But London Councils' Nick Lester wriggles and squirms ...
Before we look at his comments ( I must point out that Mr. Lester some 12 months ago accused me of being a conspiracy theorist with no evidence that councils were acquiring monies unlawfully ... another few months and a few more whistleblowers and we will perhaps see where Mr. Lester wishes to place his comments) ... let us look at what the council says:
"apologised unreservedly" "taking steps to ensure it never happens again"
Now Mr. Lester:
"there was no legal requirement for any council to refund all those fined in cases where an error had been identified."
Based on what Mr. Lester. Case law?
Legal opinion?
Check out the phrase 'unjust enrichment' and in light of the number of District Auditor complaints, pending legal action and Police complaints starting up across the country it is likely that more councils will follow the line of Waltham Forest, Sheffield and Nottingham to avoid more costly litigation.
"Those who had already paid the PCN were, arguably, not entitled to a refund because they had accepted liability"
Oh really.
Did they not pay because they were of the belief that the council were operating legally using restrictions which were signed in accordance with the law?
What about those who paid under duress with bailiffs in attendance. Did they accept liability?
The nature of the non-compliance is important, he said. In some cases the error may be no more than a “triviality”
A triviality?
In the same way as being a few minutes late back to a meter is not a triviality?
Or being a couple of inches out of a bay is not a triviality?
Or placing a Blue Badge the wrong way round attracts a ticket?
“Drivers who thought a fine was unfair should always challenge it."
Which is precisely what they all intend to do. It is unfair that a council can take money when they have no legal entitlement to do so ... but the challenge will come through complaints through the courts, through the Ombudsman, the Auditors and the Police.
“A PCN is not a requirement on a motorist to pay. It’s a requirement to either pay or explain why they don’t think they should pay.”
Need to stop calling them fines then. Looks like we are on the verge of parking meltdown once the motoring public realise how they have been well and truly 'drive shafted.'
"In cases where a PCN was found to be invalid it was not always practical or viable to refund everyone"
No Mr. Lester ... it is essential!
“There can be difficulties tracing people. You have to ask whether it is a good use of public money to try and locate everyone.”
The councils took the money and expended all the resources in their gift to find those allegedly responsible to take that money. The same resource and effort needs to be expended to give it back ... and any surplus MUST be given to charity.
Yellow box error proves costly for Waltham Forest
By Deniz Huseyin
Waltham Forest council has agreed to pay back thousands of pounds worth of moving traffic fines after it emerged that one of its yellow box junctions did not comply with signs and lines regulations. The London borough was told by the Department for Transport that the junction did not meet the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 because it overlapped a cycle lane.
The yellow box junction was installed last summer to keep the junction of Leytonstone High Road and Burghley Road clear because of temporary roadwork closures. Between August 2007 and February 2008 the council issued 4,059 penalty charge notices (PCNs) relating to offences at the junction.
A council spokesman said: “We are now in the process of writing to all those who received a penalty charge notice for stopping in the junction. We intend to refund all those who received a fine.”
Waltham Forest’s environment cabinet member, Bob Belam, who is in charge of traffic and parking in the borough, apologized “unreservedly” to motorists and residents for the “oversight”.
He said: “The council is carrying out a thorough investigation to find out why this has happened and will be taking steps to ensure that it does not happen again. As soon as we discovered this error the council instructed our parking contractor to stop issuing tickets incurred by motorists at this junction and have cancelled all outstanding tickets.”
The council has now removed the junction. “It was only intended to be a temporary measure to help with the movement of diverted traffic from an adjacent one-way system which was partially closed during highway works.”
Nick Lester, London Council’s corporate director of services, pointed out that there was no legal requirement for any council to refund all those fined in cases where an error had been identified.
Those who had already paid the PCN were, arguably, not entitled to a refund because they had accepted liability, suggested Lester. “The nature of the non-compliance is important, he said. In some cases the error may be no more than a “triviality”, he said. “Drivers who thought a fine was unfair should always challenge it. The appeals process has been made as simple as possible. There is no cost involved and you don’t have to hire a lawyer to appeal.”
He added: “A PCN is not a requirement on a motorist to pay. It’s a requirement to either pay or explain why they don’t think they should pay.” In cases where a PCN was found to be invalid it was not always practical or viable to refund everyone, argued Lester. “There can be difficulties tracing people. You have to ask whether it is a good use of public money to try and locate everyone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment