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