Robbie the Pict takes on Speed Guns

Press and Journal
PICT TAKES ON LAW AGAIN - THIS TIME OVER SPEEDING CASE
Date : 17.08.06

Maverick Highland campaigner Robbie the Pict is taking on the law again - this time to prove that a widely-used handheld police speed gun is illegal.
The man who led the titanic struggle to have the Skye Bridge tolls scrapped will contest a speeding case on the basis that Northern Constabulary was issued a radar device not approved by the UK Parliament.
He will argue that the Muni Quip K-GP device which allegedly caught him speeding through Roy Bridge, near Fort William, is not officially recognised in law.
Mr Pict said: "I have no problem with speed cameras or speed limits. I live in a rural Skye village where if somebody was doing 40mph they could do damage, but this must be done legally. If you leave yourself wide open as an authority the whole exercise in controlling speed becomes futile."
He will argue at the High Court in Edinburgh, at a date to be decided, that while the devicewas covered by 1988 road traffic law, the legislative system changed in 1991 requiring a"statutory instrument" - a mini Act of Parliament.
Statutory instruments do not require full parliamentary approval before becoming law.
Mr Pict said: "I specifically asked for disclosure of the device and was told it was a Muni QuipK-GP, which is believed the most popular of the handheld radars. For 15 years they've used a measuring device whose evidence is inadmissible."
Mr Pict's interpretation of the law is that there would be no retrospective quashing of convictions unless those convicted appealed individually.
But he added: "There is a moral duty on a minister of transport to examine something like this immediately because these are incompetent prosecutions and wrongful convictions."

Norwich Council's 'illegal' parking tickets

The story below hit the Eastern Daily Press and the Norwich Evening News
Parking fiasco could cost thousands

The letter sent to Norwich Council's Parking Services can be seen below:

Robin Hare
Parking Services Team Leader
Norwich City CouncilCity HallNorwich
NR2 1NH
24th August 2006

Dear Mr. Hare,

I have just been forwarded a Norwich City Council Penalty Charge Notice.

I wish to put you on notice that your Penalty Charge Notices do not comply with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and request that you suspend your Decriminalised Parking Enforcement operation immediately until you have corrected this fundamental error.

It is a requirement of the Act for two dates (notice and contravention).

In the recent case heard before Justice Jackson on 1st August 2006 (Moses v Barnet) the Judge mentioned in his judgment that the requirement of the two dates had been mentioned by adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear - compliance was not difficult and a specimen had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuse for non-compliance.
He deemed non-compliant PCNs a nullity.

I would be grateful for answers to the following (please treat as a Freedom of Information Request wherever necessary):

1. Can you please confirm that Norwich City Council will suspend enforcement of its DPE regime forthwith?
2. Can you confirm that Norwich City Council will not pursue ANY outstanding PCNs which are incorrectly worded and will withdraw any bailiff's actions?
3. Please confirm the date Norwich City Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service Circular MacArthur v Bury (BC 188) regarding the wording of PCNs and why the PCNs were not altered then and the contents of the circular not acted upon?
4. What does Norwich City Council intend to do with regard to non-compliant PCNs issued which have been paid?
5. Can you please advise as to the number and value of PCNs which have been issued since the inception of DPE which do not bear the two dates described above?
6. Can you please advise as to the number of Norwich City Council PCNs that have gone before the National Parking Adjudication Service?
7. Do you intend to challenge the competence of the National Parking Adjudication Service who have similarly failed to identify the flaws in the Norwich City Council PCNs, the most fundamental piece of evidence in the whole process, despite, in the words of Justice Jackson, 'a specimen being available for more than 10 years'?
8. Can you detail the amount of money paid to the National Parking Adjudication Service by Norwich City Council since the inception of DPE?
9. Can you please provide details of any communications from members of the public or any other source which have advised Norwich City Council that their PCNs were unlawful and did not comply with the requirements of the 1991 Road Traffic Act, and the provide details of officers actions on receipt of this information?
10. Can you please confirm that Norwich City Council's PCNs should not be addressed to the driver as this also creates a potential prejudice to the registered keeper, the person responsible for the contravention?

