This time, High Wycombe Council, and their NCP contractor have been caught out. Local resident Wayne Pendle has been on the case and is providing evidence to the campaign that highlights yet another local authority behaving in an arrogant manner and treating the law with contempt.
High Wycombe's PCNs have only just been changed...they did not include a date of contravention, only a time. They had written back to Mr. Pendle saying that their PCNs were lawful despite having no date of contravention.
Wayne's NPAS hearing on Tuesday 2nd May should be very interesting indeed.
More to come.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Westminster 'concede defeat'
Breaking news ... The City of Westminster Council has now changed their PCNs to include a 'date of issue.'
We strongly urge anyone with an outstanding unpaid PCN issued by City of Westminster Council before 21st April 2006 to e-mail the campaign at mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk with PCN details and we will add you to the class action.
Please circulate this widely.
More information will be posted soon.
More local authorities ready to fall. If you have had a PCN anywhere in the country please register with us.
We strongly urge anyone with an outstanding unpaid PCN issued by City of Westminster Council before 21st April 2006 to e-mail the campaign at mail@thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk with PCN details and we will add you to the class action.
Please circulate this widely.
More information will be posted soon.
More local authorities ready to fall. If you have had a PCN anywhere in the country please register with us.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Kinnock Banned from Driving...Oh dear.
Perhaps metric fan Kinnock was just confused and doesn't understand what miles per hour are!Read the story here
Is he trying to woo Prescott's girlfriend?
Prescott's Affair...Johnny Two Shags!
How big is that in metric John?We said at the time of the referendum that you couldn't trust a word that this man said. Now a deception a little closer to home is exposed.
How long before you are tagged Johnny Two Shags by the tabloids?
At least we in the North East said 'No.'
But remember, this is an old story and is political chaff sent up in an attempt to deflect the press and media away from the big story...Charles Clarke and the problem of the missing prisoners.
The big question is how many of these released offenders have committed further crimes? We have the most incompetent Government in history...on all fronts, but the trouble is there is no opposition!
Prescott:
I had an affair
07:38am 26th April 2006
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has confessed to having an affair with one of his secretaries, according to reports.
Mr Prescott, 67, and Tracey Temple, 43, started meeting in secret at his Whitehall flat after a two-year fling began at an office party.
Mr Prescott told a newspaper: "I did have a relationship with her which I regret. It ended some time ago. I have discussed this fully with my wife Pauline, who is devastated by the news. I would be grateful if Pauline and I can now get on with our lives together."
The pair began working together when Ms Temple was appointed as Mr Prescott's Assistant Private Secretary, with special responsibility to organise his diary. She had previously worked as a personal diary secretary for former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam, and was said to be close friends with the Labour MP who died of cancer last year.
The divorcee lives in Bordon, Hampshire, with lorry driver Barrie Williams, 46.
Mr Williams told the Daily Mirror: "I feel sick. I can't believe the woman I wanted to marry has slept with John Prescott. I've been betrayed by one of the most powerful men in the UK."
The Mirror reported that civil service colleagues were shocked by the way that Mr Prescott flirted with Ms Temple at work. They were said to have started the affair at the office Christmas party in 2002 when they danced together almost all night.
A colleague said she had later seen the diary secretary "nuzzle" Mr Prescott's neck in the lift. She said she thought it was "inappropriate".
Mr Prescott was reported to have laughed off the incident as a "bit of messing about" but three days later was said to be "livid" when office gossip claimed they were having an affair.
However, the newspaper said they then embarked on a full-blown affair with Ms Temple making regularly visits to the Deputy Prime Minister's flat in Whitehall.
A Downing Street spokesman said only: "It is a private matter."
Outside the Deputy Prime Minister's home in Hull today uniformed police were on guard, but there was no sign of Mr and Mrs Prescott.
Three officers were patrolling the street outside the large detached house in the Sutton area of the city.
The two sets of gates in front of the turreted property were firmly closed.
Mr Prescott's constituency home hit the headlines during last year's General Election campaign when Greenpeace activists stormed his front gates and set up solar panels on its roof.
Today, there was no sign of any activity behind the six-foot tall black gates.
Phil Woolas, a local government minister in the Deputy Prime Minister's department, said he had been unaware of Mr Prescott's affair and denied that it had been common knowledge around Whitehall.
"I think it is a private matter for the Deputy Prime Minister," he told reporters at a Labour Party local election press briefing in London.
"I have worked for him for many years and I have every confidence in his ability, not just as a public spokesperson for the Government but as the chair of Cabinet committees and as deputy to the Prime Minister and standing in for him, and in leading his department.
"He is one of the most incredibly able politicians I have worked with. I am very proud to work with him."
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Luton Council using up unlawful tickets to avoid waste!
News came into the office today via a Luton Parking Attendant that their newly printed PCNs are ready (he believes they have been altered to include the correct wording) but he is aware that all the old ones (which are unlawfully worded) have to be used up first!
This is the contempt that these local authorities have for the motorist and the law.
This is the contempt that these local authorities have for the motorist and the law.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Sandwell Metroploitan Borough Council's Parking Tickets unlawful
Yet another local authority exposed as having unlawfully worded PCNs. This time we exposed Sandwell on Adrian Godberg's BBC Breakfast Show.
Unfortunate Sandwell have already attempted to pursue Robin Decrittenden but have suspended enforcement pending the outcome of the Judicial Review on the Bill of Rights challenge.
However, now that we have exposed the fact that their PCNs do not contain a date of issue within the main body of the PCN (thereby failing to conform with Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act) it does mean that everyone can successfully appeal on that point alone.
To view a Sandwell Council Penalty Charge Notice click here
Anyone wishing to challenge a Sandwell PCN call us on 0191 565 7143.
Unfortunate Sandwell have already attempted to pursue Robin Decrittenden but have suspended enforcement pending the outcome of the Judicial Review on the Bill of Rights challenge.
However, now that we have exposed the fact that their PCNs do not contain a date of issue within the main body of the PCN (thereby failing to conform with Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act) it does mean that everyone can successfully appeal on that point alone.
To view a Sandwell Council Penalty Charge Notice click here
Anyone wishing to challenge a Sandwell PCN call us on 0191 565 7143.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Parking Fines used to keep Council Tax down
This admission puts a massive hole in the argument that parking enforcement is simply about keeping the streets clear.
Read it here
Read it here
Peterborough Council refunds unlawful PCN
Another headline...this time Peterborough Today.
What is significant in this case is that money was refunded for an unlawfully worded PCN (no date of issue) after it had been paid. It seems that the authorities are at sixes and sevens.
Read the story here
We need funding for a class action in order to force the refunds of ALL PCNs...spread the word and encourage friends and colleagues to send us a fiver. If you know of any fleet or delivery firms who may have a greater financial interest then give us a call.
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
What is significant in this case is that money was refunded for an unlawfully worded PCN (no date of issue) after it had been paid. It seems that the authorities are at sixes and sevens.
Read the story here
We need funding for a class action in order to force the refunds of ALL PCNs...spread the word and encourage friends and colleagues to send us a fiver. If you know of any fleet or delivery firms who may have a greater financial interest then give us a call.
www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk
Calls for NPAS Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard's resignation
As Decriminalised Parking Enforcement is being exposed as an unlawful scam right across the country with the National Parking Adjudication Service's incompetence clear for all to see and local authorities blatantly abusing the law and the motorist the time has come for the Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard, to resign.
More evidence and revelations will be posted over the coming weeks but Miss Sheppard has already been shown to be far from professional in her behaviour along with her colleague, Senior Tribunals Manager, Andrew Barfoot. See here
The next few months will be very interesting indeed.
More evidence and revelations will be posted over the coming weeks but Miss Sheppard has already been shown to be far from professional in her behaviour along with her colleague, Senior Tribunals Manager, Andrew Barfoot. See here
The next few months will be very interesting indeed.
