Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Milton Keynes News
by Craig Lewis
Hundreds of drivers could be let off their parking fines on a legal technicality.
The council could lose out on tens of thousands of pounds of parking revenue as a result of a decision by the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS).
Anyone caught parking illegally is subject to a £60 fine, halved to £30 if paid within 14 days.
This means if 500 tickets have to be scrapped the council will lose out on £30,000.
NPAS’ ruling came about after a London motorist took Barnet Council to court over a parking ticket as there was uncertainty if the date of issue was the same as the date of the contravention.
The court ruled that in the future tickets must include both dates and that outstanding tickets which didn’t would be invalid.
NPAS decided that if anyone challenged a ticket that didn’t include both dates it would rule in favour of the individual and not the issuing authority.
Any tickets already paid would not have to be re-visited as liability has already been admitted.
Officers in Milton Keynes Council’s parking department were hopeful the decision would not apply to the city.
Parking regulations in MK start at 6am and finish at 6pm, meaning there is no chance of the date of contravention being different to the date of issue. But NPAS insist the ruling does apply.
On hearing of NPAS’ decision on August 29 the council changed its tickets to include both dates, but it is has been left with hundreds of unpaid tickets.
And council transport boss Cllr Chris Williams is frustrated many motorists who parked illegally could now get off scott free.
He said: “Some people who park badly are going to get away with it.
“We have decided to err on the side of caution and if we have any doubt about a ticket we will write it off.” And he admitted the council may eventually have to write off all outstanding tickets.
It has already ceased legal action against anyone who hasn’t paid their fine while the review takes place.
“We are currently going through many hundreds and we will write off the majority,” he said.
“I want to look at each case on its merits and we will cancel the tickets if there is any doubt.” He added the review is not seen as a loss of revenue as no income has been received.
“The council doesn’t see parking tickets as revenue - rather as a method to encourage people to park properly,” he added.
“This is not about revenue, but putting things right.”
Anyone who has a query over an outstanding parking ticket should call the council’s parking team on 01908 691691.
Dad tells of street threats
A ROYSTON chauffeur is “outraged” after receiving a £150 fine for parking at a BP garage.
Colin O’Dell, of Echo Hill, stopped in a designated space for the café while he ate food purchased from the Gatwick North BP Connect garage.
Unaware of the 20- minute limit, Mr O’Dell spent 35 minutes eating his food and drinking a coffee in his Lexus limo.
A month later, he received the £150 fine from BP’s contractors Civil Enforcement Ltd.
Mr O’Dell, of Pinstripe Corporate Travel, said: “They lure you in with their advertising for the Wild Bean Coffee shop, which invites you to ‘chill out’, and they have seating inside.
“I saw no warning sign at the time to tell me I had just 20 minutes to finish a hot coffee and at no point was I warned by staff about this fine.”
In a statement, BP said the 20-minute time limit was clearly displayed on the forecourt, at the café and by the tills.
The company, which announced profits of £11bn earlier this year, said the restrictions were introduced at Gatwick North and South garages to cut congestion as motorists waited to pick-up arriving passengers.
Mr O’Dell said he has no intention of paying up and will appeal against the fine.
The dominoes are toppling ... like nine pins ;-)
Havant and West Sussex
A MOTORIST took on a council over a parking fine – and won.
Stephen Taylor was fined £30 after his ticket slipped down the dashboard of his car.
Determined not to pay up, he took Havant Borough Council to the National Parking Adjudication Service.
And the motorist is today celebrating after the panel found in his favour.
It ruled that Mr Taylor, from Chichester, proved he had bought a ticket when he was fined in Emsworth in June.
He said: 'I appealed because I just thought they were being really petty.
'I have never failed to pay in more than 10 years of parking here.'
During the hearing the panel also found that thousands of parking fines handed out by Havant Borough Council were invalid.
Fines issued failed to include two dates – when the offence took place and when the fine was issued.
After a High Court ruling in August both dates must appear on the fine so the motorist – who has 28 days to appeal – knows how much time they have to challenge it.
Immediately after the ruling Havant council changed its parking fines.
Even though the authority had previously been handing out thousands of illegal tickets, it will not have to repay the fines.
Once a fine has been paid an individual motorist loses their right to appeal.
Gerry Facenna, a barrister who works for Monkton Chambers, said: 'Any tickets which failed to have two dates on them even before the High Court ruling are still considered invalid.
'In terms of challenging it, people have a very limited time, 28 days I think.
'Those who have already paid are unlikely to be able to claim it back.'
Havant council said it had changed its parking fines on the day of the High Court ruling.
Council leader David Gillett didn't want to comment on the issue, but a council spokeswoman said: 'The public can be advised that action against drivers who park in a thoughtless, dangerous or improper manner will be tackled by the council.'
Car parking fines may be cancelled
TWO North-East councils could cancel thousands of unpaid parking tickets as a result of a court ruling, The Northern Echo has learnt.
Stockton Borough Council is taking legal advice over whether parking charge notices it issued during the course of a year were invalid.
Last night, it emerged that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council was putting on hold outstanding fines from a two-and-a-half-year period. Both have apparently fallen foul of a judge's ruling that parking tickets must carry on them the date of issue and the date on which the offence was committed.
Stockton altered its procedures in September, but could still be forced to write off an estimated 3,600 outstanding tickets, along with the tens of thousands of pounds in fines that would have resulted from their payment.
Redcar, meanwhile, is trying to establish how many outstanding fines are affected by what it called a "technicality".
However, in line with other similarly-affected councils, it said motorists who had already paid would not get their money back, since they are thought to have accepted liability.
Last night, parking campaigner Neil Herron, who has uncovered mistakes in parking enforcement at Sunderland City Council, said:
"There is a domino effect that is hitting every local council that has failed to correctly draft parking charge notices.
"Effectively, an amnesty has been created for all unpaid parking tickets that are non-compliant.
"We predicted this several months ago, and now the penny is starting to drop in bucketloads.
"This is not a technicality, as local authorities are trying to have us believe, it is a fundamental legal requirement and they have failed to apply the law correctly."
The issue hinges on a case, heard in August in the High Court, in London, when a judge ruled that Barnet Council had acted incorrectly in only including the date of issue on its parking charge notices.
It was forced to cancel a number of outstanding "old style" penalty charge notices and lost about £87,000.
Subsequently, a number of councils that did not include both dates have been forced into making changes to their ticketing arrangements.
Stockton council it is yet to confirm whether it will cancel unpaid tickets.
A spokeswoman said: "In September 2005, it became the council's responsibility for issuing penalty charge notices to vehicles parked in contravention of traffic regulations.
"The council's legal service is considering the possibility that tickets issued from that date may not be valid due to a technicality."
Redcar and Cleveland council said: "From the start of this financial year, all parking contravention notices issued have been in compliance with the High Court ruling.
"We were keen to act in a fair and equitable manner and have been advised to put all outstanding payments on hold. We are in the process of establishing the total number of unpaid fines affected by this technicality."
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Story below creates a problem ... who identifies the driver?
Mail on Sunday
By Jason Lewis
CCTV system will record your car's number plate and what you are throwing out
Spy cameras are being installed at household rubbish dumps to check what residents are throwing away and to fine those breaking recycling rules.
The sophisticated CCTV systems are capable of reading and storing car number plates to identify who is using the dump, how often, and what they are disposing of.
But human rights groups condemned the surveillance as an 'unjustifiable' way of tracking people's movements.
The Big Brother-style tactics come as the Government puts pressure on local councils to cut the amount of rubbish sent to landfill sites. But the fear is that extra surveillance will only lead to more illegal fly-tipping.
The Mail on Sunday has already exposed the electronic 'bugs' secretly planted in hundreds of thousands of household wheelie bins.
Now sophisticated internet-controlled cameras are being installed at waste sites across the country. Officially they are to improve security, but council chiefs admit they will also monitor who is visiting the tips.
