Insurance Company plays Nostradamus as parking Grim Reaper gathers

An insurance company with the ability to foretell the future warns of the problems facing many councils.
The lure of untold riches from the decriminalised parking stealth tax drove many councils to rush hastily into deals with private parking enforcement contractors. Proper controls and scrutiny went out of the window. Contracts not checked, contractors not managed. Legal requirements for lines and signs and Traffic Orders treated with reckless indifference by council officers as the money flooded in. Little scrutiny as motorist after motorist was abused. No statutory body to force them and their contractors to stop. The abuse grew and grew spiralling out of control to the point that reckless indifference, in many instances, became out of control lawlessness. Restrictions enforced in the full knowledge by all parties that they were unlawful.
Now, the Grim Reaper has been spotted and the prediction of massive financial consequences for many councils is becoming a slowly dawning reality.

However, it is not Nostradamus reciting quatrains but one of the world's biggest insurance companies. Perhaps not time yet for 'we told you so ...' but would suggest that council lawyers start brushing up on misfeasance and malfeasance in public office and checking out how much money they may have to refund not to mention the damages for those suffering loss at the ahnds of bailiffs.

Local authorities ‘unaware and under-prepared’ for outsourcing risks, claims Zurich Municipal

Despite local authorities undertaking unprecedented levels of increased outsourcing and partnership activity, senior managers and risk officers feel unclear and ill-equipped to manage the resulting risks, says insurance company Zurich Municipal.
A new report released by Zurich on the issue of supply chain risk in the public sector warns of the “potentially catastrophic” implications on local government services as councils dramatically increase reliance on back office outsourcing and frontline partnership working.

Unveiled at the CIPFA annual conference in Manchester, Public sector supply chain: risks, myths and opportunities calls for urgent action to improve risk readiness in the sector. Without proper management, the potential financial, legal and reputational ramifications for local authorities of supply chain failure — such as supplier cost overruns, data privacy breaches or mismanaged social care contracts — could be disastrous, says the insurer.

A survey of risk managers, conducted in tandem with the report, shows that whilst the majority acknowledge that partnership and outsourced working have generated new types of risk, few are considering non-traditional risks before contracting a partner, changing practices to embrace these risks or amending their disaster recovery or risk management plans. Furthermore, risk managers confess to feeling distanced from the day-to-day management of partnerships and claim the issue needs greater recognition and increased integration at a senior management level, particularly amongst those heading up partnership activity.

Independently authored by David Kaye, an expert in supply chain risk, the report marks the launch of Zurich Municipal’s “New World of Risk” campaign to provide local authority executive leaders, managers and service providers with leading edge advice and guidance about managing risk within the dramatically changing local government landscape.
Local authorities are taking on new roles and responsibilities as well as an outsourced business model that, in many cases, is leading to an entirely new risk profile and serious challenges, notes Kaye.
“Outsourcing a critical service need is so much more than subcontracting and delivery dates,” he says. “It is a process littered with reputational and political pitfalls as well as statutory and legal risk. These risks need to be actively managed, early on in the process, with clear exit strategies and business continuity plans in place. Without imposing this sort of control environment, at a senior level, both the risk and cost of partnerships could spiral.”

Andrew Jepp, head of local government at Zurich Municipal, added: “The recent and rapid migration of local authorities from service providers to strategic commissioners has engendered initial cost and efficiency savings, but also given rise to new risks that could mean higher costs in the end. Outsourcing services or outcome delivery to a selected partner or partners does not automatically devolve contractual, legal or moral responsibilities; if anything it heightens the importance of direct and thorough risk management.”
The report can be downloaded at:
http://www.newworldofrisk.co.uk/

Robocop Mayor takes on DVLA ... another NCP Services scandal

A reminder to ALL civil servants ... be there to serve not to threaten ... and be civil while you do so. The silent majority are starting to get a little agitated with paid public servants abusing their authority.

This week we revealed the £160,000 Employment Tribunal settlement of NCP Services Manager Geoff Topliss who courageously whistleblew on an alleged fraud on the DVLA by his company who also run many local authority contracts.