Luton Borough Council Penalty Charge Notices unlawful
As the dominoes start to topple next one down is Luton. Their Penalty Charge Notices contain no date of issue and therefore do not conform to Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
However, in a telephone conversation today with the Council's Parking Shop they claimed that their PCNs had been 'approved' by NPAS.
Nice to know that NPAS are authorising unlawful PCNs. I have put in a Freedom of Information request for a copy of that advice. Somehow I do not think it will exist.
Meanwhile, they have been put on notice that their PCNs are unlawful and they must cease enforcement immediately.
It has been brought to the attention of the local press, the Luton News.
So there we have it. In the space of a week Peterborough, Salisbury, Bournemouth and now Luton. More will be revealed soon. Meanwhile keep the PCNs coming.
What is the big scandal?
NPAS!!!
The MacArthur decision was sent round as a circular in May 2005. Caroline Sheppard is the Chief Adjudicator responsible for training and appointing the adjudicators yet they hadn't picked up on the fact that PCNs were still incorrectly worded.
NPAS is not independent...funded by local authorities issuing PCNs.
NPAS is not competent...and this is clear from the above. The responsibility for this shambles...hundreds of thousands of motorists fined illegally lies squarely with the Chief Adjudicator.
Time for your resignation Miss Sheppard.
However, in a telephone conversation today with the Council's Parking Shop they claimed that their PCNs had been 'approved' by NPAS.
Nice to know that NPAS are authorising unlawful PCNs. I have put in a Freedom of Information request for a copy of that advice. Somehow I do not think it will exist.
Meanwhile, they have been put on notice that their PCNs are unlawful and they must cease enforcement immediately.
It has been brought to the attention of the local press, the Luton News.
So there we have it. In the space of a week Peterborough, Salisbury, Bournemouth and now Luton. More will be revealed soon. Meanwhile keep the PCNs coming.
What is the big scandal?
NPAS!!!
The MacArthur decision was sent round as a circular in May 2005. Caroline Sheppard is the Chief Adjudicator responsible for training and appointing the adjudicators yet they hadn't picked up on the fact that PCNs were still incorrectly worded.
NPAS is not independent...funded by local authorities issuing PCNs.
NPAS is not competent...and this is clear from the above. The responsibility for this shambles...hundreds of thousands of motorists fined illegally lies squarely with the Chief Adjudicator.
Time for your resignation Miss Sheppard.
Citizens caned
Daily Telegraph
Honest John Column
Saturday 15 August 2006
Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) appear to deny citizens access to a court of law should they wish to challenge them. Is this not contrary to the Bill Of Rights 1689? The Bill is constitutional law and above any parliamentary law. It does not differentiate between civil and criminal offences and is quite clear on this. This Bill, and charters such as the Magna Carta (1215), Act of Settlement (1701) and so on, are not grants from the monarchy to the people.
We own them and any law that infringes them shall be of no force or effect. They cannot be repealed or subverted and are not subject to votes. To quote from the Bill of Rights presented to William of Orange: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
It seems quite clear. You cannot levy fines or forfeitures on any person before a conviction. The only people who can convict and issue fines are the courts of law.
If this were not true, people would have no protection from the might of the state, which would be able to wield all the power it liked (as now seems to be the case).
M.W., via e-mail
Perhaps a constitutional lawyer could clarify things here. If the above were true, only a Notice of Intended Prosecution that gives recipients the alternative of a voluntary fine and/or other punishment instead of a court appearance would be legal.
Honest John Column
Saturday 15 August 2006
Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) appear to deny citizens access to a court of law should they wish to challenge them. Is this not contrary to the Bill Of Rights 1689? The Bill is constitutional law and above any parliamentary law. It does not differentiate between civil and criminal offences and is quite clear on this. This Bill, and charters such as the Magna Carta (1215), Act of Settlement (1701) and so on, are not grants from the monarchy to the people.
We own them and any law that infringes them shall be of no force or effect. They cannot be repealed or subverted and are not subject to votes. To quote from the Bill of Rights presented to William of Orange: "All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."
It seems quite clear. You cannot levy fines or forfeitures on any person before a conviction. The only people who can convict and issue fines are the courts of law.
If this were not true, people would have no protection from the might of the state, which would be able to wield all the power it liked (as now seems to be the case).
M.W., via e-mail
Perhaps a constitutional lawyer could clarify things here. If the above were true, only a Notice of Intended Prosecution that gives recipients the alternative of a voluntary fine and/or other punishment instead of a court appearance would be legal.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Now Westminster ready to fall
Simon Aldridge of the London Motorists Action Group reports his PATAS appeal victory against Westminster Council on the date of issue point. Looks like free parking now in London.
Not long before the whole decriminalised parking enforcement scam collapses.
Not long before the whole decriminalised parking enforcement scam collapses.
Herron v Arnold on BBC Radio Scotland
Outside the Sage in Gateshead for BBC Radio Scotland yesterday in a debate about regionalisation with the Newcastle City Council leader who has said that there is no such country as England.
As Mr. Arnold had already branded the unelected assembly a useless, boring talking shop and had recently made the crass comments about England he was hardly the best lamb to put to the slaughter, but unfortunately satellite problems cut the broadcast time from 15 minutes down to 5.
Newcastle did get their revenge later that day with a 4-1 mauling of Sunderland's hapless football team ... crowning the most disastrous season in footballing history.
As Mr. Arnold had already branded the unelected assembly a useless, boring talking shop and had recently made the crass comments about England he was hardly the best lamb to put to the slaughter, but unfortunately satellite problems cut the broadcast time from 15 minutes down to 5.
Newcastle did get their revenge later that day with a 4-1 mauling of Sunderland's hapless football team ... crowning the most disastrous season in footballing history.
Monday, April 10, 2006
By George we think they've got it
By George we think they've got it
Apr 9 2006
By Phil Doherty,
The Sunday Sun
A Sunday Sun survey has revealed the vast majority of North councils will be flying the flag for St George to celebrate our patron saint's day.
It is a triumph for our Let's Have It off campaign which is calling for April 23 to be made into a public holiday and for more recognition of the special day.
We say that St George's Day should be a time to celebrate Englishness in our multicultural society . . . while it will also get us in line with our EU partners who have on average 10.8 public holidays compared to just eight here.
In all, 30 county, unitary and district authorities in the North responded to our survey. Of those, 23 said they would be flying the flag. Of the rest, four said they did not have a flag or a flag pole, one said its flag pole had been vandalised while two - Easington and Derwentside both in County Durham - said they were not obliged to.
However, the overwhelming message was one of support.
Daniel Paul, of Gateahead Council, summed up the mood. He said: "Gateshead Council is very proud of the religious and cultural diversity of the borough and is committed to respecting culturally significant dates for all our residents, one of which is St George's Day.
"Raising the flag is a mark of respect to the patron Saint of our country."
St George's Day marks the date in AD303 when our patron saint was beheaded for protesting against the persecution of the Christians.
It was declared a holiday in his honour in England in 1222, and remained one for English Catholics during the 17th and 18th century, but it was lost after the Protestant reformation.
We launched our campaign around four years ago and since then have gained massive local and national support. Earlier this year, Chancellor Gordon Brown called for a national day of patriotism to celebrate British history.
However, his suggestion that it should take place on Remembrance Sunday was criticised, with calls for it to take place on St George's Day.
