for itself?
Time for change, time for vision and ambition. Time for Sunderland.
Time for Herron as Mayor?

Ian Patterson
Roker Park
Sunderland

Pride not Prejudice

I do believe that I was the other individual "trying to make a name by promoting prejudice and ignorance".
I look forward to my detractor coming forward and identifying himself.

Northern Echo
Hear All Sides
14th March 2006

FREE SPEECH

I AGREE that Ken Livingstone's remarks were offensive but we had the opportunity to read them in the media and ridicule him accordingly (Echo Comment, Mar 1).
It may all be water off a duck's back for Ken but, in the British way, the wider public were made aware of the comments and reacted within the spirit of freedom of speech.
A few months back, the Echo covered a story I was involved in, namely my preference for the English flag to fly ahead of the EU flag at Wear Valley District Council (WVDC).
Subsequently, I requested the secretary's notes from the WVDC meeting that had discussed the issue, and was amazed by a comment made by a prominent councillor, referring to "two individuals trying to make a name by promoting prejudice and ignorance".
I sought clarification of the comments but, as the Echo recently highlighted, councils and perhaps councillors can be perceived to have distanced themselves from the public.
I have no wish to pursue this individual, but I request, in the true spirit of British freedom of speech, that he clarifies his remarks and allows the public to judge. I trust an apology to the English nation will be forthcoming. -

Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland.

We're in the clear on parking, say council

Oh no you're not, warns campaigner Neil Herron
The Journal
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
by Ross Smith

Council chiefs at the centre of a row over parking rules last night said they had been vindicated by a probe by the District Auditor.
David Jennings said he will not pursue Sunderland Council through the courts over its accounts for 2004-5, despite the fact it included money wrongly collected from flawed parking tickets.
He had been asked to intervene by campaigner Neil Herron after the council admitted it would have to pay back £34,367.36 collected from fines it had no power to hand out. Mr Jennings' report says that the inclusion of this money in the accounts, despite some council officials being aware of the errors, was "contrary to law".
But he said it would "not be proportionate" to apply for a court declaration confirming this because of the relatively small sum involved and the actions taken by the council to address the problems.
The report says the district auditor is "concerned about the timeliness" of action taken by the council to rectify problems with traffic orders, signs and road markings raised in a consultants' report commissioned in 2000. Many of these had still not been dealt with by the time the flaws in the system first came to light in August last year.
But Mr Jennings wrote: "I am now aware of steps taken by the council to prevent a recurrence.
"In particular, the council has informed me it intends to commission an external review to ensure that all aspects of its revised decriminalised parking enforcement scheme (including road signs and road markings) have been properly implemented once the remedial action referred to above is complete."
He said that the problems identified do "not mean that the decriminalised parking regime established in Sunderland is unlawful."
Sunderland Council chief executive Ged Fitzgerald said: "We satisfied with the conclusion reached by the district auditor. This decision vindicates the approach the council has taken."
But Mr Herron said that the district auditor had chosen not to look at the wider issues, and that a similar investigation may be required into this year's accounts after the council issued thousands of tickets without a date of issue, despite having been told that they should include one.
Mr Herron said: "This most certainly does not clear Sunderland Council and there is more to come to light that could leave the district auditor needing to revisit this whole matter.
"The scale of problems is a great deal more serious than this report would lead us to believe."

The law is the law

Sunderland Echo
Letters Page
Tuesday, March 14th, 2006

In response to Council Watcher (Letters, Feb 3), on February 18, 2002, Lord Justice Laws made an unequivocal statement in his High Court verdict denying the Metric Martyrs appeal against conviction that (in the "new legal era" in which we now live) Constitutional Acts, including the Bill of Rights, cannot be repealed by implication alone, but can be repealed only by explicit wording to that effect.
It is therefore inescapable that, unless and until Lord Justice Law's view is reversed, that is the law.
The 1991 Road Traffic Act which brought in Decriminalised Parking Enforcement did not explicitly repeal Article 11 of the Bill of Rights: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".
Therefore, the 1991 Road Traffic Act is null and void as the law now stands.
In plain and simple terms - either the Metric Martyrs were guilty and the decriminalised parking fine system is illegal, or the Metric Martyrs were innocent and the parking fine system is legal.
One or the other - but not both!
Neil Herron and the Metric Martyrs Campaign's intention is to overturn the wrongful convictions of the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steven Thoburn.
If the convictions are not overturned then nationally, £1billion-worth of parking fines annually are under threat.
If the convictions are overturned and the Martyrs are declared innocent then the case which established the primacy of EU law falls.
Colin Moran
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
Frederick Street
Sunderland

Now Parking Ticket 'credits' in Sunderland

From the sublime to the ridiculous and now from the ridiculous to the bizarre...