This is the same NCP Services Ltd. who 'took over' many council's parking enforcement contracts from National Car Parks Ltd. yet appeared to forget (and so did many of the councils) simple protocols, in some local authority areas, like getting written permission and consent in accordance with the council's own constitution.
At the minute there are a lot of chickens laying lots of eggs ready for lots of faces.
District Auditors are 'seeking counsel's opinion' for the second time as pressure mounts.
Members of Parliament and councillors are preparing to call for an inquiry.

Meanwhile, more documentation is being made available but there is a distinct lack of any paperwork in relation to the Sunderland NCP Services parking enforcement contract. What must be borne in mind is this little timeline:

• 2nd October 2006 BBC Documentary exposes fraud, bribery and falsification of documents by National Car Parks Ltd. employees on the Sunderland parking contract.
• 11 National Car Parks employees suspended and then dismissed or resign.
• Council investigates tell National Car Parks that their contract will be terminated due to their failure ... but not until December 2007 and who lost the contract? National Car Parks Ltd. or NCP Services Ltd.?
• Meanwhile, sale of National Car Parks to Macquarie Bank for £790m in March 2007 goes through.
• March 13th NCP Services created as a new limited company and 'take over' the Sunderland contract and other council contracts across the country. Nothing in writing. No bonds or parent company guarantees and nothing done in accordance with the council's constitution.
• Question is ... who allowed this to happen and why?

Meanwhile, the DVLA are set to come under more pressure as another maverick campaigns against unacceptable behaviour by public authorities.

A new dawn is breaking ... Britain's motorists are now starting to fight back and bite back and starting to win. There are a number of council officials who have thought that they could hide their behaviour behind the enormity of their office ... but the game's up and its only a matter of time before charges are laid and papers served.

Elected Middlesbrough Mayor Ray Mallon is another man of integrity and a man of principle and is now prepared to fight the motorists fight against the authorities and unaccountable executive agencies who have been awarded power to fine without challenge.

As with decriminalised parking where local authorities have been allowed to run out of control without any scrutiny or recourse to a court of law, Ray highlights the same with the DVLA.

Big Brother casts longer shadow
Northern Echo
Friday 10th July 2009
DESPITE everything, Britain remains at heart a law-abiding, peaceful nation.
It is a country where queues are orderly and seats on buses are given up for elderly people.
So, I find it ironic, incredible even, that this tolerant, unassuming society is governed as if most citizens were invariably up to no good. State interference, through unaccountable executive agencies to which government has abdicated, rather than delegated, power is now a serious problem. That is, of course, a typical British understatement.
Readers will know I am having dealings with one of these agencies, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) over what I see as its denial of a basic legal right.
Fail to tell the DVLA you’ve sold your car and you get a £50 penalty. Having looked into this matter, I’ve concluded there appears to be no mechanism to dispute the matter or request what I always naively assumed to be a basic right, namely to have your day in court so you can test this assumption of guilt.

I’ve also found out three things. Firstly, many other people who would normally never have a cross word with authority are angry about this arbitrary behaviour. The second is that the legislation on which the DVLA bases its outrageous behaviour is badly drafted to the point of being incomprehensible.

The third and most telling point is that everyone I have spoken to believes the motive behind all this is income generation. The DVLA has collected £3m from out-of-court settlements in three years.

It is, of course, dwarfed by the amount that the Government has made from speed cameras, responsible for most of the £88m levied annually for speeding offences.
I had two conversations about speeding this week, the first with someone who believed every infringement should be punished.

The second was with a retired police officer who had done a long stint in traffic. He felt that often a word of advice or warning was more appropriate and effective than a fine. I agree with him. I do so because we understand people far better than we do machines.

A frank discussion with a police officer will make you think more about your driving habits than a fixed penalty notice. One makes you reflect on the effect your driving has on your own and other road users’ safety. The other leaves you fuming as you think about the scores of times you have had to cope with someone else’s inconsiderate or dangerous driving and seen it go unpunished.
IT’S been said that 100 years ago a lawabiding citizen could go from cradle to grave without crossing the path of officialdom.

We can’t return to those days, but we can surely do something about government agencies that irritate and alienate decent citizens by treating them as mere cash cows.