Who's raising their standards
County Councils
Cumbria: Yes
North Yorkshire: Yes
Northumberland: Yes
Durham: Yes
Unitary Authorities
Hartlepool: Yes
Redcar and Cleveland: Yes
Middlesbrough: Yes
Sunderland City: Yes
Gateshead: Yes
Darlington: Yes
York City: Yes
Stockton: Yes
North Tyneside: Yes
South Tyneside: Yes
Newcastle: Yes
District Councils
Alnwick: Yes
Carlisle City: Yes
Wear Valley: Yes
Castle Morpeth: Yes
Copeland: No (No flag)
Richmondshire: No (No flag pole)
Berwick: No (No flag pole)
Selby: No (Flag pole vandalised)
Scarborough: Yes
Blyth: Yes
Tynedale: Yes
Easington: No
Harrogate: No (No flag)
Derwentside: No
Durham City: Yes (But the Union Flag)
Apr 9 2006
By Phil Doherty,
The Sunday Sun
A Sunday Sun survey has revealed the vast majority of North councils will be flying the flag for St George to celebrate our patron saint's day.
It is a triumph for our Let's Have It off campaign which is calling for April 23 to be made into a public holiday and for more recognition of the special day.
We say that St George's Day should be a time to celebrate Englishness in our multicultural society . . . while it will also get us in line with our EU partners who have on average 10.8 public holidays compared to just eight here.
In all, 30 county, unitary and district authorities in the North responded to our survey. Of those, 23 said they would be flying the flag. Of the rest, four said they did not have a flag or a flag pole, one said its flag pole had been vandalised while two - Easington and Derwentside both in County Durham - said they were not obliged to.
However, the overwhelming message was one of support.
Daniel Paul, of Gateahead Council, summed up the mood. He said: "Gateshead Council is very proud of the religious and cultural diversity of the borough and is committed to respecting culturally significant dates for all our residents, one of which is St George's Day.
"Raising the flag is a mark of respect to the patron Saint of our country."
St George's Day marks the date in AD303 when our patron saint was beheaded for protesting against the persecution of the Christians.
It was declared a holiday in his honour in England in 1222, and remained one for English Catholics during the 17th and 18th century, but it was lost after the Protestant reformation.
We launched our campaign around four years ago and since then have gained massive local and national support. Earlier this year, Chancellor Gordon Brown called for a national day of patriotism to celebrate British history.
However, his suggestion that it should take place on Remembrance Sunday was criticised, with calls for it to take place on St George's Day.
Who's raising their standards
County Councils
Cumbria: Yes
North Yorkshire: Yes
Northumberland: Yes
Durham: Yes
Unitary Authorities
Hartlepool: Yes
Redcar and Cleveland: Yes
Middlesbrough: Yes
Sunderland City: Yes
Gateshead: Yes
Darlington: Yes
York City: Yes
Stockton: Yes
North Tyneside: Yes
South Tyneside: Yes
Newcastle: Yes
District Councils
Alnwick: Yes
Carlisle City: Yes
Wear Valley: Yes
Castle Morpeth: Yes
Copeland: No (No flag)
Richmondshire: No (No flag pole)
Berwick: No (No flag pole)
Selby: No (Flag pole vandalised)
Scarborough: Yes
Blyth: Yes
Tynedale: Yes
Easington: No
Harrogate: No (No flag)
Derwentside: No
Durham City: Yes (But the Union Flag)
Friday, April 07, 2006
Not Bury again?
It has just been brought to our attention that Bury Council seem to be getting it wrong again. They have changed the wording on their PCNs after the MacArthur case but err again...
The wording on the PCN is
"The person in charge of this vehicle or its registered keeper is required to pay a penalty charge of £60 within 28 days beginning with the date of issue of this notice. That charge will be reduced to £30 if payment is received within 14 days beginning with the date of this notice."
As even a layman will know, the legislation does not require the person in charge of the vehicle to do anything of the sort.
Nice one Bury. Now please give everyone their money back.
The wording on the PCN is
"The person in charge of this vehicle or its registered keeper is required to pay a penalty charge of £60 within 28 days beginning with the date of issue of this notice. That charge will be reduced to £30 if payment is received within 14 days beginning with the date of this notice."
As even a layman will know, the legislation does not require the person in charge of the vehicle to do anything of the sort.
Nice one Bury. Now please give everyone their money back.
More Parking Ticket Refunds...Now Stoke on Trent
Subject: [abdml] CITY PARKING FREE-FOR-ALL
Motorists can park without the risk of being fined at car parks at the
centre of a dispute over unlawfully issued fines.
Stoke-on-trent City Council has confirmed that it is not taking enforcement action on car parks at Stoke-on-Trent College, the Potteries Shopping Centre, Century and Octagon retail parks in Etruria and Lidl in Longton.
Drivers who don't pay for parking and those whose tickets have ran out will not receive fines. At the Potteries Shopping Centre, a token and barrier system will make it impossible for motorists to escape without paying for their ticket although it will be a parking free-for-all at the other four car parks.
The move comes after it emerged the council could be forced to pay back thousands of unlawfully-issued parking fines.
A landmark ruling by the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) says an agreement between the college and the council means penalties dished out by the authority at the college car park are illegal.
Since 2001, 834 fines have been given out at the college, but the agreement was signed in 1993 - casting doubt on the validity of thousands more fines.
The authority is considering an appeal in the High Court, but officials accept they may have to repay the charges, which for the 834 motorists totalled £26,411.
No records of the identity of punished motorists exist before 2001 - paving the way for a legal and administrative nightmare for the council.
Similar agreements exist at the other car parks but the city council says it is confident fines are lawful, although it is seeking legal advice and has abandoned enforcement action at all of them as well as at the college.
A spokesman for the city council said: "These car parks are not necessarily operated under the same sort of agreement as with the college. We are still studying the adjudication in detail but it is currently our view that it is limited to Stoke-on-Trent College Car Park.
"The council is not currently enforcing at the car parks mentioned while we study the adjudication and decide whether an appeal is appropriate. We believe most people are honest and they will continue to pay."
The NPAS ruling, which has implications for councils across the country, follows an appeal by Philip Jones, a director of Springfield China in Longton, against a fine issued at the college in 2004.
Mr Jones argued one of his employees could not be punished by the city council because the authority does not own or occupy the land and because it is the college which actually provides the parking service.
His arguments were accepted by NPAS last year and the council was ordered to repay the charge.
Under the agreement, the money raised from parking charges goes to the owners of the car parks while the fines go to the city council
Motorists can park without the risk of being fined at car parks at the
centre of a dispute over unlawfully issued fines.
Stoke-on-trent City Council has confirmed that it is not taking enforcement action on car parks at Stoke-on-Trent College, the Potteries Shopping Centre, Century and Octagon retail parks in Etruria and Lidl in Longton.
Drivers who don't pay for parking and those whose tickets have ran out will not receive fines. At the Potteries Shopping Centre, a token and barrier system will make it impossible for motorists to escape without paying for their ticket although it will be a parking free-for-all at the other four car parks.
The move comes after it emerged the council could be forced to pay back thousands of unlawfully-issued parking fines.
A landmark ruling by the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) says an agreement between the college and the council means penalties dished out by the authority at the college car park are illegal.
Since 2001, 834 fines have been given out at the college, but the agreement was signed in 1993 - casting doubt on the validity of thousands more fines.
The authority is considering an appeal in the High Court, but officials accept they may have to repay the charges, which for the 834 motorists totalled £26,411.
No records of the identity of punished motorists exist before 2001 - paving the way for a legal and administrative nightmare for the council.
Similar agreements exist at the other car parks but the city council says it is confident fines are lawful, although it is seeking legal advice and has abandoned enforcement action at all of them as well as at the college.
A spokesman for the city council said: "These car parks are not necessarily operated under the same sort of agreement as with the college. We are still studying the adjudication in detail but it is currently our view that it is limited to Stoke-on-Trent College Car Park.
"The council is not currently enforcing at the car parks mentioned while we study the adjudication and decide whether an appeal is appropriate. We believe most people are honest and they will continue to pay."
The NPAS ruling, which has implications for councils across the country, follows an appeal by Philip Jones, a director of Springfield China in Longton, against a fine issued at the college in 2004.
