The question has to be asked as to whether this complies with the legislation and where the vicarious liability lies?
Welsh Local Government Association
08 July 2008
Savings are being made across North Wales and the local regulation of parking significantly improved for local residents and businesses as a result of an innovative partnership across four local authorities.
A team of just five people who make up a shared service centre for the ‘Wales Penalty Processing Partnership’ is responsible for processing all the penalty notices across Denbighshire, Gwynedd, Isle of Anglesey and Wrexham and are achieving collection rates for parking fines that are 15% over and above the UK average.
Councillor Eryl Williams (Denbighshire County Council), Spokesperson for the Wales Penalty Processing Partnership said: “The shared service centre is saving money and time. Denbighshire was the first council in North Wales to take on civil enforcement powers for parking.
We have built on our experience to establish an innovative shared service centre which has saved the other partners 33% of the operating costs it would have cost to run the service on their own.
Furthermore over £100,000 has been saved in set up costs.”
“Local authorities issue penalty notices for parking so that they can work with local people to ensure that vehicles are parked where it best suits local residents and businesses. We all need the local regulation of parking but we must ensure that is provided at the lowest possible cost.” “We expect further benefits as more councils join the partnership and we take on processing environmental penalties like dog fouling, fly tipping, graffiti and littering for partners who wish to undertake environmental enforcement.”
“The partnership is a powerful enabler to take on civil enforcement of parking. For example, it can help tackle some difficult parking issues in town centres for the benefit of residents and can ease town centre traffic flows.
Furthermore it can help to improve health and safety in shopping areas and town centres as well as protecting the interests of disabled drivers by regulating the behaviour of other motorists.”
Steve Thomas, Chief Executive, Welsh Local Government Association added: “The WLGA was instrumental in the set up of this partnership through the Regional Partnership Board for North Wales.
It is an excellent demonstration of the potential benefits of councils working together to deliver both efficiencies and service benefits. I look forward to more pace setting initiatives like this from North Wales.”
ENDS
Monday, September 28, 2009
Fined £472 for hospital parking
The Welsh Penalty Charge Notice Processing Partnership?
The Operational Guidance for Local Authorities
Formal representations
11.18 Many enforcement authorities contract out on-street and car park
enforcement and the consideration of informal representations.
Enforcement authorities should not contract out the consideration of
formal representations. Enforcement authorities remain responsible for
the whole process, whether they contract out part of it or not, and
should ensure that a sufficient number of suitably trained and authorised officers
are available to decide representations on their merits in a timely and
professional manner.
BBC News
26 September 2009
A hospital visitor with walking difficulties who put his disabled badge the wrong way around in his car as he parked has been fined £472.
Christopher Dunn, of Anglesey, was initially fined £30 after parking in a disabled bay as he took his wife for cancer tests at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.
He disputed the charge and thought it had been dropped. But he has now been given a bill for over 15 times as much.
Gwynedd council, which runs the car park, said people can appeal on fines.
Ysbyty Gwynedd said the car park is free for those using the hospital, and its traffic wardens patrol the area once a day.
Mr Dunn, 38, said he took his wife Michelle to the hospital in Bangor in March at about 0730 BST for exploratory surgery to see whether lumps and cysts she had were cancerous.
"To be honest I was more concerned about my wife than making sure my badge was up correctly," said Mr Dunn, who lives with his wife and two children in Bodedern
"When I later saw I had a ticket I was so annoyed. Basically I had put the badge back-to-front by accident, so my picture was showing rather than the expiry date.
"But they could have easily checked on the tax disc that the car was for a disabled person or even come to look for us in the hospital.
"I just thought the fine was so petty."
He said he queried the fine and was under the impression it had been withdrawn.
But six months later, he was visited by a woman who said she had been sent by a bailiff firm called Proserve in Colwyn Bay to collect the fine - which now amounted to £472.
A spokesman for the company said it worked for Gwynedd council and had taken so long to track Mr Dunn down because he had moved house.
Seize goods
Mr Dunn said: "The woman explained that either we pay or she would call some other people who would seize goods worth £1,000 from me.
"I didn't have that kind of money because I cannot work and so I had to ring my dad and ask him to pay it. He was livid."
