Herron and Segal on TalkSPORT tonight

It's a bit short notice but the Mike Dickin programme on TalkSPORT has been moved forward a day, so we are on the airwaves tonight at 11pm until 1am.
Parking is the topic and it is expected that the lines will be red hot.

Monday is the day of the BBC documentary 'Inside Out' which unravels the Sunderland Parking shambles. The contents are rumoured to be explosive, and filming has taken place over the last six months.
Although it is a BBC North East production it will be available on the digital channels across the country. More info when we have it.

NPAS Hearing to go ahead

Post has arrived this morning indicating that the hearing Herron v City of Sunderland is to go ahead on 3rd October 2006.

"The Adjudicator has confirmed that he will proceed with the hearing of your appeals as scheduled. The Adjudicator will deal with any further representations in relation to the adjournment of any of these cases at the hearing, which will enable him, if he decides that any adjournment is required, to give appropriate directions to the parties for the future conduct of thses appeals."

Location is Sunderland Central Libray, Fawcett Street. Time listed as 12.30pm. Everyone is welcome as it is a public hearing (it is seconds walk away from the Sunderland Central Metro Station).

NPAS Hearing getting closer ...

...and still no news regarding the adjournment.

26 PCNs to be contested on 3rd October with a full day set aside for my case. It is going to be a very interesting day indeed ... if it takes place. In light of the fact that Sunderland City Council have, and this is unprecedented for a parking ticket appeal, instructed Stephen Sauvain QC to present their case, I requested an adjournment. Although my case is watertight, if they were going to come in with the big guns it would be useful to throw NPAS into the spotlight as well and have an examination of their operation in tyhe public domain before distinguished council (who coincidentally is also based in Manchester, his offices some 800 yards from the offices of NPAS).

There are so many 'funny little coincidences.'

Such as the reports published by Professor Raine of Birmingham University which patted the parking industry on the back. 'Local Authority Parking Enforcement...Defining Quality - Raising Standards' was sponsored by NCP Ltd. the biggest player in the parking industry. In their press release NCP refer to the 'independent report.'
If the NPAS is supposed to be regarded as independent and impartial then do you really think that the Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard should be on the steering group? Especially as the steering group also had the Gary Griffiths (Head of Parking Services for Islington), Ian Kavanagh and Tony Sedgwick (the Director of On Street operations and Director of Research respectively for NCP), Nick Lester (Director of TEP on the Association of London Government...who fund PATAS from subscriptions from the 33 London Boroughs) and Andy Vaughan (Head of On Street Management, Manchester City Council).

Forget to mention that Caroline Sheppard is a Birmingham University alumni.

...and that Manchester City Council were still using non-compliant PCNs until a few weeks ago (awaiting confirmation that they have changed them) and they had not been picked up by the adjudicators (awaiting confirmation of all Manchester's recent appeals to NPAS.

...and did you know that Richard Paver is the guy who signs off the NPAS accounts as their Treasurer. If you click here you will see who Richard works for in his other job.

"As an independent tribunal, the National Parking Adjudication Service cannot offer advice to appellants or councils on the merits of individual cases."...front page of the NPAS website.

Are you now starting to get the picture that NPAS may be breaching Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights?

We are only just scratching the surface. There is a great deal more that we have and some very kind individuals in Local Authorities and in some of the big enforcement contractors starting to 'whistleblow.' Anyone else wishing to pass on information please drop us a line anonymously if you like.

Back to this report ... paid for by NCP Ltd. ...would you believe that Sunderland was one of the six local authorities that they examined in detail (along with Manchester, Hammersmith and Fulham, Weymouth and Portland, Winchester, Cambridge).
They were chosen because of "their reputations for good practice." Oh really?
Wonder if they spoke to the officers in Sunderland who are no longer in post?
Wonder if they checked the validity of the PCNs or the TROs...of course they didn't.

Decriminilsed Parking Enforcement is most certainly an 'industry' and everyone benefiting from the £1.2 bn a year that it produces is incestuously related.

Knowledge is a dangerous thing. Will they dare continue with the hearing?

My witness requests went out some time ago in relation to Caroline Sheppard and Andrew Barfoot of NPAS, and this week (giving 7 days notice to Sunderland Council Officers).

If the hearing goes ahead and they do not turn up then I will ask the adjudicator to invoke

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 1918
The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Power to require attendance of witnesses
6. - (1) The adjudicator may require the attendance of any person (including a party to the proceedings) as a witness, at a time and place specified by him, at the hearing of an appeal and require him to answer any questions or produce any documents in his custody or control which relate to any matter in the proceedings.

(2) Every document containing a requirement under paragraph (1) shall contain a reference to the fact that, under Section 73(14) of the Act any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with this requirement shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine, and the document shall state the amount of the current maximum fine.

(3) A person in respect of whom a requirement has been made under paragraph (1) may apply to the adjudicator to vary or set aside the requirement.

(4) A person shall not be bound to comply with a requirement under paragraph (1) unless he has been given at least 7 days' notice of the hearing or, if less than 7 days, he has informed the adjudicator that he accepts such notice as he has been given.

(5) A person other than an appellant shall not be bound to comply with the requirement under paragraph (1) unless the necessary expenses of his attendance are paid or tendered to him.

(6) No person shall be required to give any evidence or produce any document under paragraph (1) which he could not be required to give or produce on the trial of an action in a court of law.

I am looking forward to Tuesday ;-)

Michael Watson FOI request Sunderland City Council

1st FOI request

Ticket Date Row

Carmarthen Journal
27th September 06
Mary Vancura

news@carmarthenjournal.co.uk

The manager of a Carmarthen taxi firm claims parking tickets issued by Carmarthenshire Council are invalid.
Steve Dunn, of Steve's Taxis, noticed that penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the council lack a date of contravention, as well as a date and time of notice.
The scrutiny of the tickets comes following a crucial court ruling on August 2, in the London borough of Barnet.
As the date of contravention and date of issue are not always the same, the judge ruled that those PCNs only offering a single date are invalid, as, under Section 66 (3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act, they must show the specific date of the parking offence.
Mr Dunn says that this has huge implications for Carmarthenshire Council, as it has had for other councils around the country - all of which were issued with information on the problem years before it ever went to court.
"After the ruling in August, some boroughs and counties stopped issuing tickets because they knew that they didn't comply with the ruling," he said.
"Carmarthenshire Council is still issuing tickets with just a date of issue on them, which makes them invalid. Everyone who has paid one of these tickets is technically entitled to their money back."
After consulting Neil Herron, a Sunderland-based parking ticket expert, Mr Dunn sent a comprehensive email to Carmarthenshire's head of transport, Trevor Sage, detailing the ruling and asking for a response.
Carmarthenshire Council transport manager Stephen Pilliner said: "The issue has arisen from a specific court case covering the issue of an enforcement notice detected by CCTV.
"The council is satisfied that the processes and procedures relating to the issue of PCNs are undertaken in accordance with the law."