A few people take them on – Neil Herron, the Metric Martyrs campaigner, does so effectively.
We need more people to stand up and fight everyone’s corner.

I recently bought a TV, paying cash. I was told it was a legal requirement to fill in a form with my name and address. You could not think of anything dafter, so I suppose it must be right. Perhaps it’s so the TV licensing agency can send you one of the threatening letters I get people – mostly elderly and very upset people – complaining about to me. But more of that another time.
The anonymous, arbitrary agencies that control too many aspects of our lives are souring relations between government and people. They need to be reminded their prime purpose is to serve, not threaten us.

Highway Robbery? You guessed it ... Camden Council again.

Highway robbery. And that’s official
They took my car away. I am powerless
Hugo Rifkind
From The Times
July 3, 2009
Away on holiday, and the bastards stole my car. I’ve spoken to the police but they can’t help. These bastards, you see, they’re connected. They’re the biggest, meanest, most chiselling bunch of organised crooks from WC1 to N3. They’re known by all sorts of names, many of them unprintable. To most, though, they go by the moniker of “Camden Council”.

We’re talking actual stealing here. I am faultless. They suspended a parking bay, on which my car was parked, and then, because I hadn’t moved it, they took it away.

What could I do? I wasn’t there. I didn’t even realise it had gone until yesterday, when I cycled past the place where it glaringly wasn’t. Did they just move it across the street, so they could get on with their lives? Did they hell. They took it to the pound and they want £260 to give it back.

That seems a pretty clear case of theft to me. And extortion with menaces, to boot. The Mob insists otherwise. They seem to feel they’re punishing me. But what for? Do they think I should have driven to the South of France? With my whole family? In an old Mini?
“You might get it back on appeal,” said the bloke from the council, who was keen to be helpful. Appeal? Might? Get it back? God, I wish we could swear on this page. You steal my car when my back is turned, steal my money to my face and then expect me to feel grateful that I’m allowed to beg for it to be returned?

And there’s no way out. If I don’t pay up, they’ll ratchet the fine up by £40 a day for 56 days until it’s almost two and a half grand. Who can afford that? I can’t. Even some members of the Shadow Cabinet probably can’t.
And if I just let them squash it (and I’m tempted, even though I've owned it since I passed my test and it would probably make me cry) then — get this — I still have to pay £120. For the parking ticket. Which they issued to my car, which I had parked entirely legally, so that they could steal it.

Does it look terribly self-important, for a columnist to bang on about this sort of thing just because it’s happened to them?

Sure, probably. It just struck me, as I hung up, sweating, that maybe columnists don’t bang on about these little miseries enough. We always worry about the big things; the fiddled expenses, the bomb plots, Jordan’s boobs, the lies that lead to wars. It’s the little things, however, that pollute our lives so much more. The receptionist at A&E, your electricity bill, the new wheelie bin, the traffic jam, the cancelled flight, the delivery that never arrives.

It’s the powerlessness, always, against these shapeless systems that seem to hate us, and leave us no option but to hate them back. It’s awful. What a way to live. What a place. What bastards

Another little victory for the motorist ...

Well done to Durham County Council for volunteering the refunds immediately. If there is a Traffic Order problem then it also applies to tickets

Parking fine win is ‘one for the little person’ Monday 6th July 2009
By Gavin Engelbrecht

A COUNCIL could have to pay back thousands of pounds in parking fines after a lecturer successfully challenged an £80 ticket.
Margaret Bond appealed against a penalty charge incurred for parking on the banks of the River Wear, in Durham city centre.
She had rushed to the city’s Silver Street to help a teenage friend who was being harassed by a gang of youngsters.
When she returned to her Peugeot 307 – only ten minutes later – a traffic warden had issued a parking ticket.

Ms Bond initially challenged the ticket on grounds of insufficient signage but, after hours of reading through traffic law, she found more far-reaching implications.
Her ticket was issued for parking in Fowler’s Yard – not, as it should have been – for Back Silver Street.
Following a traffic penalty tribunal, the council said it would refund other fines paid for tickets for “Fowler’s Yard”.