Several councils also say they will use camera evidence to mount prosecutions - raising fears more householders will be taken to court over what they throw away.
Cameras have been installed in Buckinghamshire, Croydon, Somerset, Dundee and Hertfordshire, and more councils are planning to follow suit after the £80million-a-year Waste and Resources Action Programme quango suggested they use CCTV to 'check vehicles visiting dumps repeatedly'.
In Hertfordshire about 30 cameras have been installed at dumps, allowing council officials to check vehicle registration plates.
The county's assistant waste manager Mark Simpkins told a trade magazine: "The monitoring systems are invaluable. We use them to analyse...who is using the centre, what is being thrown away and how often." But last night his boss John Wood dismissed privacy concerns, saying: "I have not made the connection between our household waste sites and the wider debate about Big Brother."
However, local councillor Pat Whittaker said: "We have been campaigning for CCTV to guard against street robberies and anti-social behaviour - we do not need it at the local tip. These Big Brother tactics might discourage people from taking their rubbish for proper disposal."
Buckinghamshire and Somerset and County Councils have also installed number plate recognition systems at their dumps. Buckinghamshire council documents admit: "This may lead to investigation and possibly prosecution'.
Cameras have been imposed after the Government last year introduced a penalty of £150 a tonne on local authorities that dump too much waste in landfill sites.
Last night, Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: "CCTV should only be used to protect high security installations - not to monitor a dump.
"This whole area is very poorly regulated. When you install an automatic number plate recognition system you are tracking people's movements.
"You need proper justification before you track people. I don't see how it is proportionate to use that kind of surveillance in the context of a recycling centre."
Friday, November 24, 2006
"The Labour party says it is not aware of any police investigation into subscription arrangements between Labour councillors and itself."
"Northumbria police confirmed they have received a complaint from Mr Sidaway. "
Read the rest of BBC story here
If anyone wishes to bring the Police investigation to Tony's attention to keep the 'pretty straight kinda guy' up to speed then click here to e-mail him.
I would suggest that if anyone else is concerned that their Council Tax is being used to illegally fund a political party then they too should complain to the relevant authorities including the Police and the Audit Commission.
Councillor Robert Symonds,
Leader of Sunderland City Council
24th November 2006 by e-mail
Dear Councillor Symonds,
OPEN LETTER OFFERING A SITE VISIT TO HIGHLIGHT THE SERIOUS FLAWS IN SIGNING IN RELATION TO SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL'S DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT REGIME.
In light of your most recent statement in yesterday's Sunderland Echo where you 'denied there were any more problems' with regard to the City's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and in today's Newcastle Journal where you are quoted as saying, in relation to the City's parking regime, that it was 'robust, legal and enforceable' I wish to offer you the opportunity in the next seven days to meet me for a 30 minute walk around the City Centre.
It may be useful to bring along Portfolio Holder Councillor Joseph Lawson (who is also the City's Representative on the Joint Committee of the National Parking Adjudication Service) and perhaps the City Solicitor, Bob Rayner and the Chief Executive, Ged Fitzgerald in order to highlight the serious failings of Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime and the gravity of the situation which will undoubtedly continue to unfold, including public safety matters, as a result of illegal signing.
The serious signing flaws still exist despite yours, and others attempts to reassure the public that there is nothing wrong.
I have on record my previous attempts to bring this matter to the attention of yourself and a number of officials and elected members (but the indifference has been quite staggering with phone calls not returned and empty reassurances), but I hope this time you will appreciate the seriousness of what is now becoming an even bigger shambles as desperate attempts are made to gloss over what has been an exposure of an absolute dereliction of duty by all those tasked with the responsibility of running and overseeing this City's parking regime.
I wish to place it on the record that in some locations, because of illegal signing, there is a possibility of a serious accident occurring to both pedestrians and motorists alike. Further evidence of errors are being recorded and made available on a daily basis which totally undermines your statement that 'all the lines and signs within the City are correct.'
The revelations surrounding the behaviour of NCP Parking Attendants arising from the BBC 'Inside Out' documentary has provided a convenient distraction for the Council from the issues that I first raised some 18 months ago. However, PCNs are still being issued illegally in locations where both the Council and NCP are aware that the restrictions do not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
Lessons do not appear to have been learnt despite the recommendations of last year's, and the ongoing internal investigation. Indeed it appears that such was NCP's concern over the lines, signs and TROs that shortly after the commencement of the contract in 2003 they even offered to fund a review of the restrictions they were being asked to enforce. It seems that this offer was never taken up. Also, Council Officers have been advised on numerous occasions that the signs were unlawful and not compliant with statutory requirements yet enforcement has continued.
[In my particular case, I won the 2 appeals in Frederick Street (west) (2.11.06) with the adjudicator stating that the Traffic Regulation Order was wrongly drafted yet I am still issued with tickets on a daily basis for a restriction which is not legally in force and therefore no contravention can occur].
In light of the considerable amount of public money spent to date on correcting what Sunderland City Council told the Department for Transport in their DPE application would be correct by February 3rd 2003, and therefore potentially leaving the Secretary of State's decision to grant the Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 susceptible to revocation perhaps your intervention now may prevent expensive legal action.
I am making this offer in order for you, once you have sight of the evidence that I will provide on-street during a 30 minute site visit, to make the decision to initiate an immediate investigation and commission an independent expert's report, in order to prevent further waste of public money continuing to defend the indefensible, and to prevent any more people being fined in locations which are illegally marked and to prevent the City's accounts being compromised with unlawfully derived income.
Indeed it could be considered by some that, Sunderland City Council, by encouraging motorists to park in locations such as illegally signed Loading Bays (especially where Council Officers and NCP are aware that the signs are illegal) could be accused of 'entrapment' ( although some would say it is a 'nice little earner' ) but this is a very serious matter especially when the 'entrapment' is penal in nature.
I expect that you will insist that this is added to the Police investigation, which I understand Sunderland City Council initiated over 12 months ago, and recently added to by my own evidence which I supplied to DCI Hetherington directly. (I would be grateful if you could advise as to who within the Council initiated the Police investigation and the exact reasons for doing so).
Let us hope that in the interests of providing clarification and transparency for the Sunderland motoring and tax-paying public that you take up my offer and subsequently then make the correct decision to suspend enforcement, and request the intervention of the Department for Transport and Northumbria Police to ensure that the traffic is kept free flowing.
I would be grateful for a reply as a matter of urgency.
12 Frederick Street
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor, Sunderland City Council
cc. Keith Beardmore, City Treasurer, Sunderland City Council
cc. Paul Davies, Head of Internal Audit, Sunderland City Council
cc. Lynne Snowball, Lynn Hunt Audit Commission
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration, Sunderland City Council
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services, Sunderland City Council
cc. Tim Cowan, NCP Ltd. Communications Director
cc. Bob MacNaughton, Chief Executive NCP Ltd.
cc. Linda Watmore, Freedom of Information Link Officer, Sunderland City Council
cc. Susan Weir, Press Office, Sunderland City Council
cc. Margaret Douglas, Complaints Officer, Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Mike Tansey (Independent), Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Joseph Lawson (NPAS Representative and Portfolio Holder),Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Lee Martin (Leader of the Majority Group in Opposition), Sunderland City Council
cc. all elected members (via Jacqui Stubbs, Member Services), Sunderland City Council
cc. DCI Gary Hetherington, Northumbria Police
cc. Ross Robertson, Sunderland Echo
cc. Ross Smith, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Mark Summers, Northern Echo
cc. Andy Smythe, BBC Look North
cc. Dave Morrison BBC 'Inside Out'
cc. Newsdesk, Sun FM
cc. Newsdesk, Metro Radio
cc. Newsdesk, Century FM
cc. Tyne Tees Television Newsdesk
cc. Richard Bentley, RMB Consulting
cc. Marilyn Waldron, Department for Transport
cc. Martin Gibson, Government Office of the North East
cc. Professor Raine, Birmingham University
cc. Caroline Sheppard, National Parking Adjudication Service
cc. Chris Mullin MP
cc. numerous press and media contacts and other interested parties.