London Borough of Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator

Judge Jackson's Ruling: Moses v Barnet can be seen in full on the link below

Read it here

BBC Whistleblower Bailiff's Programme

At debt's door

BBC News - UK... courts, local authorities, landlords and sometimes direct from companies for failure to pay everything from council tax and parking fines to unpaid bills.

...See all stories on this topic

Drivers challenge spy camera law

Guardian Unlimited

Two motorists say human rights are being breached - and their case in Strasbourg this week could affect millions

Mark Townsend,
legal affairs correspondent
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer

The controversy over speed cameras will be reignited this week with a legal challenge that could overturn the government's ability to raise millions of pounds in traffic fines each year.

The European Court in Strasbourg will hear evidence that UK motorists' rights are being undermined by anti-speeding laws. Senior human rights judges will be told that existing laws - which require vehicle owners to disclose who was driving at the time the vehicle was pictured by a speed camera - breach a fundamental tenet of British justice, namely the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

If the challenge, brought by the human rights group Liberty against the British government, is successful then it would seriously impair the usefulness of Britain's 6,000 roadside cameras in catching speeding motorists. Lawyers for Liberty claim that an individual's 'right to silence' is a vital cornerstone of the law.

Last year, 2 million drivers were caught by speed cameras, resulting in fines of around £120m. Campaigners claim many drivers are penalised for momentary lapses of concentration and that the sums generated by speed camera fines are essentially a 'hidden tax' against Britain's 34 million motorists.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'This is a high-profile, important case whose outcome may affect millions [of people].'

At the hearing on Wednesday, 17 judges inside the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will be told that motorists caught speeding by camera have an expectation to be protected by their right to silence.

The case centres on two motorists who objected to their fines. Judges will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area in Surrey in June 2001.

Francis, a retired company director of West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was driving and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points. He complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.

His 1938 Alvis Speed 25, which was caught on the speed camera, has appeared in the Ruth Rendell Mysteries television series and was driven by Nigel Havers in The Charmer. Whether Francis will drive it to Strasbourg for this week's hearing has yet to be decided.

The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit restricted vehicles to 40mph. He later tried to have his statement excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points.

O'Halloran claims that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said it was essential that the laws were clarified to protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Welch added: 'Clearly there is no human right which allows drivers to travel over legal speed limits.
'Rather, the principle we are defending is that no one should be forced to convict himself by his own mouth under threat of criminal sanction. Unless we are willing to overlook 300 years of common law, motorists too must have a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty'.'

Campaigners argue that the UK is one of the most difficult countries in Europe in which to maintain a clean driving licence. Nearly a million motorists are on the brink of a ban because they have racked up penalty points, a recent study found. Experts predict that if the challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is successful, the police's power to use cameras to catch speeding drivers will be severely curtailed.

QC instructed for NPAS hearing

In an act of desperation Sunderland City Council have instructed QC Stephen Sauvain to present their case to the National Parking Adjudication Service.The appellant is parking campaigner Neil Herron who has attempted to get evidence before NPAS for two years to expose the illegality of the Sunderland DPE scheme. A detailed background can be seen below but the crux of the case rests on the fact that Sunderland do not have a Traffic Regulation Order for their CPZ / CPZ signs and therefore all the streets within the CPZ are incorrectly signed. Add this to the total shambles surrounding the rest of the lines, signs and TROs and the invalid paperwork it appears that the full day set aside for the hearing will be an entertaining one indeed.

The hearing on 3rd October is open to the public and Herron has already requested witnesses, including Head of Parking Services, the Director of Development and Regeneration and Head of Parking Services. The other witnesses will be a bit more reluctant having 'resigned' from the Council.

On the rather important point of the Article 6(1) breach by NPAS over their lack of independence and impartiality witnesses will also be called. They will include Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard, Tribunals Manager Andrew Barfoot and NPAS Joint Committee representative Joe Lawson.

The timing of the tribunal is most fortunate. The 3rd October is the day after the explosive BBC 'Inside Out' documentary which blows the lid on Sunderland's Parking regime.

My request for an adjournment has been denied...by Caroline Sheppard. You can read the background as to why Ms Sheppard should not really be influencing proceedings here

Mr. Sauvain QC is going to be well worth his brief fee, rumoured to be between £6,000 and £9,000 a day.

It has cost Sunderland over £60,000 in refunds to date. Is this their last roll of a very expensive dice?

Driver's £18,500 bill for ignoring parking fines

Daily Telegraph
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 15/09/2006)

A single mother of four whose friends told her that she did not have to bother paying parking fines has been left with a bill of £18,500.
Roma Wheldon managed to get 120 parking tickets in two years. Her friends told her that the authorities never bothered to chase up unpaid fines and so she stuffed them all in a bin and forgot about them. However, far from forgetting about the £60 fines, Southend council put a debt collection agency and bailiffs on the case and presented Miss Wheldon, 35, with the huge bill, telling her to pay up or face prison.
Fortunately for her, her grandfather, parents and brother have paid off £12,500 of the debt, which includes £10,000 in bailiffs' fees.
That leaves Miss Wheldon owing £6,000, which she has agreed to pay off at £100 a month.

National Parking Adjudication Service refuse an Adjournment...The plot thickens

A full days hearing has been listed for 3rd October 2006 for my PCN appeals against Sunderland City Council.

I received notification back in August, but expectations were not high after 85 previous PCNs were either cancelled or 'no contested' by the City Council who appeared desperate to avoid any public exposure of their flawed regime.

In a nutshell they had been caught out issuing PCNs where they had no legal right to do so. They had lied to the Department for Transport on such a scale that it makes Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken look like Ghandi and Mother Theresa.
They had given 'reassurances' that all their signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders would be 'correct and in force' by the commencement of DPE on 3rd February 2003. Not only did they not act ... at all ... on the £60,000 Consultants detailed report of their failings, some three years later it still wasn't correct. Over 350 TROs have been adjusted / amended / corrected. They told the DfT that there would be none by Feb 2003!!!

On top of that they issued 75,000 non-compliant PCNs.

They received the NPAS Circular regarding the Bury Judgment highlighting the fact that Local Authorities need check their PCNs back in May 2005. Legal advice came from the Assistant City Solicitor to 'change the PCN wording immediately.' NCP (the contractors) were told on 16th June 2005. They did not alter the PCNs until 30th November 2005 after knowingly issuing over 12,000 non-compliant PCNs.