I appreciate the enormity of the task of suspending DPE but as non-compliant PCNs have been declared a nullity by the High Court any attempt to continue to enforce using such unlawful documents is a very serious matter indeed and may lead to formal complaints of Misfeasance / Misconduct in Public Office being made to the Police and complaints of maladministration to the Local Government Ombudsman.
I trust I will receive a reply by return to the main points raised as the matter is most certainly in the public interest.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to elected members, David Lowens and the Chief Executive.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143

Letter to Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council...Suspend your DPE Parking Regime Immediately

If your local authority has not yet suspended its DPE operation and is continuing issuing PCNs which do not have a date of notice and a date of contravention then please feel free to copy the letter below.
This letter is only applicable to Local Authorities outside London. There will be a similar one made available for London Boroughs who still do not comply, however, it is understood that there is a state of panic in those which still have non-compliant PCNs following the advice issued by Nick Lester of the Association of London Government.

It is essential now that there is full scrutiny of both adjudication bodies (NPAS and PATAS) who have exhibited such crass incompetence that it beggars belief.
The Penalty Charge Notice is THE primary piece of evidence and there is no excuse for the continued failure by the adjudicators to recognise non-compliant PCNs.
I have just taken a call from someone who lost an appeal against Camden Council on 12th August 2006, some ten days after the High Court ruling...the adjudicator never looked at the validity of the PCN!

Mrs. Sheila Jackson
Parking Services Manager
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Town Hall
Victoria Square
Bolton
BL1 1RU

24th August 2006

Dear Mrs. Jackson,

I have just been forwarded a Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Penalty Charge Notice.
I wish to put you on notice that your Penalty Charge Notices do not comply with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and request that you suspend your Decriminalised Parking Enforcement operation immediately until you have corrected this fundamental error.

It is a requirement of the Act for two dates (notice and contravention).

In the recent case heard before Justice Jackson on 1st August 2006 (Moses v Barnet) the Judge mentioned in his judgment that the requirement of the two dates had been mentioned by adjudicators on more than one occasion.

He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear - compliance was not difficult and a specimen had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuse for non-compliance.

He deemed non-compliant PCNs a nullity.

I would be grateful for answers to the following (please treat as a Freedom of Information Request wherever necessary):

1. Can you please confirm that Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council will suspend enforcement of its DPE regime forthwith?
Can you confirm that Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council will not pursue ANY outstanding PCNs which are incorrectly worded and will withdraw any bailiff's actions?
2. Please confirm the date Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service Circular MacArthur v Bury (BC 188) regarding the wording of PCNs and why the PCNs were not altered then and the contents of the circular not acted upon?
3. What does Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council intend to do with regard to non-compliant PCNs issued which have been paid?
4. Can you please advise as to the number and value of PCNs which have been issued since the inception of DPE which do not bear the two dates described above?
5. Can you please advise as to the number of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council PCNs that have gone before the National Parking Adjudication Service?
6. Do you intend to challenge the competence of the National Parking Adjudication Service who have similarly failed to identify the flaws in the Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council PCNs, the most fundamental piece of evidence in the whole process, despite, in the words of Justice Jackson, 'a specimen being available for more than 10 years'?
7. Can you detail the amount of money paid to the National Parking Adjudication Service by Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council since the inception of DPE?

I appreciate the enormity of the task of suspending DPE but as non-compliant PCNs have been declared a nullity by the High Court any attempt to continue to enforce using such unlawful documents is a very serious matter indeed and may lead to formal complaints of Misfeasance / Misconduct in Public Office being made to the Police and complaints of maladministration to the Local Government Ombudsman.

I trust I will receive a reply by return to the main points raised as the matter is most certainly in the public interest.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to elected members and the Chief Executive.

Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
SunderlandSR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
copy to: Paul Keaveny, Bolton Evening News
copy to: Caroline Sheppard, Chief Parking Adjudicator, National Parking Adjudication Service.

Local Government Ombudsman's Position on unlawful PCNs

Just come off the phone with the Local Government Ombudsman's office in London. Chris Upjohn, author of the report 'Parking Enforcement by Local Authorities' states that they are aware of the advice to London Local Authorities by Nick Lester following the High Court decision in Moses v Barnet and have passed it to their lawyers for analysis.