Mr Jones argued one of his employees could not be punished by the city council because the authority does not own or occupy the land and because it is the college which actually provides the parking service.
His arguments were accepted by NPAS last year and the council was ordered to repay the charge.
Under the agreement, the money raised from parking charges goes to the owners of the car parks while the fines go to the city council
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
As if Bury Council wasn't in enough trouble
The parking spotlight is about to shine on Bury ... the town from which Roger MacArthur hails (the man whose case proved that many millions of Penalty Charge Notices are unlawfully worded) BUT the need for their parking enforcement contractors, NCP, to keep their status is paramount.
Read below how they booked funeral guests...
Click Here
Read below how they booked funeral guests...
Click Here
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Had a Parking Ticket in Salisbury?
If you have had a Penalty Charge Notice in Salisbury the questions raised below may be useful in assisting your defence.
The local press is also aware of the developing situation.
(NB. Mr. Hodkinson has pointed out that he is not Head of Legal Services)
Mr. R. Hodkinson
Head of Legal Services
The Council House
Bourne Hill
Salisbury
Wiltshire
SP1 3UZ
28th March 2006
Dear Mr. Hodkinson,
I would be grateful for answers to the following questions in relation to Salisbury District Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime (please treat as a Freedom of Information request wherever necessary):-
1. Can you confirm the date DPE commenced in Salisbury and the total number and value of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to date?
2. Can you confirm that before implementing DPE council officers involved in preparing the DPE application to the Department for Transport were aware of the legislative requirements of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and in particular the statutory requirements relating to the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice (Section 66(3) 1991 Road Traffic Act)?
3. Can you also confirm that the officers involved in the application, implementation and operation of DPE followed the Department for Transport Circular 1/95 Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, and paid particular attention to the model PCN described, and sought advice from the legal department with regard to the statutory legal wording before printing was approved?
4. At what point (please indicate the date), and how, did Salisbury District Council become aware that their PCNs did not conform to the statutory requirements?
5. Can you please confirm the date the PCNs were then changed in order to include the words 'date of issue' or 'date of notice' and please provide copies of all communications between the legal department and parking services regarding this matter, including copies of the original PCN and the amended PCN, and the PCNs used with the word 'regulation' blacked out?
6. Can you confirm that, up to that point (the date the PCN was amended) , the PCNs did not contain the correct legal wording and did not conform to the requirements of Section 66(3) Road Traffic Act 1991?
7. In a telephone call to Parking Services this morning, Mrs. Domain Griffiths (my apologies if spelling not correct) advised that the wording on the PCNs had been amended and was now correct, and that the PCN that I had in front of me from December 2005, with no 'date of issue and the word 'Regulation' blacked out, was one which had been issued when Salisbury Council 'had ran out' of the correct PCNs, and 'it was the printer's fault.'
Further to this, in a call to Mr. Higgins, Head of Parking Services, he said that such PCNs had been used, and what was he expected to do, cease enforcement? ( I think that the words of the adjudicator at this point are rather apt ... “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?” )
I would be grateful therefore, if you could confirm that Salisbury Council had ran out of the correctly worded PCNs and began using ones with no date of issue and the word 'regulation' blacked out with black marker, and provide copies of instructions given by the legal department to confirm that this was lawful, and confirmation that the blame lies with the printer.
8. Can you confirm that Salisbury Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular MacArthur v Bury (NPAS 04/05) and on what date, and why was it not acted upon at that point?
9. Mr. Griffiths confirmed to me in a telephone call that Salisbury Council intends to continue pursuing PCNs it knows to be 'unlawful' as they contain no 'date of issue,' and will do so until told otherwise by NPAS. As you are no doubt well aware, NPAS does not issue legal advice. It is up to local authorities to ensure that their PCNs are compliant with the law and take their own legal advice.
For your information, and to place on the record, I have enclosed a copy (below) of Sunderland City Council's most recent press release (issued after they took leading Counsel's advice):
Sunderland City Council Press Release (extract)
ST 117For Immediate ReleasePenalty Charge NoticesFOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother local authorities, will not pursue payment of outstanding unpaidPenalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which do not display a date of issue.
Can you confirm, as a matter of urgency, that Salisbury Council will now suspend pursuit of PCNs which do not contain the words 'date of issue' forthwith?
If you do intend to use public money to 'vexatiously' or 'frivolously' pursue PCNs deemed 'unlawful' by both NPAS ( in MacArthur v Bury) and also by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) (in Moses v Barnet) can you please place the legal justification for doing so on the record?
10. Can you please indicate the following:
(i) the number and value of PCNs issued since the inception of DPE up until the point the PCNs were amended (ie. which did not conform to Section 66(3) requirements...having no 'date of issue.')?
(ii) the number and value of PCNs which do not bear the words 'date of issue' or 'date of notice' which are outstanding or unpaid?
(iii) the number and value of PCNs issued when you 'ran out of correct ones' (ie. the ones with no 'date of issue' and the word 'regulation' blacked out with a marker) and for clarity please indicate when you began and when you ceased using such PCNs?
(iv) the number of cases referred to the National Parking Adjudication Service where the PCN has not conformed to statutory requirement, and how many have been found in favour of the Council?
11. Do you intend to inform Northampton County Court (Bulk Enforcement Centre) that PCNs have now been altered and that evidence supplied previously may not have been correct?
Mrs. Domain Griffiths claims that PCNs issued 'in good faith' before Salisbury Council knew that they were unlawful, cannot be challenged. I would be grateful for clarification from yourself that 'ignorance of the law' is now a legitimate excuse.
12. Do you intend to 'raise the matter with / bring it to the attention of' the District Auditor that Salisbury District Council's accounts may now be challenged as they potentially contain items of unlawful income?
13. Can you confirm whether Salisbury District Council will be refunding people who have paid PCNs which did not contain the correct legal wording. If not, can you please give your reason as to why not?
14. Have the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council been informed that the PCNs for the DPE regime in Salisbury were unlawfully worded and have been changed?
15. Does the Council intend to conduct their own internal investigation as to the failings of various council officers to implement and operate DPE correctly?
I look forward to your response.
I would be grateful to an immediate response, in the public interest, to point 9.
I appreciate that there is a different timescale involved for matters involving the Freedom of Information Act.
Can you please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to both the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and all elected members via Members' Services.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron (Mr)
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
cc. Mr. P. Higgins, Head of Parking Services
cc. David Vallis, Salisbury Journal
cc. Caroline Sheppard, National Parking Adjudication Service
Notes for Information purposes only:
The cases:
1. MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05)
Case Number BC188 NPAS state, "The Bury PCN does not have a date. Although the date of the contravention is stated, the date of the notice appears only on the tear-off payment slip. Thus, it differs not only from the statute but also from the DoT model, which says 'Date of Issue' at the top. The Adjudicator decided that to comply with Section 66(3) (c) a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of issue even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. A real possibility of prejudice arises from potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day and 14 day periods for payment begin and end. This finding will be of particular interest to those of you whose standard PCNs state the date of contravention on the face of the PCN but specify the date of notice itself only on the tear-off payment slip."
2. Moses v Barnet 18th February 2006
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com who handled the most recent case of Moses v Barnet says (of Barnet's appeal against the Moses decision) “The rejection document is one of the most important documents to be published in the history of parking.”
Yet Barnet in their appeal submission to the adjudicator astonishingly state that if they lost their appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet council and other London Authorities unenforceable. The Parking Adjudicator dismissed this argument [sic] by stating “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?”
He finally says “It is up to Local Authorities to ensure that PCNs are drafted in compliance with statute.These appeals show only too clearly that the findings of the adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most unattractive basis for asserting good administration. I find that Mr. Thorne (the original adjudicator) was correct to find as he did that the PCNs in these appeals were not compliant and could not be enforced."