The next potential batch of my PCNs to go to appeal were suddenly cancelled after the Council got wind of the Aylesbury Vale v Lukha decision. All my Notices of Rejection were non-compliant so my NPAS appeals were dropped.

The crux of the case, as well as the big picture ... Bill of Rights Defence / Lack of Independence and Impartiality of NPAS therefore invoking the Article 6(1) ECHR Defence, was that Sunderland City Council did not have a TRO for the CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) which meant that the on-street signage was incorrect.

They simply stuck signs up to indicate the boundaries of the CPZ. No consultation. No TRO. In fact they cannot even recall when they erected them!
The legislation is clear and states that a TRO is required for the sign.
A recent NPAS ruling between Green v Sunderland City Council won on this precise point.

However, as the stakes are a lot higher should I win on such a point that on 20th September I received notification that Sunderland had instructed none other than Stephen Sauvain QC to state their case.
NPAS confirmed that this was unprecedented. After all, they bill their adjudications as informal tribunals. No other local authority has instructed a QC for a single parking ticket case.

However, the fact that they had instructed a QC meant that an adjournment would be necessary in order for me to prepare a detailed case and instruct counsel and retain expert witnesses in order to give evidence. The request went in to NPAS.

NPAS declined my request. Not unusual except that Sunderland had stated in a letter to me that they wanted sight of my defence in advance otherwise they would have to insist on an adjournment.

So I rang NPAS. They told me that the Chief Adjudicator had made the decision. Caroline Sheppard, the Chief Adjudicator had made the decision. Caroline Sheppard after the previous telephone incident ( click here to understand how many careers are at stake) stated that " I can assure you that if you decide to lodge an appeal against any or all of the PCNs you are disputing with Sunderland Council the individuals involved in the conversations you overheard will take no part in the adjudication or adminstration of your case.

Seems funny that Ms Sheppard now wishes to deny me an adjournment in order to fully prepare a case against Sunderland's QC.
Seems like we have another David against Goliath struggle.

It would be nice to see the case go ahead on the 3rd as the BBC are running their half hour documentary on the Sunderland / NCP operation which promises to pull no punches.

Let us see if my witness orders against Ms Sheppard, Mr. Barfoot and a number of Sunderland City Council employees are also declined.

Meanwhile, anybody wishing to attend what will be a most illuminating spectacle can contact me by e-mail and I will keep everyone posted of developments. We would like a good crowd present as the argument will also see the independence and impartiality of NPAS exposed, including:

- the financial relationship between the 'independent' adjudicator and Manchester City Council and the involvement of the Council'sTreasurer and NPAS Capital Reserves and where they were held (oh, and by the way, Manchester City Council are only just in the process of changing their PCN s to make them compliant despite the NPAS Circular last year and despite adjudicators finding in favour of the council ... numbers to be released soon)

- the Pension Funds of NPAS employees being held in Tameside Council's Pension Fund. Independent?

- the Birmingham University Report compiled by Professor Raine and referrred to in the NPAS Annual Report was commissioned by NCP ! And Ms Sheppard is also a Birmingham University alumni.

That gives a taster of what is to come but suffice to say that this is the adjudicfation hearing that the adjudicators do not want to hear. Sunderland is the Council that the Department for Transport does not want investigating because it will expose the fact that there were no checks ever conducted and that a Local Authority could simply create a DPE regime on a false premise and fleece the motoring public with impunity ... or so they thought.

Well, let us see how the establishment come together to protect their own and prevent the first major domino from falling. If it does go then be ready for the rest to follow.

The National Parking Adjudication Service are aware that they are not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and fall foul of the Article 6(1) point that they are an independent and impartial tribunal. Adjudicators appointed by the Joint Committee comprising of Local Authority members participating in DPE. Funding at the rate of 55p per PCN. Appeals in favour of local authorities despite the MacArthur v Bury ruling. Adjudicators not trained to check PCNs or TROs and other paperwork.

Decriminalised Parking is collapsing around the country and there is no respect at all from the public. It is only a matter of time.

Time for David to slay Goliath again

Daily Express
Frederick Forsyth
Friday 22nd September 06

Whether the biblical tale of tiny David taking on the massive Goliath at his own game and beating him is only a myth, the British have long had a soft spot for the Davids of this world - the underdogs who take on the mighty Establishment with all its power and increasingly arbitary and ruthless privileges.

Such a man is pensioner Robin de Crittenden, who has been syudying the actual text of the fundamental pillar of our constitution, the Bill of Rights of 1689. So far as I know, no one even dares deny the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights - the unrepealed guarantor of all our basic freedoms - but no one ever reads it.

Specifically, Mr de Crittenden claims it absolutely forbids the punishment of a British citizen who has refused to plead guilty until and unless he has been found guilty by a court of law. It sounds simple but if true the implications are huge.

His particular issue is a parking fine, a small enough matter but the point is this: if what he claims is true, then on-the-spot fines are not lawful, whether for a parking infraction or for selling a T-shirt with the logo "B****cks to Blair" (stallholder fined £80 by a single police constable under the Public Order Act).

In Mr de Crittenden's case, the parking arbitration tribunal got worried enough to cancel his fine. But he proceeded anyway on the grounds that an administrative tribunal is not a court of law and had no right to fine him or pardon him. At the High Court he was rebuffed (totally predictable) by Mr Justice Collins, so he is trying to raise the funds to go to Appeal Court.

The thing is: our increasingly arrogant Establishment in the form of central government, local government, bossy PCs with no training in the law and unelected quangos make millions a year by slapping down on-the-spot fines - whether the victim pleads guilty or not.

But suppose Collins is wrong and the lone pensioner right? Suppose the Bill of Rights really forbids punishment (and a fine is punishment) without an admission of guilt or a trial? The money-grubbers in office over us would be up a creek.

What about all those automatic parking/speeding fines? What about the massive fines imposed on small businessmen by super-quangos for non-compliance with obscure rules that they simply made up? All illegal? Possibly.

Of course, there are many who now say the judiciary is so bloated with its power that it already has sold the pass and will always find for the Establishment against the little man; that the judges will find for the foreign terrorist under the Human Rights Act but deny the terms of the Bill of Rights when it is invoked by a Britisher.

What a dreadful thing to say. But is it true? Will the Court of Appeal crush David like a Goliath?

Another headline...another case of injustice

In this instance, people were targeted for not parking 'straight' in the bays. There are many who are fuming so we told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph we would join them up in a class action.
Read the story in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph below:

Campaigner targets NCP 'victims'

This Is Lancashire -
Blackburn,England,

Fine-buster Neil Herron has urged all drivers who were ticketed on the free-to-park Peel leisure and retail park, Lower Audley Street, Blackburn, to send him ...