DX Courier John Foxton's life has been plagued by Sunderland Parking Attendants. He now spends more time worrying about whether he will be given a PCN than he does on concentrating on his job.

However, he received a Penalty Charge Notice last August and reluctantly paid because he simply did not have the time to appeal and dispute the ticket. He then received another in December, but as he had observed the Parking Attendant still writing the PCN he decided not to engage and simply drove off ... hence the PCN was not attached to the vehicle and no photographs were taken. He has decided to dispute this one, but at the same time he requested his money back for the August PCN because, as we have highlighted, it contained no 'Date of Issue' and is therefore unlawful.
Sunderland Council have refused to repay any monies to drivers who paid unlawful PCNs, simply declaring an amnesty for those who haven't.
However, in the case of Mr. Foxton there has been a refund ... as a credit against the PCN which is in dispute for which 'no further action will be taken.'

Will everyone else (75,000) who have paid unlawful PCNs be given 'credits'?

An angry Mr. Foxton has been put in touch with the press.

Elected Mayor 'Robocop' Ray Mallon and those tickets

A mention in Ray Mallon's column this week brought back memories of the regional assembly debate.
Ray had been branding opponents of the regional assembly as 'southern Tories' (as a result of the hijacking of the campaign by James Frayne under the control of former Head of Strategy for the Tories, Dominic Cummings). The Yes campaign had been on the backfoot for a long time and saw a glint of light when the Tories, under the control of the above two, bumbled into the arena. After a great deal of publicity and propaganda for the Yes campaign we reversed the agenda by inviting Ray Mallon to come to Sunderland to see if he dared call our campaign a bunch of southern Tories. After all, the campaign against the North East Assembly had been up and running in Sunderland with support from across the North East for over two years.
Mallon, a man of his word and conviction duly came...and we had ensured maximum press and media coverage.
What emerged was the fact that he could not win the regional assembly argument, so talk soon turned to football, and the fact that he had been a keen Sunderland football fan. After photographs and handshakes he was ready to depart...but did make an offer of two tickets for the Riverside Stadium to join him when he next had the chance.
I am sure that, as such a busy man, he has not yet had time to stick them in the post.
However, in order to return the offer I INSIST that he joins me at the next home game ... and witnesses first hand what it's like to watch 35,000 loyal and passionate supporters suffering what must be the most extreme of experiences football fans have ever had to endure.
They will be in the post this week.

Association of London Government to give Parking Ticket Amnesty?

Should we hold our breath?
Well, if the legal advice from Stephen Sauvain QC is that unlawfully worded PCNs cannot be pursued in Sunderland then they cannot be pursued in any other local authority area.
The implications and consequences of what has happened in Sunderland could have devastating consequences across London and the rest of the country for the local authorities that have seen the motorist as an easy target for this offensive stealth tax.
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement is nothing more than licensed highway robbery by modern day Dick Turpins dressed in cap and uniform and supported by anonymous bureaucrats in suits.
The motoring public is fed up to the back teeth with being remotely policed by what has now become a lawless cash cow.
The worm has turned and it looks like justice is about to be had and the balance restored.
Let us hope we can then return to proper parking control working within the law and under a system that is fair and just with a proper legal remedy through the courts and this profit driven decriminalised parking enforcement under the 1991 Road Traffic Act consigned to the legislative dustbin.
The letter which has gone off to the Association of London Governemnt in advance of the press release. We go live nationally soon.

Stuart Henderson
ALG Press Office
Association of London Government
59½
Southwark Street
London
SE1 0AL

Dear Stuart,

Just picked up your press release, ALG warns motorists over misleading advice on parking fines and it is highly relevant to a piece I am pulling together in relation to Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and the national implications of the decision, after leading Counsel's advice (Stephen Sauvain QC) by Sunderland City Council not to pursue outstanding unlawfully worded PCNs (without a date of issue).
I am aware of the decision in Moses v Barnet which came before PATAS and the earlier one of MacArthur v Bury which was heard before NPAS.
Sunderland City Council put out a press release on 8th March 2006 which states the following:

ST 117
For Immediate Release
Penalty Charge Notices
FOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like many other local authorities, will not pursue payment of outstanding unpaidPenalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which do not display a date of issue.

The Sunderland City Council Penalty Charge Notices have now been corrected to conform to the legal requirements and include the date of issue, as per 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
The full press release (for information) is below.