Mr Dunn was in the RAF for more than seven years and served in the Falklands.
But an accident while he had a lumbar puncture procedure while in hospital with suspected meningitis has left him with walking difficulties and sciatica problems.
Staff at the constituency office of Anglesey Assembly Member Ieuan Wyn Jones - who is also Plaid Cymru leader and deputy first minister - said they were looking into the case.
Gwynedd council said it called in bailiffs only as an "absolute last resort" in cases where it had failed to contact vehicle owners who had been fined.
"Anyone who believes that they have been unfairly issued with a parking ticket can write to the Welsh Penalty Processing Partnership to make a formal challenge," a spokesman said.
26 September 2009
A hospital visitor with walking difficulties who put his disabled badge the wrong way around in his car as he parked has been fined £472.
Christopher Dunn, of Anglesey, was initially fined £30 after parking in a disabled bay as he took his wife for cancer tests at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.
He disputed the charge and thought it had been dropped. But he has now been given a bill for over 15 times as much.
Gwynedd council, which runs the car park, said people can appeal on fines.
Ysbyty Gwynedd said the car park is free for those using the hospital, and its traffic wardens patrol the area once a day.
Mr Dunn, 38, said he took his wife Michelle to the hospital in Bangor in March at about 0730 BST for exploratory surgery to see whether lumps and cysts she had were cancerous.
"To be honest I was more concerned about my wife than making sure my badge was up correctly," said Mr Dunn, who lives with his wife and two children in Bodedern
"When I later saw I had a ticket I was so annoyed. Basically I had put the badge back-to-front by accident, so my picture was showing rather than the expiry date.
"But they could have easily checked on the tax disc that the car was for a disabled person or even come to look for us in the hospital.
"I just thought the fine was so petty."
He said he queried the fine and was under the impression it had been withdrawn.
But six months later, he was visited by a woman who said she had been sent by a bailiff firm called Proserve in Colwyn Bay to collect the fine - which now amounted to £472.
A spokesman for the company said it worked for Gwynedd council and had taken so long to track Mr Dunn down because he had moved house.
Seize goods
Mr Dunn said: "The woman explained that either we pay or she would call some other people who would seize goods worth £1,000 from me.
"I didn't have that kind of money because I cannot work and so I had to ring my dad and ask him to pay it. He was livid."
Mr Dunn was in the RAF for more than seven years and served in the Falklands.
But an accident while he had a lumbar puncture procedure while in hospital with suspected meningitis has left him with walking difficulties and sciatica problems.
Staff at the constituency office of Anglesey Assembly Member Ieuan Wyn Jones - who is also Plaid Cymru leader and deputy first minister - said they were looking into the case.
Gwynedd council said it called in bailiffs only as an "absolute last resort" in cases where it had failed to contact vehicle owners who had been fined.
"Anyone who believes that they have been unfairly issued with a parking ticket can write to the Welsh Penalty Processing Partnership to make a formal challenge," a spokesman said.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Councillor jailed for bribery
Perhaps a bright spotlight will be shining on elected members and officers elsewhere in the country very soon.
Question is 'will we have to build more prisons?'
Ex-councillor jailed over bribery
BBC News
Jeremy Baker had denied taking two bribes totalling £750
A former Portsmouth city councillor has been jailed for a year after being found guilty of accepting a bribe.
Jeremy Baker, 47, from Cosham, was convicted of accepting £500 for making sure a planning decision for a property developer got through.
A secret film of the incident was shown to jurors at Winchester Crown Court during Baker's trial.
He was convicted of a corruption charge but cleared of another. They related to his time on the planning committee.
Estate agent David Maunder made the recording in an agreement with a property developer who felt he was poorly treated by planners, jurors were told.
The developer felt aggrieved about the planning committee's dealings over his three properties in London Road, St Helens Parade and Kingston Parade, the court heard.
On one occasion, Mr Maunder said to Baker, "right I've got a little something for you" before counting £500 out on the table, jurors were told.
Baker, who was cleared of taking a £250 bribe, was jailed for a year on Thursday.
Question is 'will we have to build more prisons?'
Ex-councillor jailed over briberyBBC News
Jeremy Baker had denied taking two bribes totalling £750
A former Portsmouth city councillor has been jailed for a year after being found guilty of accepting a bribe.