Labour has been accused of using councillors' publicly-funded allowances to help pay off party debts.
The Tories are calling for an inquiry by watchdog the district auditor after Labour changed its rules about levies from its local councillors.
Labour said the cash was used to support its local group activities.
But the Tories say a leaked memo shows funds are being sent to Labour Party headquarters rather than to fund local party activities.
Sleaze watchdog the Standards Board for England said it had received a complaint from an ex-Labour councillor.
Northumbria Police have also confirmed they have received a complaint from a former leader of Sunderland Council, Bryn Sidaway, who quit in protest at the levy.
Mr Sidaway told the BBC that he was threatened with disciplinary action for refusing to give 3% of his £7,106 allowance - about £215.
"I think this is a national scandal. What they are saying is...if you don't cough up then you'll have to pay the consequences - we'll kick you out of the party.
"So, I thought this is not natural justice. It's an imposition of the worst kind and it's all about cash to fund what is basically mismanagement of Labour Party funds."
It would be wrong for some councillors not to contribute to something that they all benefit from
Labour MP Martin Salter, speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One, said: "I am quite happy for the Standards Board to say whether or not it is appropriate for payroll deductions to take place.
"Payroll deduction is a regular and well-used source."
All three main parties take a personal levy from their councillors to help with local running costs.
The Tories and Lib Dems say Labour is different because it uses the council payroll to deduct levies.
Labour councillors have always made compulsory donations to the Association of Labour Councillors, but changes approved at its annual conference in September made a second contribution - to Labour group funds - also compulsory.
Councillors face expulsion from their local Labour group if they refuse to pay.
The changes, according to the memo circulated to local parties, are to improve the collection of subscriptions and make it more convenient for councillors.
The Tories, who say they do not force their councillors to fund party activities, charge a £25 a year fixed fee for professional support from the Conservative Councillors Association.
They estimate the new Labour levy could raise at least £1.9m for the Labour Party across its 6,200 councillors. The Labour Party has debts of £14.9m according to its 2005 accounts.
"It is scandalous that the Labour Party is systematically abusing councillor allowances and attempting to avoid bankruptcy by using council taxpayers' money to bail the party out," said shadow minister for local government Eric Pickles.
"At a time when council tax has gone through the roof, families and pensioners will be shocked to learn that their bills are not being used to clean the streets or empty bins - but instead, to give covert cash payments to the Labour Party direct from the council payroll."
He said he feared Labour councils would now push for bigger salaries for councillors - or even cut local services - to help fund the levy.
Labour insisted the cash is being used to support the activities of the councillors' party group on the council - not head office.
In a statement, the party said: "Labour councillors agree to abide by Labour Party rules, including the payment of a group levy. This levy is from councillors personally and not the council.
"The rule changes debated by the NEC (national executive committee) and the full, open, annual conference this September in Manchester established that all Labour groups should, as many do already, levy all councillors to contribute to group activities and administration.
"The groups themselves levy, collect and spend the money raised for the benefit of the whole group and it would be wrong for some councillors not to contribute to something that they all benefit from."
Labour also said that all political parties ask for contributions for services undertaken for and on behalf of councillors.
A spokesman said any local group could decide to collect this levy via the council payroll system, which was often the "most efficient way to collect money".
He added: "This is exactly the same method commonly used by employees for their trade union contributions, pension contributions, charitable donations, PAYE and other payments.
"Any costs associated with this process are paid by the Labour group and not the council."
The Liberal Democrats said allowances were paid to reimburse councillors for the time and expenses involved in carrying out duties and it was up to councillors to decide what they do with it, including whether it goes back to the national party.
We have Middlesbrough Council led by the no nonsense Robocop Ray Mallon who has tremendous public support because of his tough, common sense approach to matters which affect the community.
But Sunderland gets more column inches in the press and minutes in the media than Newcastle, Gateshead and Middlesbrough combined...but all for the wrong reasons.
- It was Sunderland Council that launched the first ever metrication prosecution of the late Steve Thoburn
- It was Sunderland City Council that sold off its housing stock (and the freehold to go with it) for less than £6500 per property to the Sunderland Housing Group.
- It was Sunderland Council that has dropped the biggest parking clanger in the country and featured in THREE national documentaries on the subject.
- It was Sunderland City Council that failed to buy the biggest piece of real estate that came available right next to the City Centre and have now stopped Tesco developing the site leaving a 15 acre wasteland.
What chance will we ever have of taking this City into the 21st Century with this bunch in charge?
AND NOW... 'NICE ONE SUNDERLAND'
HOWEVER, WHAT WE DO HAVE IS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PRINCIPLED POLITICIANS NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT BULLYING AND SLEAZE IN THIS CITY, AND PREPARED TO PUT PRINCIPLE AND THE PEOPLE OF SUNDERLAND BEFORE PARTY. BRYN SIDAWAY JOINS GEORGE BLYTH AND MIKE TANSEY AS INDEPENDENTS. IT IS EXPECTED THAT THEIR NUMBERS WILL GROW.Daily Mail
Sleazy Labour's £2m raid on Council Tax funds
By Tim Shipman
23rd November 2006
Police have launched a new investigation into Labour sleaze after a whistleblower revealed the party is creaming off at least £2m a year of taxpayers' money directly into party coffers.
Tony Blair has ordered thousands of his local councillors to hand over hundreds of pounds each from their publicly-funded allowances to Labour slush funds for electioneering and party propaganda.
• Councillors' payments and how Labour is benefiting
• Tories hold four seats as Ukip and Greens advance
The scam - also under investigation by sleaze watchdogs – has been branded a "national disgrace", an "outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money" and an "affront to democracy".
News that their money is being used to line Labour's pockets will enrage council tax payers who have seen their bills soar as town halls have been starved of cash.
Council tax has more than doubled since Labour came to power. In Sunderland it rose last year by 4.9 per cent, double the rate of inflation.
Read the Daily Mail story here
The multi-million pound funding scandal came to light after the former leader of Sunderland council resigned from the party in disgust earlier this week after refusing to pay £215 - a three per cent levy on his £7,106 councillor's allowance - to Labour bosses in Sunderland.
Bryn Sidaway has now reported the matter to Northumbria police. He told the Daily Mail:
'It is a national disgrace. 'We are talking about millions of pounds a year going into the Labour Party war chest via the taxpayer - but without them even knowing. This is their money. They elect local councillors in the hope that it will improve their lives - not to fund Labour's bid to be re-elected.'
Tony Blair, who once pledged Labour would be "purer than pure" is set to become the first sitting prime minister to face police interrogation as part of a criminal inquiry.
Mr Sidaway said: "It was brought in via the back door in the hope that it would go unnoticed and unchallenged. They have identified Labour councillors as cash cows to fund the black hole in the party's accounts created by the cash for honours scandal and the reduction in the contributions they received from the trade union movement.
"The money is taken directly from the council's payroll accounts - even before any of the tax is applied - and we, as councillors, are expected to sign up to it without question or hesitation.
"I feel ashamed. I have been a Labour Party supporter for 48 years - ever since I was 15-years-old. Corruption is rife. It is shambolic and disgusting. The public is being deceived and betrayed by a Government hell bent on staying in power. We are being run by a dictatorship. Democracy has simply been swept away."
He accused party chiefs of using "intimidation" and "bullying" to get others to fall into line.
"The sad fact is this: The Labour Party is desperate for money and will do just about anything to make sure it has enough money in the kitty to win the next election," he said. "The stench of desperation is horrible."
A CID detective took a statement from Mr Sidaway on Monday. Northumbria Police are investigating whether the plans breach the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums 2000 Act, which calls for all donations over £1,000 to be reported to the Electoral Commission. He believes that local parties may be failing to declare donations to the Commission.