Barry Segal's other cases on the same point were Freidman v Tower Hamlets and Gerald Poole v Lambeth
3. Sunderland City Council Press Release in Full
ST 117For Immediate ReleasePenalty Charge NoticesFOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother 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 thesecircumstances. A small number (46) of PCNs for which payment had been madeafter legal advice was received on November 25th 2005, are beingreimbursed.Any payments outstanding for PCNs which bear the date of issue as well asthe date of the contravention, will continue to be pursued.Ends07/03/2006Issued by:Rose Peacock,Tel: 0191-553 1136Fax: 0191 553 1138Email: rose.peacock@sunderland.gov.uk
4. The Legislation
The legislation is Section 66 (3) Road Traffic Act 1991 which states
(3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.
5. Further Notes and information for potential appellants
Misfeasance in public office is a developing tort. It has recently had a boost by a decision in the House of Lords in a BCCI case. In that case a local authority is suing the Bank of England because it failed to regulate BCCI. The essence of misfeasance is the exercise of power by a public officer in bad faith that causes loss to the claimant.
There are two types of misfeasance.
The first type requires proof that the public officer has acted with the intention of injuring the claimant.
The second form occurs when the officer acts in the knowledge that he is exceeding his powers and that his act would probably injure the claimant.
This tort was somewhat restricted until the House of Lords gave its judgment in the BCCI case.
Whilst previously, subjective bad faith had to be proved, it is now sufficient simply to have a knowledge of unlawfulness and the likely consequence.
Cases alleging maladministration can also be taken up with the Local Government Ombudsman. See Local Government Ombudsman
Cases for PCNs without a 'date of issue' can also be taken before the National Parking Adjudication Service but their independence and competence must now be called into question as they have deliberated on many cases where the primary piece of evidence, the PCN, has not even been examined or questioned by the adjudicator.
6. Salisbury District Council's Penalty Charge Notice showing no 'date of issue' and quite alarmingly the Act of Parliament upon which Salisbury District Council are reliant is correct only due to the fact that a black line has removed the word 'Regulation.'
It could be argued that may be prejudicial to the motorist who could assume that this PCN has been tampered with in some way, as it is incredible that any local authority would even consider issuing such a document with the intention of demanding money for an alleged contravention.
The local press is also aware of the developing situation.
(NB. Mr. Hodkinson has pointed out that he is not Head of Legal Services)
Mr. R. Hodkinson
Head of Legal Services
The Council House
Bourne Hill
Salisbury
Wiltshire
SP1 3UZ
28th March 2006
Dear Mr. Hodkinson,
I would be grateful for answers to the following questions in relation to Salisbury District Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime (please treat as a Freedom of Information request wherever necessary):-
1. Can you confirm the date DPE commenced in Salisbury and the total number and value of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to date?
2. Can you confirm that before implementing DPE council officers involved in preparing the DPE application to the Department for Transport were aware of the legislative requirements of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and in particular the statutory requirements relating to the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice (Section 66(3) 1991 Road Traffic Act)?
3. Can you also confirm that the officers involved in the application, implementation and operation of DPE followed the Department for Transport Circular 1/95 Guidance on Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, and paid particular attention to the model PCN described, and sought advice from the legal department with regard to the statutory legal wording before printing was approved?
4. At what point (please indicate the date), and how, did Salisbury District Council become aware that their PCNs did not conform to the statutory requirements?
5. Can you please confirm the date the PCNs were then changed in order to include the words 'date of issue' or 'date of notice' and please provide copies of all communications between the legal department and parking services regarding this matter, including copies of the original PCN and the amended PCN, and the PCNs used with the word 'regulation' blacked out?
6. Can you confirm that, up to that point (the date the PCN was amended) , the PCNs did not contain the correct legal wording and did not conform to the requirements of Section 66(3) Road Traffic Act 1991?
7. In a telephone call to Parking Services this morning, Mrs. Domain Griffiths (my apologies if spelling not correct) advised that the wording on the PCNs had been amended and was now correct, and that the PCN that I had in front of me from December 2005, with no 'date of issue and the word 'Regulation' blacked out, was one which had been issued when Salisbury Council 'had ran out' of the correct PCNs, and 'it was the printer's fault.'
Further to this, in a call to Mr. Higgins, Head of Parking Services, he said that such PCNs had been used, and what was he expected to do, cease enforcement? ( I think that the words of the adjudicator at this point are rather apt ... “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?” )
I would be grateful therefore, if you could confirm that Salisbury Council had ran out of the correctly worded PCNs and began using ones with no date of issue and the word 'regulation' blacked out with black marker, and provide copies of instructions given by the legal department to confirm that this was lawful, and confirmation that the blame lies with the printer.
8. Can you confirm that Salisbury Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular MacArthur v Bury (NPAS 04/05) and on what date, and why was it not acted upon at that point?
9. Mr. Griffiths confirmed to me in a telephone call that Salisbury Council intends to continue pursuing PCNs it knows to be 'unlawful' as they contain no 'date of issue,' and will do so until told otherwise by NPAS. As you are no doubt well aware, NPAS does not issue legal advice. It is up to local authorities to ensure that their PCNs are compliant with the law and take their own legal advice.
For your information, and to place on the record, I have enclosed a copy (below) of Sunderland City Council's most recent press release (issued after they took leading Counsel's advice):
Sunderland City Council Press Release (extract)
ST 117For Immediate ReleasePenalty Charge NoticesFOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother local authorities, will not pursue payment of outstanding unpaidPenalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which do not display a date of issue.
Can you confirm, as a matter of urgency, that Salisbury Council will now suspend pursuit of PCNs which do not contain the words 'date of issue' forthwith?
If you do intend to use public money to 'vexatiously' or 'frivolously' pursue PCNs deemed 'unlawful' by both NPAS ( in MacArthur v Bury) and also by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) (in Moses v Barnet) can you please place the legal justification for doing so on the record?
10. Can you please indicate the following:
(i) the number and value of PCNs issued since the inception of DPE up until the point the PCNs were amended (ie. which did not conform to Section 66(3) requirements...having no 'date of issue.')?
(ii) the number and value of PCNs which do not bear the words 'date of issue' or 'date of notice' which are outstanding or unpaid?
(iii) the number and value of PCNs issued when you 'ran out of correct ones' (ie. the ones with no 'date of issue' and the word 'regulation' blacked out with a marker) and for clarity please indicate when you began and when you ceased using such PCNs?
(iv) the number of cases referred to the National Parking Adjudication Service where the PCN has not conformed to statutory requirement, and how many have been found in favour of the Council?
11. Do you intend to inform Northampton County Court (Bulk Enforcement Centre) that PCNs have now been altered and that evidence supplied previously may not have been correct?
Mrs. Domain Griffiths claims that PCNs issued 'in good faith' before Salisbury Council knew that they were unlawful, cannot be challenged. I would be grateful for clarification from yourself that 'ignorance of the law' is now a legitimate excuse.
12. Do you intend to 'raise the matter with / bring it to the attention of' the District Auditor that Salisbury District Council's accounts may now be challenged as they potentially contain items of unlawful income?
13. Can you confirm whether Salisbury District Council will be refunding people who have paid PCNs which did not contain the correct legal wording. If not, can you please give your reason as to why not?
14. Have the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council been informed that the PCNs for the DPE regime in Salisbury were unlawfully worded and have been changed?
15. Does the Council intend to conduct their own internal investigation as to the failings of various council officers to implement and operate DPE correctly?
I look forward to your response.
I would be grateful to an immediate response, in the public interest, to point 9.
I appreciate that there is a different timescale involved for matters involving the Freedom of Information Act.