Jeremy Baker, 47, from Cosham, was convicted of accepting £500 for making sure a planning decision for a property developer got through.
A secret film of the incident was shown to jurors at Winchester Crown Court during Baker's trial.
He was convicted of a corruption charge but cleared of another. They related to his time on the planning committee.
Estate agent David Maunder made the recording in an agreement with a property developer who felt he was poorly treated by planners, jurors were told.
The developer felt aggrieved about the planning committee's dealings over his three properties in London Road, St Helens Parade and Kingston Parade, the court heard.
On one occasion, Mr Maunder said to Baker, "right I've got a little something for you" before counting £500 out on the table, jurors were told.
Baker, who was cleared of taking a £250 bribe, was jailed for a year on Thursday.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Motorists could be in line for parking fine refund
Herald Express
21 September 2009
MOTORISTS in Teignbridge who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.
Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year, 'as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority's charges'.
He said: "The small credit card surcharge on penalty charge notices was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses."
A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them, has now been submitted to the district council.
Mr Herron has encouraged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: "Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
"This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task, issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
"All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful."
Mr Harry claimed that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: "I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council appear to have is use a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
"It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone's name out with a black pen. Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful."
21 September 2009
MOTORISTS in Teignbridge who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.
Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year, 'as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority's charges'.
He said: "The small credit card surcharge on penalty charge notices was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses."
A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them, has now been submitted to the district council.
Mr Herron has encouraged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: "Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
"This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task, issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
"All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful."
Mr Harry claimed that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: "I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council appear to have is use a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
"It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone's name out with a black pen. Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful."
'Credit card surcharge makes parking tickets illegal and refundable'
Express & Echo
21 September 2009
MOTORISTS in Devon who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.
Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year “as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority’s charges”.
A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them has now been submitted to the district council.
The spokesman said: “The small credit card surcharge on PCNs was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses.”
Mr Herron has urged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: “Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
“This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
“All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful.”
Mr Harry added that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: “I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council seems to have done is used a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
“It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone’s name out with a black pen.
“Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful.”
Nearly half of parking tickets were unpaid
If the figures are skewed by a small number of individuals with lots of outstanding fines the question has to be asked as to why the council are not or have not taken action.
Scarborough Evening News
By Martin Herron
18 September 2009
NEARLY half the parking tickets issued in Scarborough last year were unpaid, it has been revealed.
Of 22,413 tickets handed out, 9,467 were not paid – more than 42 per cent of the total.
The authority's parking services made a profit of more than £500,000 in 2008-09, with £573,549 of its income coming from penalty charge notices.
Scarborough's traffic wardens, now civil enforcement officers, issued more than £500,000 worth of unpaid tickets between March 2008 and March 2009.
Scarborough's parking blackspot was Albemarle Crescent, where 853 parking notices were issued, and the most ticketed car park was St Thomas Street Upper, where 414 tickets were issued.
Cllr Andrew Backhouse, Scarborough Council's cabinet member with responsibility for parking services, said the high unpaid figure needed to be put in context and that the actions of a small group of drivers tended to skew them."I know of one individual who has over 100 unpaid tickets. The impact of a few individuals like this can have a serious effect on figures – there could be around five or six people responsible for 600 to 800 unpaid tickets.
"The amount unpaid looks bad on paper but you must remember it's a snapshot and many of the fines will have been paid by now."
Scarborough Evening News
By Martin Herron
18 September 2009
NEARLY half the parking tickets issued in Scarborough last year were unpaid, it has been revealed.
Of 22,413 tickets handed out, 9,467 were not paid – more than 42 per cent of the total.
The authority's parking services made a profit of more than £500,000 in 2008-09, with £573,549 of its income coming from penalty charge notices.
Scarborough's traffic wardens, now civil enforcement officers, issued more than £500,000 worth of unpaid tickets between March 2008 and March 2009.
Scarborough's parking blackspot was Albemarle Crescent, where 853 parking notices were issued, and the most ticketed car park was St Thomas Street Upper, where 414 tickets were issued.