I would be grateful for answers to the following questions:

1. How many London authorities are issuing Penalty Charge Notices which do not bear a 'Date of Issue?'

2. Have Barnet Council altered their PCNs since the adjudicators decision in Moses v Barnet?

3. I do believe that there have been similar decisions in Freidman v Tower Hamlets and Gerald Poole v Lambeth. Can you confirm that this is the case and that if so, then apply question 2 to these two authorities?

4. As it is the intention of Sunderland City Council to effectively create an 'amnesty' for those with unlawfully worded PCNs and not pursue payment (after receiving leading Counsel's advice), does the Association of London Government intend to issue similar advice to London authorities in the same position? If not, why not?

5. Could you please indicate whether the ALG have sought legal advice with regard to the Audit implications of local authorities receiving income from unlawfully worded PCNs (you will be aware that a challenge can be made to local authorities accounts under Section 17 of the Audit Commission Act?)

6. Do you have figures as to how many PCNs without a 'date of issue' remain outstanding for all the London authorities and the value of those PCNs outstanding? If not, would you agree that you may now, in light of the Sunderland decision, consider it a necessary exercise?

7. Are you aware how many warrants of execution have been issued to bailiffs by Barnet Council in relation to PCNs which have been deemed to be unlawful / unenforceable by PATAS, since the inception of their DPE regime?

I can appreciate that some questions may take some time to pull together. I would be grateful if you could please treat Question 4 as urgent with a deadline of 2pm Monday.

Yours sincerely,


Neil Herron

Campaign Director and Press Officer
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA

Helpline: 0870 147 2006
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Fax. 0191 514 4606
Mob. 07776 202045

Sunderland City Council Press Release (my emphasis)

ST 117

For Immediate Release

Penalty Charge Notices

FOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like many other local authorities, will not pursue payment of outstanding unpaidPenalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which do not display a date of issue.

All PCNs carry the date of the contravention, which in almost every case isthe same as the issue date. The City Council has corrected thistechnicality and all PCNs now bear the date of issue as well as the date ofthe contravention.The City Council's legal advice confirms that all PCNs which have beenissued without an issue date, but were not appealed against and paid at thetime, remain valid and therefore no refunds will be made in these circumstances.
A small number (46) of PCNs for which payment had been made after legal advice was received on November 25th 2005, are being reimbursed.
Any payments outstanding for PCNs which bear the date of issue as well as the date of the contravention, will continue to be pursued.

Ends

07/03/2006
Issued by:Rose Peacock,
Tel: 0191-553 1136
Fax: 0191 553 1138
Email: rose.peacock@sunderland.gov.uk

Shambolic council parking fiasco

Sunderland Echo
Letters page
Friday, March 10, 2006

Yet another detractor (Barrack Room Lawyer, Echo Letters, March 2) is desperate to shore up Sunderland Council's crumbling and shambolic parking fiasco and is yet another one hiding behind anonymity.
I don't think the Echo's readers are that easily duped. They can see what the agenda is and will have their own suspicions as to who is behind the rebuttal and disinformation operation.
First of all, the legal views of the Barrack Room Lawyer refers to were not mine but that of the National Parking Adjudication Service in the case of Macarthur v Bury, whereby tickets without date of issue (as well as the date of contravention) were deemed to be prejudicial.
Barrack Room Lawyer states the adjudicator did not conclude such a ticket was void.
If that is the case why did Sunderland City Council's legal team, upon sight of the NPAS decision, advise Parking Services and NCP to change the wording of the tickets immediately?
More importantly, why were the tickets not changed for some five months and why did NCP continue to issue, despite the explicit instruction from the council?
However, there is another adjudication body which handles decriminalised parking offences in London.
The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) has recently adjudicated on the case of Moses v Barnet.
Again, as in the case of Sunderland's tickets up until recently, the tickets in Barnet only stated the date of the infringement, not the date on which the ticket was issued.
The adjudicator, Timothy Thorne, argued that "this was against the law".
So there we have it, Mr Barrack Room Lawyer. An adjudicator, Timothy Thorne, not Neil Herron, has stated that a ticket without a date of issue is against the law.
Dare I rest my case?