A Northumbria Police spokeswoman said: "I can confirm that we have taken a statement from Bryn Sidaway and are deciding whether this is a police matter." The intitial probe is expected to take one month.
Lee Martin, the Tory leader on Sunderland council has made a separate complaint to the Standards Board for England claiming that the plans breach the local government code of conduct, which states that councillors must ensure public cash is "not used for the activities of a registered political party".
They claim it is an abuse of council funds - and a breach of the code - to let council payroll staff devote their time to arranging direct debits from councillors into Labour accounts.
A spokeswoman for the Standards Board of England said she could not comment on an ongoing investigation. Ged Fitzgerald, chief executive of Sunderland City Council, insisted that the council had been reinbursed by the Labour Party for funnelling the payments from the council payroll.
A Labour party spokesperson said: "Labour councillors agree to abide by Labour Party rules including the payment of a Group levy. This levy is from councillors personally and not the council.
"The rule changes adopted by the NEC and the Full open annual conference this September in Manchester established that all Labour Groups should, as many do already, levy all councillors to contribute to Group activities and administration
Thursday, November 23, 2006
By Kevin Clark
Sunderland Council has seized control of parking enforcement in the city - but the same staff will patrol our streets.
Councillors voted to strip NCP of the responsibility after an undercover TV sting exposed racism and corruption.
NCP sacked five disgraced enforcers after an investigation - but it was not enough to convince councillors that the firm should keep control.
They voted unanimously yesterday to withdraw the contract from NCP, though the firm will retain its responsibility for off-street car parks.
But it emerged today that remaining attendants will continue their job, with the council pledging to retrain them.
Council leader Bob Symonds said: "It is not a knee-jerk reaction. We have looked very closely at it and we believe it is the appropriate action to take."
The BBC Inside Out documentary, which was beamed across the nation this week, showed attendants making racist remarks, mocking disabled drivers, and telling an undercover reporter that they had "tortured" drivers on Villette Road, caused criminal damage to vehicles, and accepted drinks in return for not issuing parking tickets.
Tory leader Lee Martin accused the council of doing "the bare minimum" to deal with the problem and claimed the authority was "terrified" of upsetting NCP.
Parking campaigner Neil Herron branded the council's move as 'disgraceful' and predicted there were further revelations about the parking situation in the city to come.
But Coun Symonds denied there were any more problems.
Tim Cowen, of NCP, said: "We will work with the council to see if we can facilitate the transfer of the on-street service, and continue to work hard to manage car parks in Sunderland on behalf of our clients."
Action on NCP was right move
By bringing part of the NCP parking enforcement contract in-house, the city council has hopefully drawn a line under this whole unsavoury affair.
There were calls from most quarters for strong action from the council and that is what we have seen. It's certainly a move that will be applauded by those who witnessed the TV expose.
There is no place for the antics of those parking attendants who were revealed making racist comments and failing in their duties.
On-street parking attendants are the public face of parking enforcement and, as such, their behaviour is under greater scrutiny than most.
NCP sacked those they felt were most to blame, but this was not enough.
It is clear that tighter management in this area of public work is required. We trust the council will do a better job than NCP.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Tuesday 7 November 06
West Yorkshire chip shop owner is being investigated after a complaint that his shop smells of fish and chips.
Owner of New Scarborough Fisheries in Wakefield, Steve Morton, was asked to check the odour extraction system was working properly after the complaint.
A spokeswoman for Wakefield Council said the authority was obliged to investigate the matter.
Mr Morton said he was shocked to get a letter about the investigation and had thought it was a joke.
"All I know is that we keep everything as clean as possible and to every standard that we should do," he said.
"I didn't think there was a problem. But I'm open to advice.
"If anybody can tell me how to make fish and chips not smell of fish and chips, I'm grateful."
A council spokeswoman explained however: "It is certainly not the case that a fish and chip shop should not be allowed to smell of fish and chips."
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Tuesday 21 November 2006
By Ross Robertson
Five city parking enforcers have been sacked after a damning TV documentary exposed racism and corruption.
Under-fire private contractors NCP dismissed the five, including one supervisor, after their shocking antics were captured in an undercover sting.
The documentary, originally shown in the North East in September, showed parking attendants making racist remarks and mocking disabled drivers.
They were also captured telling an undercover reporter that they had 'tortured' drivers on Villette Road and caused criminal damage to vehicles.
Following the BBC's Inside Out programme a number of attendants were suspended.
But National Car Parks announced the dismissals last night just as the programme was being screened across the country for the first time.
A number of other parking attendants are also believed to be still suspended and other senior members of staff are under investigation.
The TV sting led to demands from opposition councillors to terminat NCP's contract with Sunderland Council to run the city's parking regime and calls for Coun Joe Lawson, who holds responsibility for parking, to resign.
The dismissal of the attendants comes ahead of a cabinet meeting tomorrow where senior councillors from the ruling Labour Group will decide on whether to terminate NCP's contract.
Tory leader Coun Lee Martin said the sacking of the attendants was not enough to make up for the failings.
He said the council must take steps to show the racist behaviour shown in the documentary will not be tolerated.
Parking protester Neil Herron, who is battling with Sunderland Council in a bid to expose failings in the parking system, said "heads should roll" at the council.
He said: "It isn't just parking attendants who are responsible for the shambles - heads should roll with the council and heads should roll from the councillors whose responsibility it was to oversee the contract."
Time Cowen, of NCP, said: "All the issues regarding disciplinary matters raised in the Inside Out documentary have been investigated.
"A number of staff involved in the TV programme have been dismissed."
Warden problem must be solved
There are few would protest at the sacking of five parking attendants exposed by a TV documentary team.
Anyone who witnessed the offensive antics of the NCP workers caught on camera could not help but be shocked and appalled.
Wardens were shown making racist comments, mocking disabled people as well as admitting causing criminal damage to vehicles.
It was obvious heads would have to roll. And this will not be the end of the matter. It is understood other attendants have been suspended and managers are under investigation.
The council's cabinet meets tomorrow to decide if the NCP's contract is to be terminated.
There will have to be strong evidence to show the shortfalls in management that allowed this behaviour to happen, have been tackled. Without it, the NCP contract should be torn up.
100 households a day fined by bin police
by Steve Doughty
Nearly 100 people a day are being fined under laws that punish householders for leaving wheelie bin lids open.
More than 33,000 were handed on-the-spot penalties in the 12 months after the crackdown was launched.
The laws - also aimed at those who drop litter in public places - are regularly used to penalise householders who break the rules of rubbish recycling schemes.
This can include leaving out refuse in the wrong containers or on the wrong day and filling wheelie bins to the brim so their lids will not shut.
Yet while such petty offenders are targeted, the figures for fines show that large-scale flytippers are getting away scot-free.
In the same 12 months, the number of fly-tipping incidents rose by 12 per cent to more than a million - yet there were only 883 fines under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act.
Local authorities managed to catch and fine only 47 graffiti artists and 33 neighbours accused of making people's lives a misery with excessive noise.
There were also 4,066 fines for owners of dogs which fouled pavements and parks.
More than a third of the 33,000 fines went unpaid, but the penalties still raised more than £900,000 for local authorities, which keep all the money.
The 'clean neighbourhood' laws have provoked widespread discontent because they enforce new rubbish recycling regimes.
These demand that people leave out less rubbish, which is collected once a fortnight rather than once a week.
The figures from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs triggered accusations that the laws are being used to penalise ordinary families while major offenders go unpunished.
Caroline Spelman, Shadow Local Government Secretary, said: 'Fly-tipping is getting worse, not better.
'I am concerned that they may not be targeting the worst offenders if fines are being handed out to people who mistakenly put their bin bag out on the wrong day.'
'The situation may deteriorate further still if the Government pushes ahead with putting spy chips in our wheelie bins and forcing councils to axe weekly collections.'