Cllr Andrew Backhouse, Scarborough Council's cabinet member with responsibility for parking services, said the high unpaid figure needed to be put in context and that the actions of a small group of drivers tended to skew them."I know of one individual who has over 100 unpaid tickets. The impact of a few individuals like this can have a serious effect on figures – there could be around five or six people responsible for 600 to 800 unpaid tickets.
"The amount unpaid looks bad on paper but you must remember it's a snapshot and many of the fines will have been paid by now."
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Manchester City Council MUST refund all the money
There are two angles to this story which need further investigation:
1. The statement "We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," by Assistant Chief Executive Vicky Rosin is outrageous and could lead to any unlawfully charged motorist, ratepayer or councillor making a complaint of misconduct in public office. Why would the motorist need to contact the council? The council have their details.
The council are aware that the Penalty Charges were unlawful.
The council are aware that they cannot retain unlawfully derived income.
The District Auditor needs to be contacted immediately.
2. The 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal is funded solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN. They will have received £10,800 from Manchester's unlawful PCNs and will therefore have been similarly 'unjustly enriched.' As the lid starts coming off this whole sorry can of worms our elected representatives will be forced to initiate an inquiry into why all of the employees of the 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal are actually employed by Manchester City Council.
18,000 drivers had illegal fines
BBC News 18th September 2009
The council's cameras were not certified until May 2007
More than 18,000 fines handed to motorists caught driving in bus lanes in Manchester were illegal, the local authority has admitted.
The drivers were all caught out by cameras between October 2006 and May 2007 - before they were approved for use in bus lanes.
Manchester City Council believed the cameras could be retrospectively certified - but lawyers ruled it out.
It could now face a payout of more than £544,000 to drivers who were caught.
All bus lane cameras in the city have had Department for Transport approval since 24 December 2008.
Administrative error
The uncertified cameras came to light during a review of its bus lane enforcement.
Vicky Rosin, assistant chief executive, said the "deeply regrettable administrative oversight" took place in the early stages of bus lane enforcement.
"We have taken steps to notify the public as soon as this technicality came to our attention. We apologise for this mix-up," said Ms Rosin.
People who think they have been issued with a penalty charge notice by one of the cameras during the relevant period have been advised to contact the council.
"We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," she added.
"However, we want to remind people that all of our current bus lane enforcement cameras have full approval and we remain determined to ensure that bus lanes stay free-flowing for the benefit of public transport users and to help prevent congestion."
1. The statement "We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," by Assistant Chief Executive Vicky Rosin is outrageous and could lead to any unlawfully charged motorist, ratepayer or councillor making a complaint of misconduct in public office. Why would the motorist need to contact the council? The council have their details.
The council are aware that the Penalty Charges were unlawful.
The council are aware that they cannot retain unlawfully derived income.
The District Auditor needs to be contacted immediately.
2. The 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal is funded solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN. They will have received £10,800 from Manchester's unlawful PCNs and will therefore have been similarly 'unjustly enriched.' As the lid starts coming off this whole sorry can of worms our elected representatives will be forced to initiate an inquiry into why all of the employees of the 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal are actually employed by Manchester City Council.
18,000 drivers had illegal fines
BBC News 18th September 2009
The council's cameras were not certified until May 2007
More than 18,000 fines handed to motorists caught driving in bus lanes in Manchester were illegal, the local authority has admitted.
The drivers were all caught out by cameras between October 2006 and May 2007 - before they were approved for use in bus lanes.
Manchester City Council believed the cameras could be retrospectively certified - but lawyers ruled it out.
It could now face a payout of more than £544,000 to drivers who were caught.
All bus lane cameras in the city have had Department for Transport approval since 24 December 2008.
Administrative error
The uncertified cameras came to light during a review of its bus lane enforcement.
Vicky Rosin, assistant chief executive, said the "deeply regrettable administrative oversight" took place in the early stages of bus lane enforcement.
"We have taken steps to notify the public as soon as this technicality came to our attention. We apologise for this mix-up," said Ms Rosin.
People who think they have been issued with a penalty charge notice by one of the cameras during the relevant period have been advised to contact the council.
"We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," she added.
"However, we want to remind people that all of our current bus lane enforcement cameras have full approval and we remain determined to ensure that bus lanes stay free-flowing for the benefit of public transport users and to help prevent congestion."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Are hundreds of Bournemouth parking fines set to be refunded?