Manchester Parking News

In advance of the big Manchester story breaking, which will effectively create a parking amnesty for motorists until Manchester City Council and surrounding local authorities correct their tickets, here are a few of the Manchester Evening News' parking headlines.

17/11/04
Parking ticket misery for Christmas traders
Full story




8/10/04
U-turn over wardens' 'cash for tickets deal'
Full story






9/05/03
Traffic warden's 101 tickets blitz
Full story




30/12/02
Parking wardens target 'cheats'
Full story





27/08/03
Wardens 'cancel tickets for pals'
Full story



5/10/05
Town's parking ticket 'blunder'
Full story




6/12/05
Parking gaffe may cost town hall dear
Full story




Another fine mess for blundering wardens
Full story


30/08/06
Tickets battle over 'ideal' parking spot
Full story





17/03/03
Yellow line that wasn't the ticket
Full story

Barnet Judicial PCN Review

Doormat ban...at what point are people going to say 'no more?'

There will come a point where you are going to be fined for walking on the cracks in the pavement or wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
The story below is an example of what happens if you do not stand up to the absurdity of petty officialdom.
If I was a tenant in one of these properties I would make a point of joining with all the others in buying new doormats for the property and then reporting my neighbour. Give them a hundred complaints and a hundred cases to take action against. Big story for the local press which will then go national and the council (who actually work for the people they are targeting and seem to have forgotten that a long time ago) will be forced to back down or face ridicule.
Then, should any other petty official consider doing something similar he may have second thoughts.

Council bosses ban 'safety hazard' doormats
13th September 2006

The doormat: A danger to your health?
It has no sharp edges and contains no electrical wires. But health and safety officials have launched a crackdown on what they say is the latest dangerous item of homeware - the doormat. More commonly associated with the humble role of being somewhere for visitors to wipe their feet, council chiefs have raised the mat's status to that of 'tripping hazard'.
Now they have banned the floor furnishing and ordered tenants to remove the offending items or risk having them taken away.
But residents who have received the ultimatum dismissed the idea as "ludicrous".
Bristol City Council sent a letter entitled "Health and Safety Issues - Hazardous Mats" to thousands of tenants living in flats and high-rise blocks.
It reads: "During a routine Health and Safety inspection of the block, it was noted that loose mats were present in hallways/corridors outside of people's flats.
"These represent a 'tripping hazard' and should be removed immediately. By all means have your own mats inside your front door but please do not leave them outside, creating a risk to others.
"Therefore, I am requesting that if you have a mat outside, it is removed by September 18th. Any mat remaining in the hallways/corridors after this date will be removed and subsequently disposed of."
The order has been dismissed by residents as the latest example of over-zealousness among health and safety executives.
Retired gardener Roger Perry, 62, said he had no intention of giving up his door mat. He said: "This is absolutely ludicrous. The council says mats are a hazard - god only knows how. I've lived here 13 years and never heard of any accidents.
"It's like Big Brother watching us. I'm keeping mine here to see what they do. It only cost a couple of quid, but if they take it, that's theft."
His neighbour, Albert Peacock, 82, said: "I'm not moving my mat for anybody - it's a non-slip mat.
"I bought it for my home like everyone else and it's staying. It's our responsibility to keep the corridor outside tidy and our front doors clean.
"If the council are worried about people tripping, they should concentrate on mending the pavements."
Tory councillor Mark Weston said the policy was "ridiculous" and "a total waste of time and resources".
But Bristol City Council insisted doormats could pose a hazard if there was a need to evacuate a council-owned building.
A spokeswoman said: "We know that asking people to remove mats is not popular, but it is important that corridors in council properties are kept clear, as they are a means of escape from fire.
"Mats are a trip hazard, particularly as many properties are occupied by older people or people with disabilities.
"This is not a new policy, it has been around for the last 20 years at least - but on a recent inspection we noticed some mats had crept back so we've reminded tenants to remove them."

Clacton on Sea? Non compliant parking tickets to cause fine mess for Tendring Council

A little problem in Clacton-on-Sea with their incorrectly worded parking tickets

xxx xxxxxx
Head of Service
Parking Services
Tendring District Council
PO Box 8259
Clacton-on-Sea
Essex
CO15 6WZ

13th October 2006

Dear Mr. xxxxxx,


I have been forwarded a Tendring District Council Penalty Charge Notice and it appears to have been confirmed following a telephone conversation with xxxxx xxxx at 10.10am today that there is no date of issue on the Tendring District Council PCN.

I wish to put you on notice that as Tendring District Council's PCNs do not have a 'Date of Notice' (or Date of Issue) in the main body of the PCN as well as the date and time of contravention then it is the case that the Penalty Charge Notices do not comply with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and I 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 as a matter of urgency that Tendring District Council's PCNs are non-compliant and that you will suspend enforcement of its DPE regime forthwith until your PCNs have been made compliant?

2. Can you confirm that Tendring District Council will not pursue ANY outstanding PCNs (and Notice to Owners, Notices of Rejection, Charge Certificates and Warrants) which are incorrectly worded and will withdraw any bailiff's actions?

3. Please confirm the date Tendring District Council received the National Parking Adjudication Service Circular MacArthur v Bury (BC 188) regarding the wording of PCNs and please explain why the PCNs were not altered then and the contents of the circular not acted upon?

4. What does Tendring District Council intend to do with regard to non-compliant PCNs issued which have already 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 Tendring District 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 Tendring District 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 Tendring District Council since the inception of DPE?

9. Can you please indicate the council officer / officers responsible for signing the Global Certificates or 'statements of truth' that accompany the documentation passed to Northampton County Court Traffic Enforcement Centre?

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, and will expect this matter to require further detailed internal and external investigation

Please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to elected members and the Chief Executive and can you please furnish me with the contact details for the District Auditor responsible for the Tendring District Council accounts.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045

Another nail in Sunderland Council's Parking Coffin

It has always been intended to prove the illegality or non-compliance of Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime by exposing that there were no correct or valid Traffic Regulation Orders in force for the City Centre Controled Parking Zone.

Repeated attempts to get the matter before the National Parking Adjudication Service have failed as Sunderland repeatedly dropped cases before they got there.

Now, finally a case citing the CPZ issue has been heard and claimed that there were no valid CPZ signs. The adjudicator ruled thatSunderland Council have 'not proved their case.'

Whilst I appreciate the fact that each case is dealt with on a case by case basis and there are no precedents, the same defence anywhere for the City Centre CPZ will produce the same result.