Tory MP Sir Paul Beresford, a former local government minister, said: 'They are punishing people just for leaving their rubbish out, but they are doing nothing about the real bad news, the fly-tippers.
'While ordinary people get fined for breaking obscure rules, nothing is being done to deal with commercial fly-tippers.'
Economist Ruth Lea of the Centre for Policy Studies think tank said: 'People are beginning to realise that almost anything done under the banner of improving the environment is going to cost them money.
'These staggering figures show that local authorities are turning to coercion to enforce their recycling schemes. I have some sympathy for the councils, because they are being pressured into this by the Government and Brussels.
'But these fines are oppressive, cheap bullying, and grotesquely unjust to people who pay their council tax and expect the council to do its job and take their rubbish away.'
Recycling schemes have met growing resentment from the public and a number have had to be reversed in the face of discontent.
Typically, the schemes demand that families separate different kinds of refuse, to the point of stripping the plastic windows out of envelopes and dumping them in a different container to the paper.
Putting the wrong rubbish in the wrong bin can attract a fine.
The scrapping of weekly collections has provoked alarm and fears over hygiene and health.
This autumn Defra has, belatedly, ordered an inquiry into the health implications of fortnightly collections.
The Whitehall quango WRAP, in charge of pressuring councils to adopt compulsory recycling schemes, has advised town halls to bring them in during the winter - so the resulting smells will be less. By the time summer comes, popular opposition will have diminished, it suggests.
Earlier this week, town halls warned that council taxes are likely to have to shoot up to meet the cost of European recyling directives and Whitehall rules against landfill.
They also promised to try to bring in 'pay as you throw' taxes on rubbish and more fortnightly bin collections.
Some councils have levied fines on large groups of people. In Liverpool, 60 residents were fined and threatened with court because they put their rubbish out on the wrong day.
One, Alan Smith, said: 'This is ridiculous. There is a lot of antisocial behaviour in this area and all the council can do is pick people up for putting the bins out a day early.
'Gangs of kids are riding around on quad bikes and setting fire to trees, but there's no response to that.
'Residents are an easy target because the council busybodies know where they live.
'But no one can be bothered to find out who are these youngsters on the streets at night.'
The figures for fines were welcomed by the Government.
Environment Minister Ben Bradshaw said: 'I am really pleased to say the number of local authorities using the system to tackle littering has increased.'
The Local Government Association, representing town halls, also defended the fines.
A spokesman said: ' Litterdropping is by far the biggest enviro-crime councils have to deal with.
'Local authorities strive to keep where you live clean and tidy and will not tolerate people who drop rubbish and spoil the area for the rest of the community.
'We are using fines and onthe- spot penalties to make sure council tax is kept down.'
Monday, November 20, 2006
Trouble is for NCP and the Council is that this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. The rest is in the hands of the Police. Remember, the Council told NCP to change the wording of their PCNs on 16th June 2005 to comply with Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. They didn't do it until 30th November 2005, issuing over 12,000 PCNs in the meantime BUT the Council processed every one of those PCNs AND kept the money ... and they have refused to refund it.
I suspect that when the Department for Transport is forced to intervene ... and again remember that the Council told them all their lines and signs would be correct by the time DPE commenced on February 3rd 2003 ... the Council leadership which has failed to act decisively at any stage of the proceedings, will have to resign.
Cover up after cover up is not acceptable in this City. Our MPs have been silent and the portfolio holder and NPAS representative Joseph Lawson has been conspicuous by his absence.
It appears as though the Council spin machine is intent on a damage limitation exercise stating that NCP might lose the on-street enforcement which will be taken back in house with off street being kept by NCP.
SORRY BOYS BUT THIS IS SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE GAME'S UP AND THE SOONER YOU COME TO TERMS WITH IT THE SOONER THE DAMAGE DONE CAN BE PUT RIGHT.
There is no place in the city for a ruthless commercial operation working hand in hand with the Council to the detriment of the City's businesses and residents.
The Council meeting on Wednesday will be very interesting indeed.
Monday, November 20, 2006
By Craig Thompson
On-street parking could soon be back under the control of Sunderland Council as the fall-out from an undercover investigation continues.
On Wednesday, council chiefs are expected to recommend bringing some parking services back "in-house" amid growing concerns that public confidence in the current system has hit an all-time low.
It follows a BBC probe that revealed workers making racist comments and jokes about the disabled, leading to the suspension of six NCP attendants.
The contents of the Inside Out programme - screened in the North East - will again be shown to a national audience at 7.35pm today as part of the Inside Out England series.
Since the initial programme was broadcast, Sunderland Council has been forced to take a fresh look at its current contract with NCP, weighing up its options in the wake of the growing criticism.
At a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, it has been recommended the council negotiate a variation on the current contract that would see the enforcement of on-street parking transferred back in-house.
NCP would retain responsibility for all off-street parking, including the city's main car parks, until the end of the contract in 2010.
But Tory leaders have hit out, claiming the move would send out the wrong message and are calling for a termination to the whole of the contract.
Councillor Lee Martin, leader of the opposition on the council, said: "Effectively, this is the council wanting to look like it has done something, when, in fact, it's done very little.
"NCP will be keeping the most lucrative part of the contract. If you're going to take away part of it, you should take it all away."
The council argues that it would not be able to demonstrate "value for money" in terminating the entire agreement.
It believes renegotiating the current contract would "help restore confidence and build a better relationship" with the public.
NCP claims it has already taken a number of measures to improve its service in Sunderland including diversity training and scrutinising the company's recruitment process.
Saturday 18th November 2006
THE controversial North-East Assembly was on the move last night - with officials denying they had been forced out of their home.
The assembly, which has been based at the Grade I-listed Guildhall building on Newcastle's Quayside, is moving to a new headquarters in Team Valley, Gateshead, from Monday.
It had only paid a peppercorn rent on the Guildhall, which is owned by Newcastle City Council.
Last night, anti-assembly campaigner Neil Herron, from Sunderland, an arch-critic of the assembly, said: "Newcastle Liberal Democrats probably can't afford to subsidise it with ratepayers' money any longer."
However, Councillor Alex Watson, leader of Derwentside District Council and chairman of the assembly, said there had been no pressure placed on it from the council to move on.
The assembly, which has a £2m annual budget, has said the move will give it more space after it recently merged with the Regional Housing Board to increase its staff to 30.
Coun Watson said there was no legal agreement in place with the city council, which meant it could have been given notice to quit at any time.
He said: "They have always given us verbal assurances that we were okay, but they could have served notice on us at any time to get out.
"We have statutory obligations we need to meet to make sure our staff are secure and housed in premises that meet health and safety at work obligations."
Coun Watson said money was available from the Government to pay for accommodation and the assembly would pay the going commercial rate at its new base.
An assembly spokeswoman said: "It is very much an accommodation issue - the Guildhall is bursting at the seams. It might look huge from the outside, but there is not much office space."
11:07am Saturday 18th November 2006
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Driver Gets Tickets as He Tries to Save His Dying Wife ... and again, it is an NCP Parking Attendant slapping on a ticket
The failings lie with the training regime and management. The on-street PAs simply do what they are instructed ... issue, issue, issue. Let the motorist appeal.
18th November 2006
DRIVER GETS TICKET AS HE TRIES TO SAVE DYING WIFE
By Robert Stansfield
A DRIVER who pulled over when his wife had a fatal heart attack was booked by traffic wardens.
The distraught pensioner was forced to stop on double yellow lines outside a doctors' surgery to call 999.
He went with his dying wife, who has not been named, in the ambulance but returned to his car to find a £50 ticket.
Read it here
Saturday, November 18, 2006
It might interest you to know that we have been informed by a source that WVDC has been asked along with other County Durham local authorities to stand guarantor for the pensions of the staff at the North East Assembly and the Association of North East Councils.