A council spokeswoman said since the authority took over responsibility for parking enforcement in November last year, 132 tickets had been issued at the location.
She said: “We are unable to say if any of these were issued for Fowler’s Yard. However, if motorists are able to show that they have received a notice in this location with the name Fowler’s Yard on it, we will be pleased to refund any payment.”

Ms Bond said: “At first I was just relieved to get my friend back to the car and wanted to get home. But then I thought it’s time the little person fought back.”

The 55-year-old endured two unsuccessful appeals before, following a hearing at the Holiday Inn, in Seaton Burn, North Tyneside, on June 16, adjudicator David Binns ruled the council had not proved its no waiting restriction covered Fowler’s Yard and ordered the fine be cancelled.
Ms Bond, of Brandon, County Durham, has now established Best Play Fair, to campaign on consumer issues.
She said the group had 20 cases outstanding against banks, credit agencies, energy providers and local authorities and had recouped £4,000.
“I believe in fair play and I don’t think we’re getting it in all cases.
“Everybody’s got a story of being overcharged, or of being taken advantage of. Our mantra is – challenge it.”

For more information, email bestplayfair@tiscali.co.uk To challenge a Fowler’s Yard parking ticket visit County Hall, Durham City, or write to the council’s parking services.

NCP Services Whistleblower wins case ...

Do you work as a Civil Enforcement Officer and have concerns over the legality of your actions?
Do you work for a council in the Parking Services Department or Highways or even the legal department and have concerns over the legality of your council's enforcement?
Read the decision below...

NCP Services employee Geoff Topliss wins unfair dismissal case following allegations of fraud

A former NCP Services Ltd employee who claimed he was unfairly dismissed after alleging that NCP Services Ltd had defrauded the DVLA of over £1m has won his case at an employment tribunal today (11 December).

Geoff Topliss, of Canterbury, Kent, was represented by Tony Bertin, of Employment Relations Solicitors, at the Central London Employment Tribunal. The tribunal has awarded him over £160,000 in compensation and costs.

Read more here and the full decision here
Contact details for the firm that handled his case here

More scandal in Camden. Report reveals mystery behind Parking Boss' departure

More spotlights being shone on Camden. Read the article below ...

‘Boss used role to bin parking tickets’
Council chief left over breach in rules
Camden New Journal
2nd July 2009

A COUNCIL boss used his high rank to award himself a permit for hassle-free parking outside his home, the Town Hall has confirmed. The member of staff also used his seniority in Camden Council’s hierachy to waive valid parking tickets. Both actions amounted to a “breach in regulations” according to the council.
A new report circulated at the Town Hall confirms the details of the complaints and warns that it may have led to “potential for reputational damage”. The report was discussed by councillors sitting on the Town Hall’s audit committee on Thursday night and confirms that the manager had left the council over the affair. It follows a difficult 12 months for the parking department which has seen several changes of personnel and complaints about its effectiveness. The contract of interim parking manager John Meyer was not renewed at Christmas amid council claims that he had made “errors of judgement”.

Following his sudden departure, officials said his actions were “not compatible with the public profile of the post”. Mr Meyer, a well-known face within the parking industry, was brought in to give the department a shake-up amid confusion as to why the council was raising £4million less than forecasted. He was expected to stay until this summer, and was also tasked with helping to guide the much-maligned department through the process of handing a new deal to private contractors aiming to run the borough’s uniformed warden service.

A supersized contract is expected to be awarded early next year. Mr Meyer declined to comment on his exit from the council did not expand on its statement, other than to say that no disciplinary action was taken against him despite one anonymous complaint.

The new council report said: “A senior member of temporary staff breached council regulations by using business parking dispensation to park at his private residence and used authority to get tickets waived.”A council spokesman said: “We take misconduct very seriously.“

In December 2008 a temporary member of staff was found to have misused the council’s business parking dispensation to park at his private residence. His services were therefore immediately terminated.”