Loooks like my next batch of pending cases ain't gonna get much further!

Westminster Parking Enforcement 'suspended.'

We have in our possession a letter from Westminster City Council (5th September 2006) confirming that they "have suspended action in all affected cases" (affected by the Barnet decision regarding the date of issue issue). "All challenges have been put on hold and no notices ( NtOs, NoR, Charge Certificates or Warrants) are currently being generated."

The questions that now have to be asked are:

(i) What is the total number and value ot PCNs currently put 'on hold'?

(ii) How many non-compliant PCNs have been issued following the initial advice in 2002 from ALGs Nick Lester?

It appears that the arrogance of Local Authorities and the belief that the law does not apply to them may well come back and bite them very hard.
It is clear from the advice now issued by ALGs Nick Lester is that 'you were told!' He is of course protecting his and the ALGs position.

As for NCP Ltd. ... they were aware on 16th June 2005 in Sunderland that the PCNs needed to be changed to include a Date of Issue. Why then did they not take matters seriously and act unilaterally across their contracts?

'Campaigner claims another victory.'

Campaigner claims another victory

Parking Ticket campaigner Neil Herron today hailed another victory for the motorist.
This time Manchester City Council have been found to have been issuing illegal tickets. They have yet to change the wording on their non-compliant parking tickets in an attempt to make them legal. Oldham Council however have quietly changed theirs but what is abhorrent however, is that they are still pursuing ones they know to be unlawful.
Manchester, home of the National Parking Adjudication Service has no excuse either.
By exposing this and alerting the motorists Oldham Council will be forced to admit that they cannot pursue any outsanding illegally worded PCNs. For Manchester they cannot continue enforcing until they change their PCNs.
What is now needed is a full investigation as to why advice they were given back in May 2005 was never acted upon, and why they got it so wrong in the first place.
The big question now is what about the PCNs which motorists paid believing them to be legal?
What happens to all those motorists pursued by bailiffs?
Nationally the figure could run into billions.
Many local authorities have seen Decriminalised Parking Enforcement as a cash cow and used it to supplement their budget but to the detriment of local businesses and motorists who are relentlessly pursued. Now many local authorities are getting a bloody nose after cutting corners on their legal responsibilities.
There are no excuses for highly paid public officials failure especially in light of all the national coverage, including a half hour Trevor McDonald special on the 'date of issue' issue alone.
Any tears they have will fall on stony ground.

Neil Herron
0191 565 7143
07776202045

Manchester City Council - DPE Questions

Graham Marsh
Parking Manager
Street Management and Parking Services
PO Box 585
Manchester
M60 3NZ

6th September 2006

Dear Mr Marsh,

I have just checked a Manchester City Council Penalty Charge Notice that you kindly forwarded to me on 9th May following a Freedom of Information request.
In a telephone call to you today you confirmed that there had been no alterations to the PCN and you were currently 'taking legal advice.'

If it is still the case that Manchester City Council's PCNs do not have a 'Date of Notice' (or Date of Issue) in the main body of the PCN as well as the date and time of contravention then it is the case that the Penalty Charge Notices do not comply with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act and I 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 Manchester City Council's PCNs are non-compliant and that you will suspend enforcement of its DPE regime forthwith?

2. Can you confirm that Manchester City Council will not pursue ANY outstanding PCNs which are incorrectly worded and will withdraw any bailiff's actions?

3. Please confirm the date Manchester 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 Manchester 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 Manchester 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 Manchester 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 Manchester City Council since the inception of DPE?

9. Can you confirm whether Manchester City Council hold, or have held any monies belonging to the National Parking Adjudication Service in any of its accounts ?

10. Can you please provide copies of all communications between Manchester City Council and the National Parking Adjudication Service and clarify any relationships between the City Treasurer and NPAS.

11. Can you please indicate the person responsible for signing the Global Certificates or 'statements of truth' that accompany the documentation passed to Northampton County Court Traffic Enforcement Centre?

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, and will expect this matter to require further detailed internal and external investigation

Please confirm receipt of this e-mail and confirm that a copy will be forwarded to elected members and the Chief Executive and can you please furnish me with the contact details for the District Auditor responsible for the Manchester City Council accounts.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143

copy to: Alan Salter, Manchester Evening News

Parking Tickets on Radio 4's You and Yours

The subject of Decriminalised Parking reared its head on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours last week.
If you missed it you can listen again here

Hundreds of millions to be written off in parking fines

It seems like the Association of London Government has realised the implications of non-compliant PCNs. Nick Lester is now hanging the 33 London Boroughs out to dry, saying that they were told about the non-compliant PCNs as far back as 2002.
The implications are enormous and will cost all Local Authorities across the country hundreds of millions.
Effectively, the decision in Moses v Barnet has meant that no local authority can pursue non-compliant PCNs. Parking Enforcement must now create 'Year Zero' and an amnesty for motorists. They cannot pursue non-compliant PCNs full stop, and that includes being forced to call off the bailiffs.


Item 20 Update on High Court Judgement in the case of LB Barnet vs Parking Adjudicator Report 14 Sept 200604/09/2006

This is a report for information to update the committee on the position for enforcing authorities following the High Court Judgement in the judicial review application lodged by the London Borough of Barnet against a Parking Adjudicator’s decision in the case of Moses. That decision found that the penalty charge notice was invalid because it failed to specify the date of issue.
Item 20 Update on High Court Judgement in case of LB Barnet vs Parking Adjudicator Report 14 Sept 06
Read it here

The ALG,
59½ Southwark Street,
London,
SE1 0AL
Tel: 020 7934 9999
e-mail: info@alg.gov.uk

Sam Stockman beats Havering Council

This case will have enormous implications. Local Authorities issuing non-compliant documentation will undoubtedly face legal challenges and could potentially be forced to refund millions.

Well done to Sam and Wayne Pendle.

Parking News

City faces roads revolt as parking chaos growsScotsman - United KingdomTHE council was today facing a revolt within days of introducing two new controlled parking zones. The tough measures have brought ...

Fury at parking fine appeal waitHendon & Finchley Times - Hendon,England,UKA pensioner who received a parking ticket for displaying her disabled badge back-to-front had to wait seven months for a response to her appeal after her six ...

Emergency city parking clampdownBBC News - UKAn emergency clampdown has been ordered by Edinburgh Council on 11 roads in the city after new parking restrictions caused traffic chaos.

Parking tickets 'invalid'This Is Lancashire - Blackburn,England,UKPARKING tickets issued in car parks by Bury Council have been declared "invalid" after a solicitor exposed they were incorrectly worded. ...See all stories on this topic

Suspended court staff charged with fraud

One of these was the Court Clerk during the Metric Martyrs' case in Sunderland and advised that the sitting bench of three lay magistrates wasn't able to hear the case. They were dismissed and District Judge Morgan was parachuted in from Walsall.