I am currently assisting in a complaint in Sunderland which is before the Ombudsman but they have been put on notice that if they do not deal with a precedent case soon then they are going to be deluged with individual complaints right across the country.

Anyone wishing to make such a complaint about a local authority continuing to pursue PCNs they know to be unlawful (ie. those not having the date of notice and date and time of contravention) following the High Court decision in Moses v Barnet then click here

However, complaints of maladministration can also be pursued back to the beginning. Such PCNs have been deemed a nullity by a High Court Judge and therefore have not been legal from the outset.
This firestorm is getting bigger and many are going to get burnt.

Northampton County Court Traffic Enforcement Centre must now check EVERY local authority application. Justice Murdoch was put on notice some time ago.

Parking in Brighton makes front page news again

Glowzone's Mike Gurney has refused to bow to intimidation by Brighton Council. The spotlight continues to shine on their DPE operation. More will follow.

Brighton Argus
22nd August 2006
Parking Fines Declared Invalid
Read the report here

Parking Meltdown as implications of Moses v Barnet strike home

This is the advice issued by ALG's Nick Lester as Decriminalised Parking Enforcement goes into meltdown.

Borough Parking Managers
Contact:
Nick Lester
Direct line:
020 7934 9905
Fax:
020 7934 9932
Email:
nick.lester@alg.gov.uk

Date:
9 August 2006

Dear Colleague

London Borough of Barnet Judicial Review

I am writing further to my letter of 3 May 2006 now that the result of the judicial review requested by LB Barnet with respect to the Moses case has been decided.

The judgement in the High Court upheld the adjudicator’s decision in the Moses case, with no substantial differences. In particular, the judge held that if a PCN did not have the date of issue (or date of notice) as well as the date of contravention explicitly shown then the PCN becomes a nullity. I attach a brief note of the judgement as we have yet to receive a transcript.

As my letter of 3rd May said, those boroughs where PCNs have complied with this requirement to the effect that they have no open cases with non-compliant PCNs will not be affected.

Boroughs with open non-compliant PCNs do need to give careful consideration to their future actions and are recommended to seek their own legal advice. This letter should not be taken as formal legal advice. My own views are:
· Boroughs should ensure that their PCN format complies with the Al’s Bar decision as a matter of urgency (ie that the PCN contains both a date of issue (or notice) and a date of contravention, even where these are the same).
· Boroughs should ensure that they do not issue any further PCNs that do not comply, even if this means suspending enforcement pending a redesign of the notice. The court’s decision makes clear that any non-compliant PCNs are a nullity. It is also clear that by “substantially compliant” the court means that the PCN must wholly comply with the Act in substance (but not necessarily literally) rather than meaning that if it almost meets the requirements (say to 90% or 95%) then that is sufficient.
· Boroughs may not enforce non-compliant PCNs. This means that no NtOs or charge certificates should be sent out, nor should debt registrations or bailiff’s warrants be sought with respect to non-compliant PCNs.
· Boroughs may continue to receive payments made against non-compliant PCNs and do not need to refund any payments already made. The adjudicators have already considered, and rejected, a bid to re-open previously closed cases on this issue.

Some boroughs have also raised with me the question of whether the adjudicator can allow appeal on the basis of an argument which has not been raised by the appellant at any stage. The Moses case judgement did not touch on this matter and this has not been raised as a focus of any judgements so far. Where court rulings have referred to this matter the references are conflicting. Clearly a further judicial review would be needed to settle the issue once and for all but in view of the outcomes of judicial action so far, I would not recommend this course of action as part of this case as, whatever the outcome, it would not reflect well upon the boroughs.

As always, should anyone wish to discuss this issue, please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely
Nick Lester
Director, Transport, Environment and Planning

Enc.

BARNET JR JUDGEMENT 02 AUGUST 2006

1. INTRODUCTION
Mr Justice Jackson set out the requirements of a Penalty Charge Notice, as defined in S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and in the extension of decriminalised enforcement by the LLA Act 2000 to include service of PCNs by post.