Can you please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to both the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and all elected members via Members' Services.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron (Mr)
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
cc. Mr. P. Higgins, Head of Parking Services
cc. David Vallis, Salisbury Journal
cc. Caroline Sheppard, National Parking Adjudication Service
Notes for Information purposes only:
The cases:
1. MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05)
Case Number BC188 NPAS state, "The Bury PCN does not have a date. Although the date of the contravention is stated, the date of the notice appears only on the tear-off payment slip. Thus, it differs not only from the statute but also from the DoT model, which says 'Date of Issue' at the top. The Adjudicator decided that to comply with Section 66(3) (c) a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of issue even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. A real possibility of prejudice arises from potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day and 14 day periods for payment begin and end. This finding will be of particular interest to those of you whose standard PCNs state the date of contravention on the face of the PCN but specify the date of notice itself only on the tear-off payment slip."
2. Moses v Barnet 18th February 2006
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com who handled the most recent case of Moses v Barnet says (of Barnet's appeal against the Moses decision) “The rejection document is one of the most important documents to be published in the history of parking.”
Yet Barnet in their appeal submission to the adjudicator astonishingly state that if they lost their appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet council and other London Authorities unenforceable. The Parking Adjudicator dismissed this argument [sic] by stating “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?”
He finally says “It is up to Local Authorities to ensure that PCNs are drafted in compliance with statute.These appeals show only too clearly that the findings of the adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most unattractive basis for asserting good administration. I find that Mr. Thorne (the original adjudicator) was correct to find as he did that the PCNs in these appeals were not compliant and could not be enforced."
Barry Segal's other cases on the same point were Freidman v Tower Hamlets and Gerald Poole v Lambeth
3. Sunderland City Council Press Release in Full
ST 117For Immediate ReleasePenalty Charge NoticesFOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother 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 thesecircumstances. A small number (46) of PCNs for which payment had been madeafter legal advice was received on November 25th 2005, are beingreimbursed.Any payments outstanding for PCNs which bear the date of issue as well asthe date of the contravention, will continue to be pursued.Ends07/03/2006Issued by:Rose Peacock,Tel: 0191-553 1136Fax: 0191 553 1138Email: rose.peacock@sunderland.gov.uk
4. The Legislation
The legislation is Section 66 (3) Road Traffic Act 1991 which states
(3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.
5. Further Notes and information for potential appellants
Misfeasance in public office is a developing tort. It has recently had a boost by a decision in the House of Lords in a BCCI case. In that case a local authority is suing the Bank of England because it failed to regulate BCCI. The essence of misfeasance is the exercise of power by a public officer in bad faith that causes loss to the claimant.
There are two types of misfeasance.
The first type requires proof that the public officer has acted with the intention of injuring the claimant.
The second form occurs when the officer acts in the knowledge that he is exceeding his powers and that his act would probably injure the claimant.
This tort was somewhat restricted until the House of Lords gave its judgment in the BCCI case.
Whilst previously, subjective bad faith had to be proved, it is now sufficient simply to have a knowledge of unlawfulness and the likely consequence.
Cases alleging maladministration can also be taken up with the Local Government Ombudsman. See Local Government Ombudsman
Cases for PCNs without a 'date of issue' can also be taken before the National Parking Adjudication Service but their independence and competence must now be called into question as they have deliberated on many cases where the primary piece of evidence, the PCN, has not even been examined or questioned by the adjudicator.
6. Salisbury District Council's Penalty Charge Notice showing no 'date of issue' and quite alarmingly the Act of Parliament upon which Salisbury District Council are reliant is correct only due to the fact that a black line has removed the word 'Regulation.'
It could be argued that may be prejudicial to the motorist who could assume that this PCN has been tampered with in some way, as it is incredible that any local authority would even consider issuing such a document with the intention of demanding money for an alleged contravention.
Sunderland Echo fails to report ... again!
A leading Sunderland Political figure, councillor and portfolio holder, Dave Allen, faces suspension from his trade union following very serious 'allegations' yet the Sunderland Echo fails yet again to report.
The Echo often uplifts stories from the Newcastle Journal but it has failed even to do that in this instance.
It is shameful that a City the size of Sunderland has to buy the newspaper of a rival city in order to find out what is going on politically within its boundaries.
Read the report in the Newcastle Journal here
The Echo often uplifts stories from the Newcastle Journal but it has failed even to do that in this instance.
It is shameful that a City the size of Sunderland has to buy the newspaper of a rival city in order to find out what is going on politically within its boundaries.
Read the report in the Newcastle Journal here
Now Peterborough Council in Fine Mess
Amanda Midgely
Legal Services
Strategic Resources Directorate
Town Hall
Peterborough
PE1 1HG
27th March 2006
Dear Amanda,
Please accept my apologies for not formally addressing you but the letter I that has been forwarded to me does not indicate whether you are Mrs. Miss or Ms. and has simply been signed off as Amanda Midgley.
It is disappointing that the Prime Minister's 'Respect Initiative' does not yet appear to have filtered down to many public servants at local authority level.
I would be grateful for answers to the following questions in relation to Peterborough Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime (please treat as a Freedom of Information request wherever necessary):-
1. Can you confirm the date DPE commenced in Peterborough?
2. Can you confirm that on 23rd February 2006 the Penalty Charge Notices were changed to include the words 'date of notice'?
3. Can you confirm that, up to that point, the PCNs did not contain the correct legal wording and did not conform to the requirements of Section 66(3) Road Traffic Act 1991 or to the Department for Transport model, as they did not contain the wording 'date of issue' or 'date of notice.'
4. Can you confirm that Peterborough Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05) and on what date, and why was it not acted upon at that point?
5. For your information I have copied below a press release from Sunderland City Council (after they took Counsel's advice) who issued over 75,000 unlawfully worded PCNs.
Sunderland City Council Press Release (extract)
ST 117
For Immediate Release
Penalty Charge Notices
FOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother local authorities, will not pursue payment of outstanding unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which do not display a date of issue.
Can you confirm that Peterborough Council will not be pursuing any PCNs which do not contain the words 'date of issue'? If you do intend to use public money to 'vexatiously' or 'frivolously' pursue PCNs deemed unlawful by both NPAS and also by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in the case of Moses v Barnet can you please place the legal justification for doing so on the record?
6. Can you please indicate the following:
(i) the number and value of PCNs issued since the inception of DPE up until 23rd February 2003 (ie. which did not conform to Section 66(3) requirements...having no 'date of issue.')?
(ii) the number and value of PCNs which do not bear a date of issue which are outstanding or unpaid?
(iii) the number of PCNs and value which did not bear a 'date of issue' which resulted in enforcement action by bailiffs?
(iv) the number of appeals that have gone to NPAS and whether the PCN was supplied as evidence in all cases?
7. Do you intend to inform Northampton County Court (Bulk Enforcement Centre) that PCNs have now been altered and that evidence supplied previously as being correct did not conform to statute?
8. Do you intend to raise the matter with the District Auditor that Peterborough Council's accounts may now be challenged as they contain items of unlawful income?
9. Can you confirm whether Peterborough Council will be refunding people who have paid PCNs which did not contain the correct legal wording. If not, can you please give your legal reasoning as to why not?
10. Could you please supply a copy of the instruction given by Legal Services to the relevant Directorate to facilitate the change of the wording of the PCN?
11. Have the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council been informed that the PCNs for the DPE regime in Peterborough were unlawfully worded and have been changed?
12. Finally, in relation to the Bill of Rights matter which you have given comment upon, you state, "the 1991 Act (the Road Traffic Act 1991) is a totally separate piece of legislation which has been given full effect by Parliament. If there is any inconsistency between acts, then the doctrine of 'implied amendment' would come into force. This states that where a latter act does not expressly amend the earlier one, it is deemed to do so by implication."
This statement seems to be in conflict with the legal precedent set in City of Sunderland v Thoburn ( Case Number CO/3639/2001 before the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen's Bench Division 18th February 2002 ... for reference link to full judment here) which stated at par 63 "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not." after having qualified at par 62 that the Bill of Rights was one such 'constitutional statute.'