The Journal
Aug 23 2006
By Daniel Cochlin,

Three senior court employees were last night charged over allegations of fraud at Sunderland Magistrates' Court.

The trio, chief clerk Stephen Peter Rowbottom, principal administration manager Pamela Davison, and former deputy clerk Edmund Cleary, were suspended from their posts in March.
And following the five-month alleged fraud probe by the Department For Constitutional Affairs - the Government body which manages the country's magistrates - the trio were last night charged to appear in court.
Rowbottom, 49, of Morpeth, and Cleary, 58, of Washington, have been accused with misconduct in public office.
Crown Prosecution Service guidelines for magistrates say this charge refers to public officers who willfully neglect to perform their duty or willfully misconduct themselves, amounting to an abuse of the public's trust.

Davison, 54, of Murton, County Durham, has been charged with two counts of misconduct in public office, one of false accounting and three of "pushing false information".
None of the three was available for comment last night.

FULL STORY

Three top court officials charged
Five month investigation into fraud allegations
by Daniel Cochlin

Three senior court employees - including the chief clerk to the justices - were charged last night over allegations of fraud at Sunderland Magistrates' Court.

The trio, chief clerk Stephen Peter Rowbottom, principal administration manager Pamela Davison and former deputy clerk Edmund Cleary, were suspended from their posts in March.

And following the five-month investigation, the trio were last night charged with a string of offences. The three are believed to have been charged as part of an alleged fraud probe carried out by the Department For Constitutional Affairs - the Government body which manages the country's magistrates.

Rowbottom, 49, of Morpeth, and Cleary, 58, of Washington, have been accused of misconduct in public office.

Crown Prosecution Service guidelines for magistrates say this charge refers to public officers who willfully neglect to perform their duty or willfully misconduct themselves, amounting to an abuse of the public's trust. Davison, 54, of Murton, County Durham, has been charged with two counts of misconduct in public office, one of false accounting and three of "pushing false information".

All three have been bailed and will be appearing at court next month, although it is understood they will not be appearing at a court in the North-East because of their positions.

Rowbottom took over as Chief Clerk to the Justices when predecessor David Yorke left more than five years ago and Cleary, previously second in command, advised Sunderland magistrates from the early 1990s until he retired, following his suspension.

The clerk is usually a barrister or solicitor appointed to assist magistrates in court. Their duties include advising the magistrates on sentencing, and dealing with payments to the court. A Northumbria Police spokeswoman confirmed the three had been charged last night, and said they had been bailed to appear in court.

A spokeswoman for the Department For Constitutional Affairs refused to go into details about the allegations, saying only that they had been charged after an investigation into a "possible fraud".

Last night Rowbottom and Davison were unavailable for comment. Cleary declined to comment.

Bury Council's Groundhog Day...another Parking fiasco

It was some 18 months ago that Roger MacArthur exposed the illegality of his Local Authority's Penalty Charge Notices with a landmark ruling by the National Parking Adjudication Service.
You think that they would have regarded that as a shot across the proverbial but it seems not.
Back before the adjudicator with the tune from Britney Spears " Whoops I did it again" playing in the background they have just stepped in another elephant trap.

It looks like they dropped a clanger when they failed to correctly transpose their Off Street Parking Places Traffic Regulation Order. They had no power to enforce under decriminalised powers.

Read the latest nightmare from Bury here as reported in the Bury Times.

You would think that by now lessons would have been learned...but no. The statement below from the Council beggars belief.

Commenting on the latest case, a spokesman for Bury Council said: "Advice to date suggests that we should still enforce the Orders while the decision and the possible implications are being discussed."

I will drop in a request to the Council shortly. In Sunderland similar arrogance has resulted in staff rationalisation and a Department unable to function. Last week's Local government newspaper had five job vacancies for the department.
I am sure that there will a number of officials about to be Bury'd in other councils.

Torbay Council ... another council putting its hands up

In a conversation with Torbay Council's they confirmed the statement made below.
When I asked how they were going to tell the public that this was the case they asked if they could call back.
I am sure that there will be some who will ask whether the monies they have collected from PCNs they knew to be non-compliant will be refunded.
I await Mrs Hayman's call with eager anticipation.

Hi Neil
Torbay are on hold re undated PCN’s pre-28/11/05. They have confirmed today that ALL unpaid tickets from that time are held in abeyance – previously they were insisting only PCN’s directly appealed on the date issue would have action suspended.
Bill xxxx

Good evening Mr xxxx,

I have been asked by Bill Norman to respond to your recent communication re the councils position in respect of Parking Penalties issued prior to November 05 which did not specifically include the date of issue as recently considered by the High Court.

I can now confirm that the Council are putting on hold any such cases awaiting the final outcome of the judgement made in the High Court, details of how this decision impacts on those PCNs concerned are expected to be confirmed shortly so that Councils across the country can take the appropriate action.

Regards
Steve Hurley
Town Services Manager

Bill Ward

Mr Bill Norman
Director of Legal Services
Torbay


Dear Mr Norman

Further to this report from Brighton are we going to see any action about PCN’s issued in an illegal format up until 28/11/2005?
Clearly, as days since my first request pass, you are taking action to recover debts that you know are not legally recoverable.
I am adamant that I shall take this matter forward to the Local Government Ombudsman if I am further ignored on the subject.
Yours sincerely

William xxxx

Oldham MBC - DPE Questions and FOI Request

Parking Administration
PO Box 499
Oldham
OL1 9AA

6th September 2006

Dear Sir / Madam ,

I have just been forwarded an Oldham MBC Penalty Charge Notice. I wish to put you on notice that your Penalty Charge Notices do not appear to comply with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. I understand that the PCNs have been recently altered to make them compliant with the requirements of the Act. I wish to request that you confirm that you will not be pursuing any PCNs which are non-compliant.
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):

Further to my telephone call with Paul in Parking Services at 9.50am can you please confirm that Oldham MBC have changed the wording on their PCNs?
1. Can you advise the date that this alteration took place, the reasons for doing so and can you please provide a copy of both PCNs along with any communications regarding this matter?

2. Can you confirm that Oldham MBC will not pursue ANY outstanding PCNs which are incorrectly worded and will withdraw any bailiff's actions?

3. Please confirm the date Oldham MBC 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. Again, I would be grateful for all communications by Oldham Council officers on this matter?

4. Can you please indicate the number of PCNs issued and the amount of monies received AFTER the NPAS Circular was received?