2. THE FACTS
Mr Justice Jackson went through the wordings of the PCNs at issue in detail. He pointed out that all the parties had agreed that, in the case of the second PCN, the motorist (Mr Moses) had driven away before the PCN could be issued.

In both cases, the motorist made representations to Barnet, which were rejected. He then appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. The Adjudicator allowed the appeals against both PCNs, on the facts of each case and because he found that the wording of the PCNs (failure to specify a date of notice) made them invalid.

Barnet accepted the direction on both decisions, but applied for review on the grounds that the Adjudicator had erred in his interpretation of the law and that the PCNs were valid.

Barnet did not request an oral hearing of the review application, and did not submit further evidence. The application was dismissed by another Adjudicator, who drew on an earlier decision (Al’s Bar v. Wandsworth) in stating that the wording of a PCN needed to show substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. He emphasised the need for certainty.

3. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
Barnet claim that their PCNS were “substantially compliant”. They said that the way time limits were described on the Notice effectively added an extra day to the statutory requirement, but that this did not matter as it did not cause prejudice to the motorist.

Mr Justice Jackson noted the “helpful background” set out in the Chief Adjudicator’s acknowledgement of service and noted that Barnet’s new PCN does comply with the statutory requirements.

4. DATE OF NOTICE
The judge referred back to the RTA ’91 requirements of s.66(3) and confirmed that the date of notice must be on the charge, otherwise the statutory purpose of sections 66((3) c-e is thwarted.

He went on to explain that the date of contravention and the date of notice are usually the same, but not always because of the question of postal issue and if a contravention was observed just before midnight, but the PCN issue just after.

He also indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip. To illustrate this, he mentioned in detail the example contained in the Al’s Bar decision of a motorist returning the slip with payment, and then wishing to dispute the Council’s refusal to accept a discounted payment.

Mr Justice Jackson mentioned that the requirement of the two dates, (contravention and notice), had been mentioned by Adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance.

The Barnet PCN showed the date of the contravention, but not of the notice, therefore was not substantially compliant.

Mr Justice Jackson concluded this section of his judgement by stating that the question of relevance did not arise because the statutory conditions of the notice were not met, therefore financial liability did not arise.

5. EFFECT OF EXTRA DAY
The judge stated that, in the light of his decision, there was no need to pass judgement on the “effect of the extra day” in the wording of Barnet’s PCN. He stated that it would be necessary to consider further evidence to discover whether, in the case of Barnet enforcement procedures, a prejudice did occur, but that this was not necessary as he had already found that the PCNs were non-compliant.

6. CONCLUSION
Barnet’s application for Judicial review was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the judgement was refused.

Bolton Council Parking Clanger ... national implications

Another Council censured by the Local Government Ombudsman. This time Bolton Council for telling motorists what their mitigating circumstances can and cannot be.
This could be another significant nail in many local authorities coffins.

Read the report in the Bolton Evening News here

Robbie the Pict takes on Speed Guns

Press and Journal
PICT TAKES ON LAW AGAIN - THIS TIME OVER SPEEDING CASE Date : 17.08.06

Maverick Highland campaigner Robbie the Pict is taking on the law again - this time toprove that a widely-used handheld police speed gun is illegal.
The man who led the titanic struggle to have the Skye Bridge tolls scrapped will contest aspeeding case on the basis that Northern Constabulary was issued a radar device notapproved by the UK Parliament.
He will argue that the Muni Quip K-GP device which allegedly caught him speeding throughRoy Bridge, near Fort William, is not officially recognised in law.
Mr Pict said: "I have no problem with speed cameras or speed limits. I live in a rural Skyevillage where if somebody was doing 40mph they could do damage, but this must be donelegally. If you leave yourself wide open as an authority the whole exercise in controllingspeed becomes futile."
He will argue at the High Court in Edinburgh, at a date to be decided, that while the devicewas covered by 1988 road traffic law, the legislative system changed in 1991 requiring a"statutory instrument" - a mini Act of Parliament.
Statutory instruments do not require full parliamentary approval before becoming law.
Mr Pict said: "I specifically asked for disclosure of the device and was told it was a Muni QuipK-GP, which is believed the most popular of the handheld radars. For 15 years they've useda measuring device whose evidence is inadmissible."
Mr Pict's interpretation of the law is that there would be no retrospective quashing ofconvictions unless those convicted appealed individually.
But he added: "There is a moral duty on a minister of transport to examine something likethis immediately because these are incompetent prosecutions and wrongful convictions."