Naturally, this perfectly reasonable request will be granted using YOUR money.
This comes at a time when the Assembly is quietly moving itself from the prestigous Guildhall building on Newcastle Quayside to a location on Gateshead's Team Valley where it will pay a commercial rate.
It looks like the pressure we created over a year ago on the legality of the extra financial 'support' Newcastle were giving the Assembly has been successful.
After occupying the Guildhall for over 6 years at a peppercorn rent the true cost to the Newcastle ratepayers, due to loss of a market rent for such a prestigous building, is expected to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The story of the moonlight flit is covered here
Questions to Newcastle City Council will follow.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Thursday, November 16, 2006
We first met when he was a Shadow in Hague's Cabinet...he came to Sunderland during Steve Thoburn's Court case to hand over a £20 donation.
As the criminal trial for selling bananas in imperial measures adjourned for lunch we took Alan to a lovely restaurant ...McDonald's and got the photo for all the following days papers...Shadow Minister eating a Quarterpounder. Steve Thoburn prosecuted for selling in imperial measures, but McDonalds untouched.
Mr. Duncan in response to my question confirmed that if they won the next election they would scrap the regional assemblies.
The second question was in relation to the 2010 deadline on the use of imperial measures even for supplementary indication and would the Conservatives quash the directive ... he stumbled into ... well it is not up to us ... giving the game away as to who the real masters are.
The final question was 'Would the Conservatives posthumously 'pardon' Steve Thoburn or help quash his conviction?' In true political style he talked this one out and was saved by Mike Parr's intervention.
However, what they have done is compound the mistake that NPAS made.
The reason why I had not posted the decision was due to the fact that the NPAS adjudicator, Andrew Keenan, had made a number of errors in his Judgment.
I had appealed 26 not 28 PCNs.
The judgment stated on the front page in each case ... 'appeal dismissed.'
The adjudicator made a statement to the effect that stated that 'all the lines and signs in Sunderland are correct.'
However, in the reasons for the judgment he allows two appeals because ... wait for it ... the signs were not correct!
So the Council couldn't wait to trumpet their apparent 'victory' and compounded the NPAS mistake by handing a factually incorrect statement to the press. A request for a correctly worded decision has been made to NPAS who will be forced to issue another apology highlighting their incompetence has been made and a review of the adjudicator's decision has been requested as he has made mistakes in fact and in law.
The complaint to the Local Govenment Ombudsman will follow.
NPAS will be desperate to avoid another hearing because there is new evidence which will prove acutely embarassing to them and Sunderland City Council. However, it is currently being assessed and may be a few days before it can be released.
Meanwhile, the BBC Documentary highlighting NCPs 'practices' will be shown again on Monday night ... BBC 1 at 7.30pm.
I think that the Cabinet Meeting on Wednesday at Sunderland City Council will be a difficult one for Council Leader and his colleagues who have shown a total lack of competence to date regarding getting a grasp of the Parking problem. Will they keep NCP or sack them?
All but two of 28 ticket appeals are rejected
Thursday, November 16, 2006
By Ross Robertson
Protester Neil Herron's bid to expose what he claimed were flawed city council parking regulations has failed, after he won just two of his 28 ticket appeals.
Mr Herron deliberately parked in restricted areas to collect tickets as evidence to highlight his campaign.
He went head-to-head with Sunderland Council over the fines at a hearing held by the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS).
But NPAS adjudicator Andrew Keenan rejected all but two of the appeals.
Mr Herron claimed that traffic orders in the city were conflicting and unlawful, while signs and lines were riddled with errors and misleading to motorists.
But Sunderland Council said the NPAS decision meant the parking regime in the city was not flawed.
A spokesman for the council, which was represented in the adjudication by top barrister Stephen Sauvain, said: "The decision means that the overall integrity of the scheme has been upheld.
"The vast majority of motorists use the city's parking facilities responsibly, observing the lines and signs which aim to ensure efficient and safe use of the city's roads and car parks.
"We hope that in the light of this adjudication everyone will continue to do so."
Mr Herron said he intends to appeal against the adjudicator's ruling, claiming legal and administrative errors were made in the decision-making process .
"This is simply round one in the appeals process and it is necessary to request a review," he said.
"If the Sunderland public think that there are no problems with the signs and lines in the city, then they must be scratching their heads as to why the council has paid back more than £60,000 to motorists illegally fined."
Mr Herron also claims that parking tickets are still being issued in Frederick Street, where he was successful in appealing against two of his tickets because it was found that there was no valid traffic order in operation.
Under traffic regulations, parking bays must measure no more than 6.6m and the traffic order for Frederick Street covers a 94m stretch of the road.
But when drafting the order parking chiefs forgot to include a disabled bay and motorcycle bay on that stretch of road.
Leaving those details off the written regulations meant it was unlawful to issue tickets in that area.
by Zoe Hughes, Political Editor
The man charged with cleaning up the funding of political parties has appealed for voters across the North to make their voices heard - just days before the deadline to his contraversial review.
As the Scotland Yard investigation into cash-for-honours moves steadily closer to the heart of Government and the Prime Minister, Sir Hayden Phillips has urged Journal readers to speak out - and to say whether taxpayers should give more money to political parties.
That is one of four options being considered by the former civil servant as he attempts to end the "widespread disenchantment" with politicians following allegations over loans-for-peerages.
Sir Hayden has to report to Tony Blair by the end of the year with recommendations on the fundamental reform of party funding. However speaking to The Journal, he said it was vital the public had as much say as political parties.
"Finding a consensus on a new way forward for party funding will not be easy. The reform of party funding is not an end in itself, but a means to achieve the wider benefit of improving the quality of democracy. It would be extremely useful for me to hear from as many people as possible. I need the public's input into this review," he said. The Government backed inquiry has already put forward four scenarios for possible reform, including minimal change, increased transparency, a cap on donations and greater levels of State funding.
This could mean taxpayers matching donations to parties from individuals - which would be capped - encouraging parties to recruit more members. Or it could mean a subsidy, based on the amount of votes received.
Sir Hayden insisted he had not made up his mind before finalising his report, but he urged people to speak out before the deadline for submissions on November 20, saying reform was "central to Parliamentary democracy in this country"
The review was ordered at the height of the cash-for-honours probe by the Metropolitan Police after claims wealthy Labour backers were being rewarded with seats in the House of Lords in return for providing secret loans ahead of the last general election.
It later emerged that Labour was loaned nearly £14m and the Conservatives £16m. The Liberal Democrats said they borrowed £850,000 from three backers. Until these revelations prompted a rule change, only large donations - not commercial loans - had to be publicly disclosed. Last night Tyne Bridge MP David Clelland admitted the scandal had tainted all political parties, adding: "This has undermined whatever trust there was in politics, which recently has been very little. That is very worrying indeed for a democracy."
Although the MP said he had not made up his mind over greater public subsidy of parties, he said a move in that direction could be necessary. "I haven't made my mind up yet but it may be needed. What is essential, though, is a cap on the amount of money political parties spend on national campaigns."
Sunderland metric martyr Neil Herron warned it was vital for more "honesty and transparency" in the system insisting the distrust of politicians was now "absolute".
Anyone wanting to write to Sir Hayden Phillips should send their thoughts to Party Funding Review, 5th Floor Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9LJ or go to the review website at www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk
Thursday, November 16, 2006
A former council leader faces being kicked out by his own comrades after refusing to pay part of his allowance into party funds.
Sunderland Council's Labour group will meet on Monday to discuss action against Bryn Sidaway, who refused to pay up after a vote in July to place a 3% levy on members' allowances to fund campaigning.
Coun Sidaway, who was leader of the council until he lost his Hendon seat to the Conservatives in 1999, would not give authorisation for the money to be taken out of his payments from the authority.
Since returning to the council in 2003, he has been known to be at odds with the current leadership of the group under Bob Symonds and friends say he expects to have the group whip withdrawn at the meeting.