Council report here

District Auditor to investigate breach of council's own constitution

This investigation began with a spelling mistake. On 24th October 2007 I posted a story here about a hospital car park and used the logo of the company, who I believed was the hospital's enforcement contractor. Within minutes I had received an e-mail from NCP Services Head of Communications, Tim Cowen which stated:

"Neil,
You seem to be confused between NCP Services and NCP. They are two separate companies (used to be one and the same but were separated in March and are now separately owned).The hospital car parks in question are, I believe, run by NCP, so I would be obliged if you could remove the NCP Services logo. I work for NCP Services, which does not run any local services in Humberside. You spelt "indefensible" wrong as well

Cheers.
Tim Cowen
Director of Communications
NCP Services

With the NCP Services logo removed and replaced with that of National Car Parks Ltd. (and my spelling mistake corrected) an investigation began.

This resulted, around a year ago, in objections to the 2007-8 accounts in a number of council areas due to the fact that the original enforcement contracts (between the council and National Car Parks Ltd.) had been transferred to a newly formed company NCP Services Ltd. in what appeared, from the evidence obtained, to be a breach of the Councils' own constitutions.

The District Auditor is currently seeking counsel's opinion on the breach and Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Minister Norman Baker has raised the matter with his own council in Lewes East Sussex.

For the avoidance of doubt, Andrew Potter, Chief Executive of National Car Parks Ltd. cleared up the point as to whether National Car Parks Ltd. and NCP Services Ltd. were the same company with the letter (below) to the Sunderland Echo.

Sunderland did originally enter into a contract with National Car Parks Ltd. in January 2003 but after the BBC Inside Out programme was aired on 2nd October 2006 an internal investigation began which saw the sacking or resignation of 11 National Car Parks Parking Attendants and the eventual removal of the regime from the contract when the council took enforcement 'in-house' on 1st December 2007.

However, whilst all this furore was going on and the internal investigations were being conducted National Car Parks Ltd. 'de-merged' on 13th March 2007.

In Sunderland, the contract was simply transferred across by council officers without, as yet any evidence of anything in writing (in the form of minutes, legal advice, treasurer's advice) and without reference to the executive. This is in clear breach of the council's own constitution which clearly sets out Financial Procedures in such circumstances. and is now the subject of the investigation.

In other local authority areas legal advice led to 'novation agreements' hastily being put in place some time in 2008 but no such agreements were able to be put in place in Sunderland due to the fact that neither National Car Parks Ltd. or NCP Services Ltd. had any responsibility for on-street enforcement.

Once objections were lodged the District Auditor has a duty to investigate and they are now seeking counsel's opinion for the second time, this time specifically to decide on whether there has been a breach to the council's own constitution by 'an officer' who has acted without authority.

Documents released from the London Borough of Camden are quite revealing:

Wonder why this Parking Attendant tried to hide his uniform here

The story breaks in today's Sunday Sun

Sunderland Council in parking fines payback
Phil Doherty
Sunday Sun
5th July 2009

A NORTH council could be forced to pay back tens of thousands of pounds in parking fines because it failed to follow its own rules, according to campaigners.
They claim that Sunderland City Council failed to follow its own constitution and local government rules when NCP Parking Ltd was replaced by NCP Service Ltd in 2007/8.
More ...

Newcastle City Council waste £10,000 of public money on a parking ticket case

Newcastle City Council again?
How many mistakes do they have to make before an investigation is lauched into their parking officials behaviour?
Remember Mr. Campoli? Read here ...
Remember the signing blunder? Read it here ...

There is a great deal more to come and a great deal yet to be exposed. Please keep the information coming ...
A stark warning to all other councils out there is the fact that more and more officials are realising that their actions may have been unlawful and as motorists get ready to bring individual and class actions then more and more will refuse to become patsies and fall guys for their council's systemic failings and deliberate misdemeanours.

It isn't just a parking ticket!