Daily Echo
By Julie Magee
HUNDREDS of motorists stung by parking fines after being caught on film by Bournemouth council’s camera car could receive refunds after a landmark legal ruling.
A tribunal has ruled that unless local authorities have put up signs warning drivers the ‘spy cameras’ are in operation, tickets are invalid.
A camera car scheme was launched in Bournemouth on June 17 to target drivers who park at bus stops and outside schools. Warning signs were not erected.
In the past seven weeks 370 drivers, including disabled Southbourne man Roger Ryder, were caught parking at bus stops.
Eleven motorists were captured on camera parking at school entrances. Each received a £70 fixed penalty notice through the post.
Retired businessman Mr Ryder, 65, didn’t realise his red Jaguar had been photographed on July 7. He said: “I popped into the Co-op store in Tuckton for a newspaper – there wasn’t anywhere else near the shop to park.
“I was shocked when the fine notice dropped through my door. I paid it within a couple of days so it cost me £35 instead of £70, which is the penalty if you don’t pay within 30 days.
“I’ll definitely be appealing, now I know what has happened elsewhere. There weren’t any signs saying the camera car was operating in the area and I think that is wrong. Motorists should be warned.”
The ruling came after businesswoman Rachel Johnson received three £70 parking fines in the same week after being snapped by a ‘spy camera’ in Merseyside.
Ms Johnson, 34, who runs an off-licence, challenged Wirral Borough Council and took her case to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal. All three fines were quashed.
The tribunal ruled that the tickets were invalid because of the lack of signage warning motorists they might be photographed.
The ruling could open the floodgates for thousands of other appeals from motorists across the UK.
Following the case Wirral council launched a review into the way it uses its ‘spy car’ to enforce parking regulations.
Bournemouth council confirmed yesterday that there are no signs warning motorists of the camera car but stressed that the vehicle was marked with “camera enforcement signage.”
Head of transport James Duncan said: “We believe that all the signage associated with the Traffic Regulations Orders in Bournemouth meets with the requirements but keep everything under constant review. The tribunal decision related to a different situation; we do not use the camera car for that purpose. In Bournemouth we do not currently use the vehicle in stationary mode, unlike the case in Wirral.”
He added that the council would not be issuing any refunds.
By Julie Magee
HUNDREDS of motorists stung by parking fines after being caught on film by Bournemouth council’s camera car could receive refunds after a landmark legal ruling.
A tribunal has ruled that unless local authorities have put up signs warning drivers the ‘spy cameras’ are in operation, tickets are invalid.
A camera car scheme was launched in Bournemouth on June 17 to target drivers who park at bus stops and outside schools. Warning signs were not erected.
In the past seven weeks 370 drivers, including disabled Southbourne man Roger Ryder, were caught parking at bus stops.
Eleven motorists were captured on camera parking at school entrances. Each received a £70 fixed penalty notice through the post.
Retired businessman Mr Ryder, 65, didn’t realise his red Jaguar had been photographed on July 7. He said: “I popped into the Co-op store in Tuckton for a newspaper – there wasn’t anywhere else near the shop to park.
“I was shocked when the fine notice dropped through my door. I paid it within a couple of days so it cost me £35 instead of £70, which is the penalty if you don’t pay within 30 days.
“I’ll definitely be appealing, now I know what has happened elsewhere. There weren’t any signs saying the camera car was operating in the area and I think that is wrong. Motorists should be warned.”
The ruling came after businesswoman Rachel Johnson received three £70 parking fines in the same week after being snapped by a ‘spy camera’ in Merseyside.
Ms Johnson, 34, who runs an off-licence, challenged Wirral Borough Council and took her case to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal. All three fines were quashed.
The tribunal ruled that the tickets were invalid because of the lack of signage warning motorists they might be photographed.
The ruling could open the floodgates for thousands of other appeals from motorists across the UK.
Following the case Wirral council launched a review into the way it uses its ‘spy car’ to enforce parking regulations.
Bournemouth council confirmed yesterday that there are no signs warning motorists of the camera car but stressed that the vehicle was marked with “camera enforcement signage.”