A letter from group chief whip Anne Hall to Labour councillors said: "To ensure natural justice and to prevent the proceedings being prejudiced, this matter should not be discussed by any members of the group until the special meeting."
Last night Coun Hall would only say: "It's an internal Labour Party matter and it will be dealt with according to the procedures of the party." But a Labour spokesman said: "The Labour group, as with most other groups across the country, democratically voted to levy their members to pay a very small percentage of their allowances into a pot that's used to run the group and support political campaigning.
"It's perfectly legitimate that they pay for this out of their own pocket. If you want to play for a team you have to abide by the rules of that team. It's not fair on others not to contribute to that."
However, supporters of Coun Sidaway argue there is nothing in the party's rules concerning levies.
Sources close to the ex-leader said he objected to the levy - £215 for a backbench councillor - "on principle", as he already donated to the party, and believed he would have no control over how group funds are spent.
One source accused the group of running a "protection racket".
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:56am GMT 15/11/2006
Millions of motorists who drive to work are facing having to pay for the right to use their office or factory car park.
Nottingham city council is due to become the first authority in the country to introduce a workplace parking levy in a move that is being watched closely by local authorities elsewhere in the country.
Its initial draft for the scheme suggested that each space would be subject to an annual £184 fee at February 2005 prices. This figure could rise during the following decade.
The idea of treating an employer-provided parking space as a taxable benefit has been considered by the Treasury, but until now the Government has shied away from producing a national scheme.
Earlier this year the Treasury rejected a Daily Telegraph request, submitted under the Freedom of Information Act, to see what work it had done on workplace parking.
It did, however, confirm that officials had examined the idea but it refused to release the files because it related to the "formulation or development of government policy".
The Nottingham initiative suggests that the workplace parking levy could be introduced in a piecemeal fashion by councils elsewhere, a move that would not only match local circumstances but spare the Government the political unpopularity of a national scheme.
The Local Government Association confirmed that it was following closely the progress of the scheme.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Highways engineers on a 'survey' they said. At first one refused to give his name but eventually did. They confirmed that they were checking the TROs and had a number highlighted on a clipboard.
I pointed out that the Coronation Street Bays and a number of others were in imperial and that if they needed a hand identifying the rest I would point them in the right direction.
"It is your opinion"
Nice to see that they are checking the lines and re-marking the roads to correct 'an opinion.'
After being told of the wide public concern, the judge called for the biggest available courtroom in the Royal Courts of Justice in London to be set aside for the hearing.
He said: "I shall await with interest to see what happens."
Monday, November 13, 2006
- remove all commercial interests, such as private contractors, whose main aim and ethos is to create profit. This will always lead to draconian enforcement practices and thereby create a wedge between the community and respect for fair enforcement.
- access to a court of law for dispute resolution is essential and the appeals process needs to be simple and transparent. The 'independent' parking adjudication service is neither independent nor competent and needs to be replaced.
- make ALL off-street car parks 'Pay on exit' so that the motorist pays for time used and can shop without the 'pay and display strees.'
- I agree with your observation of the parking chaos in the lane behind the Ivy House. It is mainly caused by workers from the Civic Centre taking up the 'free' on-street places rather than paying for the Civic Centre car park. Simple solution ... free parking in the Council car park for employees or make the car park pass mandatory to be deducted at source.
- the technology exists to make on-street pay and display meters into 'pay for time used' by using credit / debit card swipe machine OR shorten the period when pay and display is required ie. from 10am - 4pm to encourage early and late free parking in order to compete with the free out of town spaces.
Any more comments / suggestions will be appreciated. Decriminalised Parking Enforcement is not working and has been abused in hundreds of local authority areas. It is not going to survive...BUT the solution is most certainly not for local authorities to ignore the law and the correct processes. Those who have done and collected millions in fines therefore have a duty to act within the law.
As I have always said, the law is a two way street for both the authority and the motorist, and the local authorities cannot claim that they are above the law.
Finally, challenging the system in no way advocates irresponsible or inconsiderate parking.
The Parking Attendant objected when I said I was going to take a photograph of him issuing to my vehicle to be used as evidence despite me saying that I would allow him to turn away.
Despite him being a public official on council business he claimed it was, as the other PA did a couple of days ago, an infringement of his civil liberties.
He issued the PCN and then attempted to take his photograph of the PCN attached to the vehicle. I leaned on the car and politely asked him to apply the same rule and respect my 'civil liberties' and not take the photograph.
He put his camera away and walked off.
I will be posting the defence that was used in the successful NPAS appeal at this location...Frederick Street (West) Parking Places.
Bear in mind that if there is no valid TRO at this location then any monies collected from the Pay and Display machine will need to be refunded, as well as any money from PCNs.
Friday, November 10, 2006
He requested that I refrain from taking his picture issuing the PCN because 'it was an infringement of his civil liberties.' Whilst there is no infringement of any liberties taking a picture of someone going about their activities as a public official in a public place I did respect his wishes.
However, I made the same request as I stood in front of the car before he photographed the alleged contravention.
He walked away after handing me the PCN ... NO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN!
Some of the bays have now been remarked at this location and the illegal motorcycle bay and kerb blips (conflicting provision) removed...BUT no amount of stretching is going to alter the fact that 85.8m of bays is going to be stretched to correspond with the 94m in the Traffic Order.
Thank you for your e-mail of 8/11. I am currently seeking legal advice from our partners, Watford Borough Council in relation to this matter and the points that you raise prior to a response being sent. In relation to your freedom of information request, I will make arrangements for the information you request to be collated and sent to you.
Sent: 08 November 2006 16:28
Subject: Dacorum Borough Council: DPE Questions
Parking Operations Manager
Dacorum Borough Council
I have been forwarded an e-mail with regard to Dacorum's PCNs issued in relation to your DPE regime, along with a copy of the adjudicator's decision in Palmer v Dacorum Borough Council.
Further to our telephone conversation of 3.30pm today I would be grateful for answers to the following:
1. You mentioned that the PCNs that were now being issued 'were compliant' but you were waiting for the printers to change the wording on the back of the PCN. I would be grateful if you could clarify this and provide a copy of the PCNs that are currently being issued and a copy of the one 'which you are awaiting from the printers.'
2. Please confirm in writing your statement that the PCNs being issued ARE compliant with the requirements Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act?
3. Please confirm that Dacorum Borough Council will not be pursuing non-compliant PCNs. It is not a matter for the motorist to 'be aware' that the PCN is non-compliant. As no financial liability arises from a non-compliant PCN then any attempt by Dacorum Borough Council to pursue PCNs, the wording of which has been specifically deemed non-compliant will result in a complaint of misfeasance in public office against the officers involved and the Council who has a vicarious liability.
4. I wish to put you on notice that the enforcement of the DPE operation is suspended until Dacorum Borough Council's PCNs are fully compliant otherwise it is likely that complaints will be made of misfeasance and maladministration to the relevant and necessary authorities including the Local Government Ombudsman and if necessary the Police, and that a formal complaint will be made to the District Auditor should it transpire that Dacorum Borough Council's accounts contain items of income derived from non-compliant PCNs.
5. You may need to treat this separately as a Freedom of Information request:
(i) how many PCNs have been issued (and the value of monies entered into Dacorum Borough Council's accounts by financial year) before the NPAS decision in Palmer v Dacorum Borough Council (6th November 2006)?
(ii) how many PCNs are currently outstanding (and the current value in your system)
(iii) how many PCNs have been pursued via Northampton County Court and the amount of monies recovered?
(iv) when did Dacorum Borough Council receive a copy of the NPAS Circular MacArthur v Bury (BC 188) regarding the wording of the PCN and the requirements of Section 66(3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act?
I trust you will reply as a matter of urgency to prevent any motorists being wrongly targeted or harassed.