Judge questions disabled parking badge case
Newcastle Journal
1st July 2009

A JUDGE has branded the prosecution of a disabled former policeman for displaying an out-of-date parking badge a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.
David Athey was taken to court after not paying two parking fines imposed when he mistakenly displayed a disabled badge that had expired.
He appealed against the decision but it has taken four years for his case to come before a crown court judge and is estimated to have cost the taxpayer up to £10,000.
Today Mr Athey blasted Newcastle City Council, who he works for as a financial assistant, for taking him to court.
And Judge Esmond Faulks, sitting at Newcastle Crown Court, questioned the wisdom of pursuing the case against Mr Athey.
The judge said: “In no other country but the UK could this possibly happen.
“It is a huge amount of money. Is it worth further expenditure of thousands of pounds out of your pocket and my pocket?
“Why not just let him off to get on with his life?”
Mr Athey, 59, of Holywell, Whitley Bay, was fined £120 with £180 costs during a Newcastle Magistrates’ hearing in 2005.
But when the appeal against that conviction was before Judge Esmond Faulks yesterday he urged Newcastle City Council to re-consider its stance and allow Mr Athey’s appeal to go through unchallenged. More ...

More errors more refunds. This time £20m and another speed camera issue

Sloppy practice and failure to follow the law. Yet another example, this time reported by the BBC and the Daily Mail. How many have lost their licences, lost their jobs?

The solution is simple ... more Police Officers in vehicles stopping speeding motorists and ensuring the matter ends up in court with proper evidence rather than stealth taxing the motorist.

£20m speed fines 'void' after police error
Andrew Levy and Ray Massey,
Daily Mail 25th June 2009

'Error' over speed camera notices
BBC Report 25th June 2009
A police force is investigating possible procedural errors in motoring cases dating back more than two years.
Essex Police is looking at section 20 notices it has issued since March 2007 - they summon motorists to court for speeding and red-light offences.
A national newspaper claims thousands of speed camera convictions could be overturned because of the error.
The paper claims it could cost the police more than £1m in refunds.
An Essex Police spokeswoman said: "We are currently looking into whether there is an issue with the section 20 notices we have served.
"It should be stressed that even if this does prove to be an issue it would only affect a proportion of cases where the person went to magistrates' court since March 2007.
"It would not affect the vast majority of the cases the bureau deals with, including fixed penalty notices or taking part in the driver improvement scheme, rider improvement scheme or speed awareness course."
On Thursday night, police refused to make any further comment.

BBC reports Camden's parking tickets unlawful

Is this the most expensive parking ticket blunder in history?
The ruling also applies to the London Boroughs of Merton, Kingston and Harrow.



How could 4 councils get it so wrong?
Questions have to be asked of the Parking Service Managers and Legal Departments who allowed this to happen especially when the Operational Guidance for Local Authorities is so explicit ...

This why signing MUST comply with the law ... the clock is ticking

When it comes to signing law nearly is not good enough. Stephen Sauvain QC representing Sunderland recently stated in the High Court in relation to another signing issue, that 'no-one could be misled by the meaning of a restriction.'

Adjudicators have also repeatedly chanted the mantra that 'it looks like a road sign or a bay and it is clear in its meaning therefore no-one could have been misled as to its intent.'

If we look at the series of photographs (left and below) it shows a loading bay and also zig-zags. Applying the philosophy and argument from those described above one would think that it is okay to park where indicated for the purposes of loading. No-one could be misled.
However, the zig-zag restriction runs from middle of the road to the building line meaning that motorists are being actively encouraged to park on the zig-zags and in doing so obstruct the field of vision for pedestrian and motorist alike. Now who is being misled?

The Department for Transport have confirmed that this is not allowed (not to mention the fact that the Loading Only bay is also incorrectly marked).

We have signing law for a reason ... and must it take a serious accident or fatality before Sunderland City Council officers reckless indifference to their legal responsibilities strikes home? This is the tip of the iceberg in Sunderland but perhaps the most serious example of their disregard for the law and failure to act.

The Department for Transport despite repeated requests have been indifferent to say the least. Ward councillors and the Leader of the Council have been put on notice as has local MPs Bill Etherington and Chris Mullin.

The photograph on the left shows a near miss and many more incidents involving pedestrians and motorists occur on a regular basis.

However, Lord Adonis now has the matter sitting on his desk and the Sunderland Echo have made the issue very public indeed.

Let us hope that nothing serious happens as the clock ticks ...

A copy of the letter is shown below the article.