Head of transport James Duncan said: “We believe that all the signage associated with the Traffic Regulations Orders in Bournemouth meets with the requirements but keep everything under constant review. The tribunal decision related to a different situation; we do not use the camera car for that purpose. In Bournemouth we do not currently use the vehicle in stationary mode, unlike the case in Wirral.”
He added that the council would not be issuing any refunds.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Cheltenham fall foul of credit card ruling ... how much will they have to refund?
Lawless, unaccountable and a belief that they are above the law. Time now for a full Parliamentary Inquiry into parking enforcement. How many credit card surcharge PCNs went before the blind and blinkered Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicators without them even looking at the PCN?
Remember that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal receives 60p from every PCN issued so if a council has been issuing unlawful PCNs then the money they derive is unlawfully derived. Where does that leave the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's 60p ... ultra vires also so their accounts need to be challenged. Question is ... who can challenge their accounts? More to be revealed.
Meanwhile, to all those council officers out there with a social conscience ... keep the information coming.
Ruling forces car park cards rethink
Tuesday, August 11, 2009,
Gloucestershire Citizen
CHELTENHAM Borough Council is reviewing its policy of imposing a credit card surcharge on parking fines.
At present, the council charges a fee of 1.35 per cent if motorists try to pay fines on a credit card.
But, following a test case in Camden, London, which ruled that surcharges for those who paid by credit card were unfair, it is reviewing its policy.
Parking manager Jason Benjamin said: ''We will be reviewing our position when we receive more information from the test case ruling."
Gloucester City Council has already ditched its surcharge of 1.8 per cent after the case.
It also handles parking enforcement for Forest of Dean District Council.
But it would not confirm whether motorists who had already paid the charges would be refunded.
A spokesman said: "The traffic penalty tribunal contacted all councils following a recent appeal handled by them.
"When looking into this case they advised councils that charges for credit card payments should be removed from penalty charge notices.
"Gloucester City Council is working with the bank which handles the credit card payments on its behalf to remove charges from penalty charge notices."
Cotswold District Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Stroud District do not have the surcharge.
The test case involving Camden challenged the 1.3 per cent and was upheld by the adjudicator.
The ruling applies to all fines imposed by local authorities, including those outside the capital which have been given the right to police parking and keep the fines.
It also applies to fines imposed by councils for "moving motoring offences", such as entering a box junction.
The adjudicator said councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.
As a result of the ruling, councils that imposed the surcharges face an avalanche of claims from motorists.
An AA spokesman said: "These credit card charges have been outrageous. Councils have got their fingers burned.
"It shows the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves.
"We expect councils across the country to stop these surcharges straight away or they will face thousands of appeals."
Remember that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal receives 60p from every PCN issued so if a council has been issuing unlawful PCNs then the money they derive is unlawfully derived. Where does that leave the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's 60p ... ultra vires also so their accounts need to be challenged. Question is ... who can challenge their accounts? More to be revealed.
Meanwhile, to all those council officers out there with a social conscience ... keep the information coming.
Ruling forces car park cards rethink
Tuesday, August 11, 2009,
Gloucestershire Citizen
CHELTENHAM Borough Council is reviewing its policy of imposing a credit card surcharge on parking fines.
At present, the council charges a fee of 1.35 per cent if motorists try to pay fines on a credit card.
But, following a test case in Camden, London, which ruled that surcharges for those who paid by credit card were unfair, it is reviewing its policy.
Parking manager Jason Benjamin said: ''We will be reviewing our position when we receive more information from the test case ruling."
Gloucester City Council has already ditched its surcharge of 1.8 per cent after the case.
It also handles parking enforcement for Forest of Dean District Council.
But it would not confirm whether motorists who had already paid the charges would be refunded.
A spokesman said: "The traffic penalty tribunal contacted all councils following a recent appeal handled by them.
"When looking into this case they advised councils that charges for credit card payments should be removed from penalty charge notices.
"Gloucester City Council is working with the bank which handles the credit card payments on its behalf to remove charges from penalty charge notices."
Cotswold District Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Stroud District do not have the surcharge.
The test case involving Camden challenged the 1.3 per cent and was upheld by the adjudicator.