Can you confirm as to whether you have had sight of this judgment and in light of the legal precedent contained therein do you still stand by your statement above?
I look forward to your response. Can you please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to both the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and all elected members via Members' Services.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron (Mr)
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
cc. Parking Services, Peterborough Council
cc. David Old, Peterborough Evening Telegraph
cc. Members Services, Peterborough Council
cc. BBC Radio Cambridgeshire
Notes for Information:
The cases:
1. MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05)
Case Number BC188 NPAS state, "The Bury PCN does not have a date. Although the date of the contravention is stated, the date of the notice appears only on the tear-off payment slip. Thus, it differs not only from the statute but also from the DoT model, which says 'Date of Issue' at the top. The Adjudicator decided that to comply with Section 66(3) (c) a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of issue even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. A real possibility of prejudice arises from potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day and 14 day periods for payment begin and end. This finding will be of particular interest to those of you whose standard PCNs state the date of contravention on the face of the PCN but specify the date of notice itself only on the tear-off payment slip."
2. Moses v Barnet 18th February 2006
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com who handled the most recent case of Moses v Barnet says (of Barnet's appeal against the Moses decision) “The rejection document is one of the most important documents to be published in the history of parking.”
Yet Barnet in their appeal submission to the adjudicator astonishingly state that if they lost their appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet council and other London Authorities unenforceable. The Parking Adjudicator dismissed this argument [sic] by stating “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?”
He finally says “It is up to Local Authorities to ensure that PCNs are drafted in compliance with statute.These appeals show only too clearly that the findings of the adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most unattractive basis for asserting good administration. I find that Mr. Thorne (the original adjudicator) was correct to find as he did that the PCNs in these appeals were not compliant and could not be enforced."
Barry Segal's other cases on the same point were Freidman v Tower Hamlets and Gerald Poole v Lambeth
3. Sunderland City Council Press Release in Full
ST 117
For Immediate Release
Penalty Charge Notices
FOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother 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 is the same as the issue date. The City Council has corrected this technicality and all PCNs now bear the date of issue as well as the date of the contravention.
The City Council's legal advice confirms that all PCNs which have been issued without an issue date, but were not appealed against and paid at the time, 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
4. The Legislation
The legislation is Section 66 (3) Road Traffic Act 1991 which states
(3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.
5. City of Sunderland v Thoburn, 18th February 2002
62 Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.
63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.
Legal Services
Strategic Resources Directorate
Town Hall
Peterborough
PE1 1HG
27th March 2006
Dear Amanda,
Please accept my apologies for not formally addressing you but the letter I that has been forwarded to me does not indicate whether you are Mrs. Miss or Ms. and has simply been signed off as Amanda Midgley.
It is disappointing that the Prime Minister's 'Respect Initiative' does not yet appear to have filtered down to many public servants at local authority level.
I would be grateful for answers to the following questions in relation to Peterborough Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime (please treat as a Freedom of Information request wherever necessary):-
1. Can you confirm the date DPE commenced in Peterborough?
2. Can you confirm that on 23rd February 2006 the Penalty Charge Notices were changed to include the words 'date of notice'?
3. Can you confirm that, up to that point, the PCNs did not contain the correct legal wording and did not conform to the requirements of Section 66(3) Road Traffic Act 1991 or to the Department for Transport model, as they did not contain the wording 'date of issue' or 'date of notice.'
4. Can you confirm that Peterborough Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) Circular MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05) and on what date, and why was it not acted upon at that point?
5. For your information I have copied below a press release from Sunderland City Council (after they took Counsel's advice) who issued over 75,000 unlawfully worded PCNs.
Sunderland City Council Press Release (extract)
ST 117
For Immediate Release
Penalty Charge Notices
FOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother local authorities, will not pursue payment of outstanding unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which do not display a date of issue.
Can you confirm that Peterborough Council will not be pursuing any PCNs which do not contain the words 'date of issue'? If you do intend to use public money to 'vexatiously' or 'frivolously' pursue PCNs deemed unlawful by both NPAS and also by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in the case of Moses v Barnet can you please place the legal justification for doing so on the record?
6. Can you please indicate the following:
(i) the number and value of PCNs issued since the inception of DPE up until 23rd February 2003 (ie. which did not conform to Section 66(3) requirements...having no 'date of issue.')?
(ii) the number and value of PCNs which do not bear a date of issue which are outstanding or unpaid?
(iii) the number of PCNs and value which did not bear a 'date of issue' which resulted in enforcement action by bailiffs?
(iv) the number of appeals that have gone to NPAS and whether the PCN was supplied as evidence in all cases?
7. Do you intend to inform Northampton County Court (Bulk Enforcement Centre) that PCNs have now been altered and that evidence supplied previously as being correct did not conform to statute?
8. Do you intend to raise the matter with the District Auditor that Peterborough Council's accounts may now be challenged as they contain items of unlawful income?
9. Can you confirm whether Peterborough Council will be refunding people who have paid PCNs which did not contain the correct legal wording. If not, can you please give your legal reasoning as to why not?
10. Could you please supply a copy of the instruction given by Legal Services to the relevant Directorate to facilitate the change of the wording of the PCN?
11. Have the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council been informed that the PCNs for the DPE regime in Peterborough were unlawfully worded and have been changed?
12. Finally, in relation to the Bill of Rights matter which you have given comment upon, you state, "the 1991 Act (the Road Traffic Act 1991) is a totally separate piece of legislation which has been given full effect by Parliament. If there is any inconsistency between acts, then the doctrine of 'implied amendment' would come into force. This states that where a latter act does not expressly amend the earlier one, it is deemed to do so by implication."
This statement seems to be in conflict with the legal precedent set in City of Sunderland v Thoburn ( Case Number CO/3639/2001 before the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen's Bench Division 18th February 2002 ... for reference link to full judment here) which stated at par 63 "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not." after having qualified at par 62 that the Bill of Rights was one such 'constitutional statute.'
Can you confirm as to whether you have had sight of this judgment and in light of the legal precedent contained therein do you still stand by your statement above?
I look forward to your response. Can you please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to both the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and all elected members via Members' Services.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron (Mr)
The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
cc. Parking Services, Peterborough Council
cc. David Old, Peterborough Evening Telegraph
cc. Members Services, Peterborough Council
cc. BBC Radio Cambridgeshire
Notes for Information:
The cases:
1. MacArthur v Bury (NPAS Circular 04/05)
Case Number BC188 NPAS state, "The Bury PCN does not have a date. Although the date of the contravention is stated, the date of the notice appears only on the tear-off payment slip. Thus, it differs not only from the statute but also from the DoT model, which says 'Date of Issue' at the top. The Adjudicator decided that to comply with Section 66(3) (c) a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of issue even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. A real possibility of prejudice arises from potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day and 14 day periods for payment begin and end. This finding will be of particular interest to those of you whose standard PCNs state the date of contravention on the face of the PCN but specify the date of notice itself only on the tear-off payment slip."
2. Moses v Barnet 18th February 2006
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com who handled the most recent case of Moses v Barnet says (of Barnet's appeal against the Moses decision) “The rejection document is one of the most important documents to be published in the history of parking.”
Yet Barnet in their appeal submission to the adjudicator astonishingly state that if they lost their appeal it would make many parking tickets issued by Barnet council and other London Authorities unenforceable. The Parking Adjudicator dismissed this argument [sic] by stating “Surely good administration commences with compliance with the Law?”
He finally says “It is up to Local Authorities to ensure that PCNs are drafted in compliance with statute.These appeals show only too clearly that the findings of the adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - a most unattractive basis for asserting good administration. I find that Mr. Thorne (the original adjudicator) was correct to find as he did that the PCNs in these appeals were not compliant and could not be enforced."