12,761 'unlawful' parking tickets issued

Sunderland Echo
Friday, March 10, 2006

Council bosses have admitted they issued 12,761 "unlawful" parking tickets after being told by their own lawyers to change them.
They have said they will not pursue fines for drivers who had not yet paid fines for tickets that did not include a date of issue.
Apart from 46 people who paid up after the council received legal advice on November 25, they said the rest of the 12,761 tickets will stand.
But parking campaigner Neil Herron has predicted the decision will be challenged in the courts and could land the council with a £380,000 bill.
The council was told by its own lawyers on June 14 last year to change the tickets, but only took action after fresh advice on November 25.
Mr Herron said: "The dam has been breached now. If the tickets were unlawful for the people who haven't paid they are unlawful for the people who did."

Association of Local Government Desperately defending unlawful parking tickets

Are these people really serious if they think that the latest decision is not a 'precedent?'
What arrogance. Do they intend to continue to use public money going to appeal when the ticket has already been proven on more than one occasion to be unlawful.

Press release:
ALG warns motorists over misleading advice on parking fines
07/03/2006
14-03

Motorists are being misled into believing that they are entitled to refunds from their parking fines following recent decisions by independent parking adjudicators – says the Association of London Government (ALG).

Boroughs are under no obligation to refund any penalties already paid following the adjudicators’ decisions to uphold appeals on tickets because of concerns about the display of the date the ticket was issued on the penalty charge notice.

Despite this Barrie Segal of Apppealnow.com (it is www.AppealNow.com has claimed that the decisions mean that people ‘are absolutely entitled to a refund’.

The ALG is also reminding drivers that challenging a parking penalty charge notice through the boroughs and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service is free – while Appealnow.com will charge them £7.99 per appeal letter.

The ALG’s Director of Transport, Environment and Planning, Nick Lester, said: “We are concerned that motorists are being misled into believing that they have a right to receive money back following recent decisions by the parking adjudicators.
“These claims are not true and I hope are not being made to raise the profile of anyone’s business. We have consistently urged people to appeal any tickets they feel are unfair, but they must be given the correct information throughout the process.
“All cases that come before the independent adjudicators are dealt with on a case by case basis. They are decided on the evidence provided for that individual case. No decision by an adjudicator set a legal precedent for other cases.”

The ALG has also offered advice to those who believe that as a result of these recent decisions by PATAS their cases need to be looked at again. The advice is as laid down under Government legislation.
Those who had previously unsuccessfully appealed their ticket through the adjudicator should:
Write to PATAS stating why they feel their case should now be reviewed.
Letters should be addressed to
PATAS,
New Zealand House,
Haymarket,
SW1Y 4TE

If the request for a review is outside the statutory 14 day period for asking for a review, explain why their request should be dealt with ‘out of time’

Any review of an appeal is only granted at the discretion of an independent adjudicator. If a review is granted there is no guarantee that the outcome of the appeal will be any different
Under the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 adjudicators may grant a review on the grounds of the decision being wrongly made as the result of an error on the part of his administrative staff; a party who had failed to appear or be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for failing to appear; new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen; where the decision was made without a hearing and new evidence has become available since the decision was made which could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen; it is in the interests of justice require such a review

For those who have paid their penalty but not appealed to the adjudicator
The borough may consider the payment of the penalty means the motorist has accepted liability
While boroughs will consider any letter they are only obliged to reject representations formally if they are made within 28 day of the notice to owner being served
Only where a formal notice of objection has been served can the case be referred by the motorist to the adjudicator

People should seek their own legal advice on the issue.

Anyone wanting more information on any aspect of the parking appeals process can call PATAS on 020 747 4777 or visit the PATAS website.

Ends
The quote from Mr Segal was taken from the Barnet and Potters Bar Times article of 22 February.

PATAS provides an independent adjudication service for motorists appealing against parking tickets and other fixed penalty tickets issued by the boroughs. It is a statutory tribunal with the legal status of a court. The adjudicators are independent solicitors or barristers of at least five years standing, and are appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor
There are 53 adjudicators in PATAS. They are not bound by any other decisions made by any other adjudicator.
Appeals are normally free (although costs can be awarded), and legal representation is not necessary.

In 2004/05 less than 1 per cent of all penalty charge notices issued in London were appealed to PATAS.
In 2004/05, some 60,807 appeals were heard by PATAS – with 36,189 of those being won by the motorist..

Consultants to the former Lord Chancellor’s Department have described PATAS as ‘the most user focused aspect of justice in the country’.

The Association of London Government is committed to fighting for more resources for London and getting the best possible deal for London’s 33 councils.
Part think-tank and lobbying organisation, it also runs a wide range of services designed to make life better for Londoners

Any member of the media wanting any more information should contact Stewart Henderson in the ALG press office on 0207 934 9620 or by email on stewart.henderson@alg.gov.uk