'WE'VE BEEN SOLD A PARKING PUP'

Herald Express
12 readers have commented on this story. Click here to read their views.
11:00 - 18 August 2006

Torbay Mayor Nick Bye today gave his verdict on the financial contract with National Car Parks: "It seems to me that we've been sold a pup."
The council is now studying the NCP contract for the running of decriminalised parking in the resort.
Mr Bye said he is "angry" about the amount of money the council has been haemorrhaging since it signed up with NCP in April 2005.
Only recently the council has to raid its reserves of £346,000 to keep parking services running.
Mr Bye said the revenue the council is receiving from parking fines is not anywhere close to the amount it is costing to run the scheme.
He felt the only way that the council could hope to break even on its parking contract, which has another four years to run, would be to charge people for parking on Torbay's roads and side streets - which he believes could be a kiss of death for town centres.
Mr Bye, who was not elected as mayor when the parking contract was agreed, added: "It's madness to be paying out all this money. It seems to me that we've been sold a pup.
"It seems we entered into this contract under the impression that we'd have Controlled Parking Zones and on-street parking, but that's not something I want to do.
"We'd be losing money doing something that would upset a lot of people. If we had paid-for parking in our towns, people would go to the Willows and other out-of-town places to do their shopping.
"Excuse the pun, but that is a road I don't want to go down. It is worse than pouring money down the drain.
"We're certainly looking at the contract to see what, if anything, can be done, but I don't see how we'll get out of it.
"I think the people responsible for signing up for this contract, those who are now pretending to be the motorists' friend, need to be asked some serious questions.
"In the council's Business Plan it assumes that there would be Controlled Parking Zones, but if we had that and on-street parking it would be 'goodnight Vienna'.
"I do not want that. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. The money we're taking from our reserves for this could be spent on other things.
"I would have thought that eventually the penny would drop and people in the future wouldn't park illegally because they'd know they would get a ticket. Therefore the revenue from parking won't go up. It'll be the opposite. As far as I see it, you're never going to have enough parking to keep everyone happy."
James Pritchard, communications manager for NCP, said the company believed it was offering value for money.
He added: "Mr Bye clearly feels on-street enforcement is needed in the Bay, while having doubts about whether he wishes to see charging introduced for on-street parking in the town centres. Decisions of that nature are rightly made at a local level.
"Of course, democratically elected politicians are spending public money, and when they do so they have to demonstrate the appropriate care and attention.
"NCP understands this and we believe we offer a professional service at a reasonable cost. If Mr Bye wishes to discuss any element of this with us we would be more than happy to do so.
"His comments about the contract also eloquently illustrate the point that NCP and Torbay Council have made on frequent occasions that enforcement is not a money-making exercise but is an investment in the management of towns and communities.
"It is the means by which councils and the communities they serve choose to control and regulate the use of motor vehicles, and it is the best solution to deal with the kinds of problems posed by the ever-increasing numbers of vehicles on the roads."
Ruth Pentney, Lib Dem council group chairman, disagreed with Mr Bye's view that Controlled Parking Zones would be harmful for Torbay
She added: "I think there's an overwhelming demand for residents' parking. It's not the answer to everything, but it's a way forward.
"On-street parking wouldn't drive people away from the town's It doesn't work like that. People who live near the town centres can't park outside their home because their road's jammed with people parking there for the town.
"The first priority should be the people who live in Torbay, but they often have to park streets away from their home."

Motorists Victory in Stoke

The Stoke Sentinel
HI-TECH OVERHAUL FOR CITY PARKING
MARK FORSTER
11 August 2006

Car parking across Stoke-on-Trent is set for a major revamp to help boost the retail economy.