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. What does Oldham MBC intend to do with regard to ALL non-compliant PCNs issued which have been paid: (i) since the inception of DPE and (ii) since the NPAS Circular?

7. Can you please advise as to the number of Oldham MBC PCNs that have gone before the National Parking Adjudication Service?

8. Do you intend to challenge the competence of the National Parking Adjudication Service who have similarly failed to identify the flaws in the Oldham MBC 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'?

9. Can you detail the amount of money paid to the National Parking Adjudication Service by Oldham MBC since the inception of DPE?

10. Can you please provide details of any communications from members of the public or any other source ( in addition to the NPAS Circular) which have advised Oldham MBC 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?

I appreciate the enormity of admitting that ALL outstanding unpaid, non-compliant PCNs cannot be pursued having been declared a nullity by the High Court but any attempt to continue to pursue motorists 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.
I would also be grateful if you could advise as to the Council Officer responsible for signing the Global Certificate or 'statement of truth' which accompanies the documentation presented to Northampton County Court Traffic Enforcement Centre and provide copies of all such documentation since the NPAS Circular.
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
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045

Speeding Test Case could see massive loss of revenue for speed camera partnerships

Idris' case will have massive implications for the speed camera industry. It will throw the onus on the Police having to prove their case and not simply rely on intimidating the Registered Keeper with the threat of fines and imprisonment.
Perhaps we will then get back to the proper policing of our roads with more vehicles being stopped for speeding rather than the remote policing cash-cow we have at the moment.


Speeding laws face human rights test
By Joshua Rozenberg,
Legal Editor(Filed: 04/09/2006)

Motorists' rights are being infringed by anti-speeding laws, senior human rights judges will be told at a hearing this month.The European Court in Strasbourg will examine section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to say who was driving at the time it was caught by a speed camera.

If the challenge is successful, it could punch a major hole in laws that raise millions of pounds in fines every year.

The court will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, a retired company director from West Meon, Hants, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area of Surrey in June 2001.

Francis refused to say who was driving the car and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points.The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car seen travelling at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit was 40mph.
He later tried to have his confession excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points.Francis complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.O'Halloran complains that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.
Both men claim there has been a breach of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence under Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

The two motorists are being represented by the human rights organisation

Liberty.law@telegraph.co.uk

Oldham Parking Ticket Amnesty imminent

As more and more local authorities across the country start to go into parking meltdown some are going to end up in more of a pickle than others.
Perhaps a quiet word to all Local Authority Parking Managers and councils who still think that they can treat the public with utter contempt and believe, in their own arrogant little way that the law does not apply to them...the game's up guys and you can do it the easy way or the hard way.
The easy way is to be open and up front. Admit the mistake by telling the press and inform them that there is to be an amnesty and that anyone with a non-compliant PCN will not be pursued.
The hard way is to believe that you can still collect monies and aggressively pursue motorists from tickets now declared a nullity by the High Court. Go down that route guys and rest assured the subsequent maladministration and misfeasance investigations that will follow will have you wishing you had done the decent thing in the first place.

Parking Administration
PO Box 499
Oldham
OL1 9AA

6th September 2006

Dear Sir / Madam ,

I have just been forwarded an Oldham MBC Penalty Charge Notice. I wish to put you on notice that your Penalty Charge Notices do not appear to comply with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. I understand that the PCNs have been recently altered to make them compliant with the requirements of the Act. I wish to request that you confirm that you will not be pursuing any PCNs which are non-compliant.

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):

Further to my telephone call with Paul in Parking Services at 9.50am can you please confirm that Oldham MBC have changed the wording on their PCNs?
1.Can you advise the date that this alteration took place, the reasons for doing so and can you please provide a copy of both PCNs along with any communications regarding this matter?
2.Can you confirm that Oldham MBC will not pursue ANY outstanding PCNs which are incorrectly worded and will withdraw any bailiff's actions?
3.Please confirm the date Oldham MBC 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. Again, I would be grateful for all communications by Oldham Council officers on this matter?
4. Can you please indicate the number of PCNs issued and the amount of monies received AFTER the NPAS Circular was received?
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. What does Oldham MBC intend to do with regard to ALL non-compliant PCNs issued which have been paid: (i) since the inception of DPE and (ii) since the NPAS Circular?
7. Can you please advise as to the number of Oldham MBC PCNs that have gone before the National Parking Adjudication Service?
8. Do you intend to challenge the competence of the National Parking Adjudication Service who have similarly failed to identify the flaws in the Oldham MBC 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'?
9. Can you detail the amount of money paid to the National Parking Adjudication Service by Oldham MBC since the inception of DPE?
10. Can you please provide details of any communications from members of the public or any other source ( in addition to the NPAS Circular) which have advised Oldham MBC 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?

I appreciate the enormity of admitting that ALL outstanding unpaid, non-compliant PCNs cannot be pursued having been declared a nullity by the High Court but any attempt to continue to pursue motorists 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.

I would also be grateful if you could advise as to the Council Officer responsible for signing the Global Certificate or 'statement of truth' which accompanies the documentation presented to Northampton County Court Traffic Enforcement Centre and provide copies of all such documentation since the NPAS Circular.
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
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045

Greater Manchester Parking Meltdown

More to come, but for the time being suffice to say that Manchester City Council, Trafford, Oldham and Bolton Councils are desperately seeking legal advice after being put on notice that they must either suspend their Decriminalsed Parking Enforcement regimes and inform everyone that they will not be pursuing illegally worded PCNs (in the areas where they are still using tickets without a date of issue) or, in areas where they have just quietly changed their tickets, inform everyone with a pending ticket that they will not be pursued.

I will be posting the notices that have been served on the respective local authorities tomorrow, but suffice to say that the legal departments will be working overtime the next few days.

Meanwhile, if you have a pending ticket in any of the areas mentioned ... check the wording and spread the word.

Liverpool to appeal Barnet JR Ruling

Council to appeal over ticket ruling
IC Liverpool
Aug 29 2006
By Larry Neild, Daily Post

LIVERPOOL City Council is considering a high court appeal to a ruling which could mean hundreds of parking tickets are invalid.
On August 2, a judge ruled that tickets issued by wardens across the country, including Liverpool, did not carry the correct information and should be annulled.
Liverpool city councillor Steve Radford then said parking fines given out to motorists could be invalid after the landmark court case in London.
Cllr Radford urged drivers given tickets by Liverpool traffic wardens since August 2 to appeal, although Liverpool has not changed the wording of tickets to comply with the court ruling.
Last night, Liverpool City Council chief executive Colin Hilton told Cllr Radford that the decision may now be challenged in the Court of Appeal.