Please confirm receipt of this e-mail and please confirm that you will forward a copy to all elected members and Daniel Zannit, the Chief Executive.
12 Frederick Street
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Your appeal has been successful. This was dated the 6th November 2006.
IS THE COUNCIL TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY OR ARE THEY TREATING THE LAW WITH CONTEMPT?
Here an the e-mail just received:
Dear Ms xxxx,
I am unable to give you a date for the amendments of the PCN as they are produced by our contractor and they are awaiting on their printers.
As to the other information you have requested.
PCN's issued since Oct 2003 to date 60,731
Income from PCN's since Oct 2003 to date £1,502,952.
Parking Operations Manager
Dacorum Borough Council.
MEANWHILE THEY KEEP ISSUING TICKETS!!!
ITV flew me down to film a piece with a guy who had £25k worth of PCNs.
It was like a scene from the Dambusters as the twin-engined plane descended through the Bonfire Night flak into Southampton airport.
The night started well with the taxi setting off to the Travel Lodge ... in the wrong direction. When I pointed this out to the driver he checked with base, and yes he was. Base then said to charge me an extra £4 taking the fare up to £16.
They were not reasonable and basically there attitude was "tough!"
I said that as I wasn't one to argue with them, and the driver was caught between me and his company.
I would just take them to court for the £4.
Two minutes later the call came in to charge me £8. I gave the driver £12.
The following day we filmed at Daniel's house. In a nutshell he has been pursued by Southampton Council over PCNs issued outside his house while he was living there as a student, and while he was waiting for a resident's permit. His three year battle over 59 PCNs has been very stressful, especially with the threat of bailiff's action for the recovery of a debt which, with charges has now escalated to £25k.
The arrogance of the council is staggering.
They have since re-marked the bays which were, at the time of issue of all the PCNs, not lawful.
The PCNs were not lawful as, amongst other things, they had no date of issue.
Some didn't even have anything printed on them ... yet the council were still pursuing Daniel.
The Charge Certificates were non-compliant meaning the court at Northampton was misled.
I did a letter before action for Daniel. The Council have not replied. A further letter is being done before we place the matter in the hands of lawyers.
The victory is imminent. For Daniel it will be a massive relief to have the stress and pressure removed. For Southampton Council ... it is going to be a very embarassing and costly lesson in how you should not deal with members of the public.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
These local authorities are droppping like flies...Tendring District Council is the latest.
My letter to them went on 13th September 2006 and a reply is still outstanding. Copy in blue at the bottom.
Dear Councillor Sambridge,
Thank you for your recent e mail concerning the above.
Following the recent Barnet ruling, Tendring District Council immediately sought clarification on the implications of this and how to best proceed with regard to outstanding Penalty Charge Notices that may be deemed "non-compliant", from the Highway Authority Essex County Council. As you are aware, Tendring District Council only acts as an agent for the Highway Authority in these matters.
Unfortunately, it has taken some time for Essex County Council Legal Services to provide the advice. However, this has been received as of today and therefore I have copied it in to this e mail (see below) for your information.
As a consequence ,we will no longer be pursuing any PCN's issued prior to the 16 August 2006 unless there are further rulings with regard to this matter which alter the present position.
Assistant Head of Technical and Procurement Services - Parking Services
Tel: 01255 686982
The Barnet case cropped up in discussion here over the last couple of days which has resulted in a firm decision from our Legal Services that I should pass an instruction to you all immediately.
Any outstanding PCNs that do not conform according to the Barnet ruling must not be pursued.
I know from discussions at EWG most, if not all, of you have already taken that decision but they feel it prudent that we, ECC, should take a stance.
In addition I have to ask each of you to forward to me a specimen PCN that you are currently using in order that approval can be given as to its legality. I apologise if this sounds a little strong but, although they didn't actually say so, the indication is that ECC, as the Highway Authority with DPE powers, should have approved or provided guidance on all legal documents arising from the DPE process. Considering the time we and they all spent discussing the Agency Agreement I did pass comment that they have left it a long time to make the suggestion.
From: xxxxx xxxxxx Sent: 31 October 2006 10:43
To: xxx xxxxxx
Subject: FW: parking
Would you be able to respond to this directly please?
Tendring District Council
Tel. 01255 686969
Fax 01255 686422
Minicom 01255 422470
From: Parking Services Sent: 31 October 2006 10:00To: xxxxx xxxxxx Subject: FW: parking
From: Charles Sambridge [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tue 31/10/2006 06:41
To: Parking Services
Cc: Cllr.xxxxx xxxxx
I have today been contacted by motorist concerning a visit by the company Collect Services on behalf of TDC in order to collect an alledged PCN. The PCN issued was declared a nullity and as such non-compliant PCNs cannot legally be pursued regardless of the stage they are at in any enforcement proceedings, I also ask you to inform me of how many other charges you are pursuing from PCNs that were invalid at the time of issue
Any attempt to knowingly pursue monies from a PCN accepted as invalid / declared invalid could lead to allegations of maladministration at best and misfeasance at worst. Should you not take notice of this lest you leave the council open to these charges
Here is an extract from the Moses High Court Judgment:
The High Court has ruled that without a valid notice no action can be taken.
The decision in Moses v Barnet 2nd August 2006 Justice Jackson states that:
The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under the scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise.”
“In the present case, the PCN issued by TDC did not comply with section 66 of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the Notice to Owner.”
Head of Service
Tendring District Council
PO Box 8259
13th October 2006
Dear Mr. xxxxxx,
I have forwarded a Tendring District Council Penalty Charge Notice and it appears to have been confirmed following a telephone conversation with xxxx 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.
12 Frederick Street
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
- ► 2011 (51)
- ► 2010 (174)
- ► 2009 (115)
- ► 2008 (179)
- ► 2007 (210)
- Another fine mess
- Chauffeur’s fury over £150 BP parking fine ... Civ...
- Fined driver takes on council and wins ... another...
- The fine mess continues ... now Redcar and Clevela...
- Now there are spy cameras at rubbish tips
- Sunderland Labour Group Letter that launched the n...
- BBC Reports Sunderland Labour Sleaze Row
- Opportunity for the Leader of Sunderland City Coun...
- Labour in fresh party funding row
- Sleazy Labour's £2m raid on council tax funds ... ...
- Same feet on traffic beat
- Chippy smells of chips complaint
- Off the streets
- Another fine mess .... more rubbish
- BBC Inside Out programme goes national
- NCP may lose some city parking duties
- Assembly on the move - but of its own accord
- Driver Gets Tickets as He Tries to Save His Dying ...
- Cost of Regional Assemblies risen from £5 million ...
- Daniel Mumford ... Victory against Southampton Cou...
- Shadow Tyneside Minister confirms that regional as...
- Parking protest suffers setback ... or has NPAS wa...
- Have your say on political funding
- Councillor faces party rap for snubbing campaign l...
- Blackpool FOI response
- Westminster Council ... Local Government Ombudsman...
- Workplace parking charges scheme may set precedent...
- Coronation Street saga continues
- Robin de Crittenden Skeleton Argument submitted to...
- Doctor makes a stand against parking fines
- The Parking Alternatives ...
- Mexican Stand Off in Sunderland
- Sunderland Council's NCP Parking Attendants' silen...
- Dacorum Council put on notice...another parking fi...
- And another (Dacorum Borough Council) one's gone ....
- Dacorum decision ... another council bites the roa...
- Parking in Southampton ... what a shambles!
- Parking Attendant's Blog
- And another one's gone (Tendring District Council)...
- Another One (Ealing Council) Bites the Dust ...
- The Letters Page (Sunderland Echo)
- Sunderland Council Press Statement ... Imperial Me...
- Tories fail to clamp transport leader
- Who has parked their yard on my car?
- Joe keeps parking job
- Another fine mess for parking bosses
- North East Regional Assembly ... the real con
- Carmarthen Journal
- ▼ November (49)
- ► 2005 (445)