The ruling applies to all fines imposed by local authorities, including those outside the capital which have been given the right to police parking and keep the fines.
It also applies to fines imposed by councils for "moving motoring offences", such as entering a box junction.
The adjudicator said councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.
As a result of the ruling, councils that imposed the surcharges face an avalanche of claims from motorists.
An AA spokesman said: "These credit card charges have been outrageous. Councils have got their fingers burned.
"It shows the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves.
"We expect councils across the country to stop these surcharges straight away or they will face thousands of appeals."
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Parking ticket refunds ... councils consulting lawyers across the country ...
Sources within councils reveal that many councils are so concerned about claims for refunds that they are taking independent legal advice, especially ones whose officers have been flagrantly disregarding signing law and continuing to enforce restrictions known to be unlawful. However, the advice coming back is not what they want to hear and Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners is being cited by counsel to councils as the binding authority which will force many of them to refund £millions.The credit card surcharge problem revealed in our Camden and London borough expose is now becoming a Sword of Damocles for some councils and officers outside of London. Every council has immediately withdrawn the surcharge, apart from one, when brought to their attention, so misconduct in public office charges may simply be reserved for the ones who think that they are above the law. However, council officers who have been condoning enforcing restrictions known to be unlawful had better start checking their own household insurance policies because there will be no council legal and financial indemnity should it be shown that they were the 'controlling minds' behind illegal enforcement. There are many who do not want to be standing next to their council's 'Captain Smith' and are collecting their own lifebelts. There is more than one iceberg on the horizon ...
Clarification of one of the points below. PATAS adjudicators have ruled that the PCN is unlawful regardless of whether payment was made by credit card.
Therefore, ALL paid PCNs detailed below are recoverable andthe council has no legal right to the monies it retains. For more information contact enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk
4,700 could get parking rebates because surcharges broke the rules
Halifax Courier
11th September 2009
By Michael Peel
AROUND 4,700 motorists who paid parking fines using credit cards could be entitled to a rebate.
They account for 10 per cent of the 47,000 drivers fined since 2006. The Courier reported last month how the 2.6 per cent surcharge on credit card payments contravenes Department of Transport guidelines and was recently scrapped.
Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the council took over responsibility for parking enforcement in November 2006, it has raised £1,278,000 in fines.That follows the issuing of 47,000 parking contravention notices.
The total income from credit cards during that period was £123,400 of which £3,200 came from the handling fee.
Car parking campaigner Neil Herron, a director of Parking Appeals Ltd, has threatened to take another council to the High Court over the issue and has also written to the council's chief executive Owen Williams to complain.
The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator Michael Greenslade ruled earlier this year that parking tickets issued by Camden Council were invalid if they included a credit card surcharge. According to a Calderdale spokesman, the council had always imposed the charge. It was removed it after the council received the results of a traffic penalty tribunal, held in Bristol.
Figures show that total income from parking fines is falling from £551,752 in 2007/8 to £428,225 last year.
During the first five months of this year, the council received £153,000.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Another big parking High Court case set to expose the 'independent' parking adjudication service
It has taken years to force Manchester City Council to admit that all Traffic Penaltty Tribunal staff are employed by the council. Do you perceive that you will get a fair hearing?
Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds
Yorkshire Post
31 August 2009
By Alexandra Wood
A LANDMARK parking ticket case which could see millions of pounds being refunded to motorists has been given a major boost.
The legal bid by engineer Glenn Dickinson, who was landed with five parking tickets after parking on a verge near his home in Hull, will be heard by the High Court later this year.Mr Dickinson, 62, believes the system where tickets are issued by councils and policed by a body called the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, is illegal.
Now new information has come to light which raises fresh doubts about the independence of the TPT. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have confirmed that administrative staff working at the "independent" tribunal, including the tribunal manager, are Manchester City Council employees – in apparent contravention of European Human Rights legislation.
Mr Dickinson, who could lose his home and business if his legal action fails, says the new evidence is vital: "Article 6(i) of the European Convention on Human Rights allows me to have my case heard before an independent tribunal."How on earth can a body be perceived to be independent when its staff are all employed by the council and the people who are charging the fine are paying the people who adjudicate it?"