A review ordered by elected mayor Mark Meredith is set to spearhead a revolution in the way the city council runs its car parks.The far reaching changes could see free evening parking introduced all-year round from 2007. But Mr Meredith says two multi-storey car parks - in John Street and Meigh Street - will be converted to pay-at-exit in a trial which could see the approach adopted at other city centre car parks.
Other measures include:

• A proportional charging system that makes motorists pay for the time they actually spend in the car parks.
• A "sensible grace period" for people whose tickets have run out.
• And, for the first time, the chance for people whose valid tickets have not been displayed properly to have their fines cancelled.

Under proposals being announced by the city council there will also be the opportunity to pay for parking by text message, credit or debit card and a revamp of daytime and evening charging periods. And city council parking attendants will be reorganised and tasked with tackling illegal parking causing congestion in city streets.

Mr Meredith said the changes were aimed at helping stimulate more visits to the city centre and a bigger spend in shops and night-time venues. He said with that aim in mind there would be free parking every night from the Christmas Lights switch on - on November 16 - to the end of December.

The city council is also exploring the potential to extend free evening parking to all-year round, according to councillor Mike Barnes, deputy leader of the city's Labour group.

He said: "The parking policy should not be about making money. In the past it has been a cash cow, but that has to change."The city council has come in for severe criticism of the way it operates its car parks in recent months, particularly in the way it has fined people for not displaying tickets properly.

In April, The Sentinel revealed thousands of fines were being overturned because of a legal technicality.Bryan Carnes, chief executive of North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, welcomed the move away from the "draconian parking regime".He said: "We are absolutely delighted that the city council is taking a new approach towards the motorist. This sends out the message to visitors that they are welcome."

Pam Bryan, of Weston Coyney, who runs the Justice For Parkers campaign, added: "At the moment people are being put off in their droves because of the stupidity of the parking system. This sounds a sensible move."

Anyone got an Ipswich Parking Ticket?

Let us hope that Ipswich's PCNs are fully compliant with the 1991 Road Traffic Act. If not it could be potentially very embarassing.
Spread the word that we need a current Ipswich PCN.

Ipswich Evening Star
Bailiffs track down parking fine drivers
18 August 2006

BAILIFFS are set to hunt down close to 700 motorists who have failed to cough up parking fines since last October, The Evening Star can reveal.

A total of 691 motorists, around 350 living in Ipswich, will be tracked down in the coming weeks once Ipswich Borough Council has finalised contracts with money retrieval firms.

The huge blitz has come about because arrangements for final collection action has taken time to sort out since the council took over parking enforcement duties from police in October.
Parking services manager Richard Walker said:
“The first two or three months worth of cases are being dealt with in one big batch.“We have got the bailiffs in place and are just waiting on the contracts.“The people involved are either naughty offenders or those who think if they don't pay the whole process will go away.”

Mr Walker said around half the motorists that will have their details passed on to bailiffs come from the Ipswich area with the remainder coming from surrounding towns and across the country.Three separate bailiff firms are set to be awarded collection contracts. One firm will deal with collections in the Ipswich area with the other two splitting the remaining workload alphabetically based on the surnames of debtors. Mr Walker said that once the initial collections were out the way the council expects to hand on the details of around 300 non-payers a month to bailiffs.
This represents around 20 per cent of the average 1,500 people a month who receive parking tickets in Ipswich.

Weblink:www.ipswich.gov.uk

Advice to councils from ALG

SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT - REFUNDS TO MOTORISTS

We had this information sent to us in a response to an FoI request, but Sunderland decided to issue a 'damage limitation' press release the same day, to avoid us making any capital out of it.
The trouble is that more and more evidence is being gathered highlighting the incompetence of everyone involved in this sorry saga.
It should have been hands up and apologies from the outset ... but they were too arrogant for that.
Now, it is likely that their deception is to go back to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State for a full investigation. If there is no satisfactory outcome then it is likely that the matter will end up in the High Court.

07/08/2006 For Immediate Release

SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT - REFUNDS TO MOTORISTS

SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL has repaid more than £57,000 to motorists who were issued with a parking ticket incorrectly. The Council has decided that any monies that have not been able to be refunded, after making reasonable efforts to do so, will be donated to a charity connected with road safety.

This follows an initial audit of all existing traffic orders, lines and signs which was undertaken throughout the City to establish their eligibility for enforcement.