Barry Segal's other cases on the same point were Freidman v Tower Hamlets and Gerald Poole v Lambeth
3. Sunderland City Council Press Release in Full
ST 117
For Immediate Release
Penalty Charge Notices
FOLLOWING a case involving Bury Council, Sunderland City Council, like manyother 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 is the same as the issue date. The City Council has corrected this technicality and all PCNs now bear the date of issue as well as the date of the contravention.
The City Council's legal advice confirms that all PCNs which have been issued without an issue date, but were not appealed against and paid at the time, 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
4. The Legislation
The legislation is Section 66 (3) Road Traffic Act 1991 which states
(3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.
5. City of Sunderland v Thoburn, 18th February 2002
62 Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.
63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.
Scarborough Parking Chaos
This case is highly significant. Sunderland City Council misled the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State for Transport into granting Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers by claiming that all their lines, signs and Traffic Regulation Orders would be correct and in force at the commencement of DPE on February 3rd 2003.
To date thousands of lines and signs have been corrected, and over 350 TROs changed.
The DfT is aware of all of this and is sitting on the question "What is the procedure required for the revocation of Sunderland City Council's DPE and who needs to intiate it?'
How many other local authorities have also taken shortcuts in their rush to implement the DPE Cash Cow?
Parking fines chaos
Scarborough Evening News
3rd April 2006
SCARBOROUGH'S on-street parking scheme was plunged into fresh controversy today after the Government refused to grant the borough council power to issue tickets for all parking offences.
Scarborough Council had hoped it would be granted decriminalised parking powers from today which would allow it to take over from police the issuing of fines to people who park illegally on yellow lines.
But concerns have been raised that the lines and signs which make up the on-street scheme do not follow the law and cannot be enforced – despite the council spending around £50,000 on a consultant to help prepare for decriminalisation.
The Department for Transport has refused to grant decriminalised parking powers until the issues are resolved. Read the rest of the story here
To date thousands of lines and signs have been corrected, and over 350 TROs changed.
The DfT is aware of all of this and is sitting on the question "What is the procedure required for the revocation of Sunderland City Council's DPE and who needs to intiate it?'
How many other local authorities have also taken shortcuts in their rush to implement the DPE Cash Cow?
Parking fines chaos
Scarborough Evening News
3rd April 2006
SCARBOROUGH'S on-street parking scheme was plunged into fresh controversy today after the Government refused to grant the borough council power to issue tickets for all parking offences.
Scarborough Council had hoped it would be granted decriminalised parking powers from today which would allow it to take over from police the issuing of fines to people who park illegally on yellow lines.
But concerns have been raised that the lines and signs which make up the on-street scheme do not follow the law and cannot be enforced – despite the council spending around £50,000 on a consultant to help prepare for decriminalisation.
The Department for Transport has refused to grant decriminalised parking powers until the issues are resolved. Read the rest of the story here
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Britain's Angriest Man
BRITAIN'S ANGRIEST MANMike Dickin’s most popular guests are back in the studio for another Parking Fines Special!
The Angriest Man in Britain has caused such a stir by revealing the extent of the unlawful parking fines problem that a camera crew from Tonight with Trevor MacDonald will be filming his show here in the talkSPORT towers.
Barrie Segal, who fights penalties on motorists behalves, and Neil Herron, who is challenging parking laws at the highest level, will be in the studio taking your questions on what to do about your parking tickets.
It’s the show you really can’t afford to miss
- Sunday April 2nd from 10pm on talkSPORT
Saturday, April 01, 2006
'Union Branch Chief Facing Suspension' ... Councillor Dave Allen in the news
Councillor Dave Allen after his 'Herron is finished' outburst on Wednesday seems to have gone quiet.
Nomination papers are due in by Monday one has to wonder if he will stand in the election with such a black cloud hanging over him?
Herron is still here...can't seem to find Mr. Allen.
Union Branch Chief Facing Suspension
Newcastle Journal
April 1st 2006
Ross Smith
A Senior North councillor faces suspension from his role in charge of a trade union branch, it emerged last night.
Regional bosses at Amicus are asking the union's national executive committee to remove Sunderland Cabinet member Dave Allen from his post as Sunderland West branch secretary.
Amicus North East secretary Davey Hall said the resolution had been passed after "allegations" were made against Cllr Allen.
Mr. Hall insists these were spurious but they would need to be investigated.
Councillor Allen has not turned up at recent branch meetings, and the union says it hasn't been able to contact him.
However, he has been present at recent city council meetings, with one source in the authority claiming Amicus officers 'can't have tried very hard.'
Minutes of an Amicus regional council meeting held on February 24th at Gateshead's Springfield Hotel say: 'the regional secretary advised that the general office and regional office, together with numerous members of the Sunderland West Branch, have been encountering various problems with the Sunderland West branch secretary.
" In the early part of November 2005, the regional secretary had corresponded with the Sunderland West branch secretary seeking an explanation about complaints from members, but has not received any form of response to date.
" A regional official was requested to attend the 2005 and 2006 branch meetings and establish that no branch officers had showed on the evening of branch meetings.
"Additional endeavours have also been made to contact the branch secretary, all of which have been to no avail. It was unanimously agreed that an officer be appointed to take provisional responsibility for future branch affairs."
However, Mr. Hall said that Cllr. Allen would remain in post until a decision to suspend or remove him was taken nationally. The regional resolution is likely to be put to the Amicus NEC in May.
Councillor Allen, who is cabinet member for resources at Sunderland and represents Sandhill ward, could not be contacted last night.
Nomination papers are due in by Monday one has to wonder if he will stand in the election with such a black cloud hanging over him?
Herron is still here...can't seem to find Mr. Allen.
Union Branch Chief Facing Suspension
Newcastle Journal
April 1st 2006
Ross Smith
A Senior North councillor faces suspension from his role in charge of a trade union branch, it emerged last night.
Regional bosses at Amicus are asking the union's national executive committee to remove Sunderland Cabinet member Dave Allen from his post as Sunderland West branch secretary.
Amicus North East secretary Davey Hall said the resolution had been passed after "allegations" were made against Cllr Allen.
Mr. Hall insists these were spurious but they would need to be investigated.
Councillor Allen has not turned up at recent branch meetings, and the union says it hasn't been able to contact him.
However, he has been present at recent city council meetings, with one source in the authority claiming Amicus officers 'can't have tried very hard.'
Minutes of an Amicus regional council meeting held on February 24th at Gateshead's Springfield Hotel say: 'the regional secretary advised that the general office and regional office, together with numerous members of the Sunderland West Branch, have been encountering various problems with the Sunderland West branch secretary.
" In the early part of November 2005, the regional secretary had corresponded with the Sunderland West branch secretary seeking an explanation about complaints from members, but has not received any form of response to date.
" A regional official was requested to attend the 2005 and 2006 branch meetings and establish that no branch officers had showed on the evening of branch meetings.
"Additional endeavours have also been made to contact the branch secretary, all of which have been to no avail. It was unanimously agreed that an officer be appointed to take provisional responsibility for future branch affairs."
However, Mr. Hall said that Cllr. Allen would remain in post until a decision to suspend or remove him was taken nationally. The regional resolution is likely to be put to the Amicus NEC in May.
Councillor Allen, who is cabinet member for resources at Sunderland and represents Sandhill ward, could not be contacted last night.
Herron on TalkSPORT
Another Parking special on the Mike Dickin Show 10pm - 1am Sunday.
Neil Herron of The People's No Campaign and Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com are also being filmed in the TalkSPORT studios as the programme is broadcast.
Tonight with Trevor McDonald is doing the follow up to 'The Motorist Fights Back.' With DPE on the verge of collapse nationally these two programmes will be the catalyst.
Neil Herron of The People's No Campaign and Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com are also being filmed in the TalkSPORT studios as the programme is broadcast.
Tonight with Trevor McDonald is doing the follow up to 'The Motorist Fights Back.' With DPE on the verge of collapse nationally these two programmes will be the catalyst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