He said: "It was a nightmare getting the information out of them – it took more than 70 requests."They have finally admitted that the head of the administrative staff is employed and paid for by Manchester Council."
The adjudicators are appointed by them and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. However they are employed and paid by the council."The judicial system states quite categorically that in order for it to be totally independent it must have no connection however small, either monetary or personal, with one party or the other."
He said: "I am doing this because the council tried to rip me off for five parking tickets. Leader of Hull Council Carl Minns said on Politics North, on BBC1: "What's a splash of yellow paint?" It made my blood boil because it shows total contempt that the council have for the people and businesses of Hull – they use us as cash cows."
The tickets were issued under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement scheme, which allowed councils to take over parking enforcement and keep the money raised from fines. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is the final stage of appeal for motorists against a penalty issued by a council in England and Wales, outside London.
However it is totally reliant on income from parking tickets – 60p on each ticket issued. Manchester Council is the lead authority, "the headquarters" for parking enforcement for the whole country outside London.
Mr Dickinson is being supported by Neil Herron, campaign director for the pressure group Metric Martyrs and the Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund.
Mr Herron said: "We are not opposed to proper fair parking enforcement but what we have now is a stealth tax which is used by councils to fill holes in their budget and the motoring public has become a victim."
Mr Dickinson challenged the tickets at TPT, formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service, but had his case rejected twice. As a result he took the case to the High Court. Mr Justice Ouseley allowed an adjournment to provide time to compile evidence against the national Deregulated Parking Enforcement scheme and the TPT.
Last December leave was granted for a full review which is expected to be heard towards the end of the year.
Manchester Council said it would be inappropriate to comment.
Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds
Yorkshire Post
31 August 2009
By Alexandra Wood
A LANDMARK parking ticket case which could see millions of pounds being refunded to motorists has been given a major boost.
The legal bid by engineer Glenn Dickinson, who was landed with five parking tickets after parking on a verge near his home in Hull, will be heard by the High Court later this year.Mr Dickinson, 62, believes the system where tickets are issued by councils and policed by a body called the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, is illegal.
Now new information has come to light which raises fresh doubts about the independence of the TPT. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have confirmed that administrative staff working at the "independent" tribunal, including the tribunal manager, are Manchester City Council employees – in apparent contravention of European Human Rights legislation.
Mr Dickinson, who could lose his home and business if his legal action fails, says the new evidence is vital: "Article 6(i) of the European Convention on Human Rights allows me to have my case heard before an independent tribunal."How on earth can a body be perceived to be independent when its staff are all employed by the council and the people who are charging the fine are paying the people who adjudicate it?"
He said: "It was a nightmare getting the information out of them – it took more than 70 requests."They have finally admitted that the head of the administrative staff is employed and paid for by Manchester Council."
The adjudicators are appointed by them and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. However they are employed and paid by the council."The judicial system states quite categorically that in order for it to be totally independent it must have no connection however small, either monetary or personal, with one party or the other."
He said: "I am doing this because the council tried to rip me off for five parking tickets. Leader of Hull Council Carl Minns said on Politics North, on BBC1: "What's a splash of yellow paint?" It made my blood boil because it shows total contempt that the council have for the people and businesses of Hull – they use us as cash cows."
The tickets were issued under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement scheme, which allowed councils to take over parking enforcement and keep the money raised from fines. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is the final stage of appeal for motorists against a penalty issued by a council in England and Wales, outside London.
However it is totally reliant on income from parking tickets – 60p on each ticket issued. Manchester Council is the lead authority, "the headquarters" for parking enforcement for the whole country outside London.
Mr Dickinson is being supported by Neil Herron, campaign director for the pressure group Metric Martyrs and the Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund.
Mr Herron said: "We are not opposed to proper fair parking enforcement but what we have now is a stealth tax which is used by councils to fill holes in their budget and the motoring public has become a victim."
Mr Dickinson challenged the tickets at TPT, formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service, but had his case rejected twice. As a result he took the case to the High Court. Mr Justice Ouseley allowed an adjournment to provide time to compile evidence against the national Deregulated Parking Enforcement scheme and the TPT.
Last December leave was granted for a full review which is expected to be heard towards the end of the year.
Manchester Council said it would be inappropriate to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