Some locations were identified where discrepancies were found either in the descriptions within the traffic order or signs and lines out on site that may be adjudged to have misled the public.
In these circumstances, where Penalty Charge Notices (PCN's) have been incorrectly issued, the Council has refunded £57,632.79 to date to motorists. A further £6,302.40 has been identified as yet to be refunded and efforts are being made to trace the motorists concerned.

Remedial works have now been undertaken at these locations to ensure compliance. Detailed checks of the parking and waiting restrictions will be ongoing and if further discrepancies are identified then the Council will take similar action.

Drivers take action over 'illegal' tickets

Northampton Today
07th August 06



Group of motorists present borough council with a legal writ



MOTORISTS have served a writ against Northampton Borough Council demanding they pay back millions of pounds collected from allegedly invalid parking fines.
The group claim parking tickets issued by borough council wardens omit the date of issue and the date of the contravention, both of which are needed for them to comply with the relevant Road Traffic Act.
They have been emboldened by last week's High Court ruling of Justice Rupert Jackson in a similar matter which went against Barnet Council.
The court ruled that the tickets issued without dates were invalid, which can now be considered in parking fine appeals.
A legal notice was handed to Northampton Borough Council legal officers at the Guildhall on Friday by group member John Stanton of Glasgow Street, St James.Mr Stanton said: "The council has been warned before by the National Parking Adjudication Service when they sent a memo to all councils last May saying that if they did not comply, each did so at its own risk
"Northampton Borough Council, even though they have been warned by NPAS and have been emailed by us, have buried their heads in the sand and continued to issue what we see as illegal parking tickets.
"Now the Barnet Council case has set a legal precedent, I think it gives us a much better chance of getting Northampton Borough Council to admit they have been wrong.
"We estimate the borough council must have issued several million tickets without these proper dates on and our ultimate aim would be to claim that back."
The writ gives the borough council legal department 18 days to respond to the claims before the group attempt to start legal proceedings.
Mr Stanton told the Chronicle & Echo he would be willing to see the matter through to the courts.
A spokeswoman for the borough council confirmed that a member of the borough council legal department had received the writ from Mr Stanton on Friday.
nick.spoors@northantsnews.co.uk

High Court Parking Ticket Victory for Motorists

High Court Parking Ticket Victory for Motorists
AppealNow.com’s claim that Barnet and other council’s parking tickets are invalid upheld by the High Court.
“I expect to uncover more illegal parking tickets – Millions of pounds are involved” says AppealNow.com’s founder, Barrie Segal.


Motorists being fleeced for millions of pounds

Barnet Council’s parking tickets were judged to be invalid in a landmark case decided in the High Court today.

Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue.

In the case of Hugh Moses – v - Barnet, Barrie Segal the founder of www.AppealNow.com™, represented Mr. Moses at the Parking Adjudicator and challenged the validity of Barnet Council’s parking tickets on the grounds that they did not have a date of issue. Two separate Parking Adjudicators upheld Mr. Segal’s argument and agreed that Barnet Council’s parking tickets were invalid.

Barnet Council took the matter to the High Court and challenged the decisions.

Today’s test case decision by Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue. He also said that any parking ticket needs those two dates to be valid.

Barrie of www.AppealNow.com™, who has also successfully challenged the validity of parking tickets of Lambeth and Tower Hamlets says “This is a stunning victory for motorists who have had to put for years with arrogant councils whose parking tickets were invalid. Barnet Council is the worst council - they have even sent bailiffs in to repossess and sell the car of a blue badge driver, all based on these illegally issued parking tickets.

This legal precedent also in my view opens up a huge problems for Councils all over the UK”

Says Barrie “Parking tickets have to comply with a strict legal requirement. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the date of issue, amongst other things, must be shown on the parking ticket. In the Barnet and other cases it was not.

I have previously told the Chief Parking Adjudicator in London, the National Parking Appeals Service and the Scottish Appeals Service that in the interests of justice all adjudicators must consider the validity of the parking ticket when the make their decision. The fact that Parking Adjudicators have not done this as a matter of course is unacceptable.. Following this decision they will have no choice.


END