Campaigners believe drivers who received penalty notices after the court's verdict should not have to pay them.
Last week, Liverpool council changed the type of ticket it uses to comply with the judge's ruling.
Neil Herron, who campaigns against parking regimes, said: "The judge said that every ticket requires a date of notice as well as a date and time of contravention. In Liverpool, the date of notice appeared separately on a tear-off slip.

"In effect, this means that any of these tickets issued after August 2 are annulled and people should not have to pay them."
Mr Hilton said he has asked the City Solicitor to provide information about the court ruling and the potential appeal.
Mr Hilton said: "The council would never knowingly ever pursue any unlawful action. We already fully comply with the requirements set down by the judge in his ruling."
Mr Hilton said there was no legal requirement to refund any penalty notices that had already been paid.
The court ruling in London involved a dispute between a motorist and Barnet council.
Cllr Radford said: "I believe this council is driving business away from the city by its enforcement policy. We should be encouraging people to enjoy the nightlife of the city, just like Manchester does with free on-street parking at night.

"The ruling as it stands is that tickets were wrongly issued and they should be cancelled."

Don't know your East from your West? That'll be £50 please

Will they pay back the motorists that they have already fleeced?
Camden again...
Daily Mail

Driver's anger at spy cars

If you thought that there was ever going to be a level playing field for the motorist ... think again!
The motorist is a soft target to be exploited.
REad the latest
Hornsey and Crouch End Journal

EU membership costs every Briton £873 a year

Just in case you didn't know.
But really, as more and more see the consequences of the free movement of people, the waste, the corruption and the lack of democratic accountability the penny, or rather 87,300 of them will start to drop.

Daily Mail
By JAMES CHAPMAN
Last updated at 22:00pm on 31st August 2006

Every man, woman and child is paying £873 a year for Britain to be a member of the European Union, according to a devastating new study.
An analysis of the price of EU membership has concluded combined direct and indirect costs will reach close to £100,000 a minute by next year.
The report, by the right-wing Bruges Group think-tank, is an attempt to conduct the cost-benefit analysis demanded by many MPs and peers since Britain joined the then European Economic Community in 1973.
Successive governments have refused to carry out such a study, arguing the benefits of membership are self-evident.
But the research published today concludes Britain has given nearly £200 billion to the EU since we joined and in 2007, British taxpayers will be forced to contribute £14.2 billion for membership.
That works out at a cost of £873 per year for every man, woman and child, it says.
Overall, the EU is costing the British economy £50.6 billion this year in both direct and indirect costs and by 2007 this will rise to £52.4 billion.
That means that by 2007 the cost will rise to nearly £100,000 per minute, the Bruges Group says.
United Kingdom Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten, author of the pamphlet, said: 'The question should not be whether we can afford to leave but how can we afford to stay in.'
Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group, which counts former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher as its honorary president, said: 'The cost per minute is an enormous sum. Over the course of a year the figure is shocking.
'To put it into perspective, just £1 billion will pay for 222,000 hip replacements, or 46,893 nurses, or 38,782 teachers, or 34,585 police officers.
'Imagine what we could do in Britain with the £50.6 billion that the EU costs us each year.' The pamphlet admitted calculating the cost of EU membership was 'not easy', but insisted 'conservative estimates' had been made where exact costs were not known.
Britain's direct annual contribution to the EU budget will be £4.7 billion and will rise year on year to 2013, it said.
However, some of the money we pay to the overseas aid budget is not included in the normal budget figures.
The Common Agricultural Policy is identified as a big indirect cost of membership. The CAP ensures that the French, who benefit most from lavish subsidies to their farmers, get back 98 per cent of their total contributions to the EU budget.
The CAP, the report says, costs a British family of four an additional £20 on their weekly food bill - or £1,000 per year. About half of this is made up of higher taxes in order to subsidise farmers, and half through higher food bills compared to what we would pay for the same food on the world market.
The Common Fisheries Policy, meanwhile, which has allowed EU fleets to ravage Britain's formerly fertile fishing grounds, costs at least £1 billion a year to Britain in lost jobs and reduced catches.
The tide of regulations from the EU is also costing business dear, the report says.
It is now estimated that 70 per cent of Britain's new laws now emanate from Brussels, and complying with them al has a direct effect and cost for government, private organisations and business. Costs are also passed on to the consumer.
Holland has estimated that the cost of EU over-regulation is about two per cent of its national income. On the same basis, the cost to Britain is £20 billion a year.

Liverpool City Council's Unlawful Parking Tickets

On 23rd August 2006 Liverpool City Council were hit with the following:

Nicola Stockton
Parking Services Supervisor
Liverpool City Council

Dear Nicola,

Thank you for returning my telephone call.

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

Can you please confirm the date that Liverpool City Council became aware that the Penalty Charge Notices they were issuing were non-compliant?

Please confirm the date Liverpool 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?

Can you please provide a copy of the e-mail you referred to in the telephone conversation referring to the recent High Court decision in Moses v Barnet before Justice Jackson (2nd August 2006)?

Can you please confirm that Liverpool City Council will not and can not legally pursue any non-compliant PCNs?

Can you please confirm that all DPE enforcement activity will be suspended until the PCNs are made compliant with the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act...ie. to include both a date of notice (or date of issue) and the date and time of contravention?

Can you please detail the number and value of PCNs issued by Liverpool City Council since the inception of DPE breaking it down by financial year?

What does Liverpool City Council intend to do with regard to non-compliant PCNs issued which have been paid?

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 illegal documents is a very serious matter indeed and may lead to formal complaints of Misfeasance of Public Office being made to the Police.

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.

Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143

Cleveland Speeding Cases...Thousands of Miscarriages of Justice

Advice coming from the Cleveland Magistrates Court is to 'get a solicitor.'
Rather than Cleveland Police voluntarily refunding all motorists wrongly convicted it appears as though everyone is going to have to stake their own claim.

Read the press reports here and here on how Dr. William Dehany won an appeal against a speeding conviction based on the fact the Cleveland Police Notices of Intended Prosecution were incorrectly worded.

Useful legislation is highlighted below:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (c. 35)
1995 Chapter 35 - continued

PART III

OTHER PROVISIONS

Powers of magistrates' courts to rectify mistakes
Extension of power of courts in England and Wales.
26. - (1) Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (power of magistrates' courts to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (power, subject to subsection (4), to vary or rescind a sentence or other order), for the words from the beginning to "offender;" substitute "A magistrates' court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so;".


Magistrates Court Act 1980

142. Power of magistrates' court to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc.
(1) A magistrates' court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make.
(2) Where a person is convicted by a magistrates' court and it subsequently appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice that the case should be heard again by different justices, the court may so direct.