Minister reads plea for safety
Sunderland Echo
Published Date: 25 June 2009
By James Johnston

A parking campaigner has written to new Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in a bid to boost safety on a Sunderland road.
Neil Herron took the step after he learnt of a series of near misses in Sea Road, Fulwell, in recent months. The businessman, of The Westlands, said it was a matter of time before there was a fatality there. Children regularly using a crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind zig-zag lines, he said, and the vision of both pedestrians and the drivers can be severely restricted.

In the letter to the Department for Transport (DfT), Mr Herron writes: "A situation exists where non-prescribed loading bays have been placed behind the zig-zags."It is something which continues to cause real concern and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the highway authority, it is still being ignored."Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location, but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene."

Mr Herron is also fighting a personal battle against a number of parking fines. He runs Boldon-based Parking Appeals Ltd, a company which helps those who feel they have been on the wrong end of a parking attendant's decision.

In the letter to former rail minister Lord Adonis, who was promoted to Transport Secretary earlier this month, Mr Herron added: "I wish to place the Sea Road matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency."

Mr Herron says he is due to hold a meeting with the DfT to discuss the issue.

THE LETTER TO LORD ADONIS
Lord Adonis Secretary of State for Transport
House of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW
22nd June 2009

Subject: URGENT ... Safety Hazard at Sea Road, Sunderland

Dear Lord Adonis,

A situation exists at the above location where non-prescribed Loading Bays have been placed behind the zig-zags. It is something which continues to cause real concern, and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the Highway Authority (Sunderland City Council) it is still being ignored. Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene. John Munns at the Department for Transport has however confirmed that there has been no authorisation for the use of the road markings and plates at this restriction (see attached).

Therefore, I wish to place the matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency, and wish for the Highway Authority (SCC) to be informed without delay that the restriction is unlawful and that it must be removed from the highway forthwith.The restriction at this location is not prescribed in law and it has been confirmed that it has not been authorised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to draw to your attention the following (my emphasis):

Chapter 1 Traffic Signs Manual - Use of Non-prescribed ‘Illegal’ signs.Part 3. Legal Aspects and Responsibilities for Signs1.18 The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, is illegal and Authorities who so use unauthorised signs act beyond their powers. Additionally, an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction. The possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions may be severe and those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages……

1.20 Authorities should consider requiring the removal of any object or device erected privately on land adjacent to their roads which has the apparent or express intention of guiding, warning or directing road users. In addition, private advertisements should not resemble or incorporate prescribed traffic signs on their symbols. United Kingdom signs are crown copyright and may not be reproduced without permission. In no circumstances will the Department permit the use of traffic signs on advertisements at roadside locations. When prescribed traffic signs are used illegally action should be taken to secure their removal.

I am aware of a number of near misses and it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality at this unlawfully signed location. The frustration is that certain officers at Sunderland City Council appear to think that signing law does not apply to them and this cavalier attitude and reckless indifference to their legal duties applies to other areas in the City, but it can be seen from Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Part 3 1.18 that not only are they acting unlawfully they are doing so in the full knowledge that their actions are unlawful.

Meanwhile, school children regularly using this crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind the zig-zags. Both the pedestrians and the drivers view can be obstructed by vehicles ‘encouraged’ to park behind zig-zags.

I would appreciate your intervention and have copied this in to the press and media to make the public fully aware before someone is killed at this unlawfully marked location. I am sure that you will be aware that under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 if a person to whom a duty of care is owed (member of the public who relies on Council Officers and the Highway Authority to ensure that restrictions placed on the highway are lawful) is killed then that death could be seen to be due to management failures which amount to a gross breach of the “relevant duty of care”. I wish for you, as the Secretary of State to be fully aware of Sunderland’s repeated avoidance of my requests and refusal to act and therefore fully responsible for any consequences of that failure to act, and that responsibility also resides with you as the Secretary of State.

I have also copied in senior executives at the City Council in order for them to be fully aware of the potential corporate and personal consequences for failing to act, as well as various elected representatives both locally and nationally.

I will make available all communications on this matter on request should you require them.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

Tel. 0191 5195932

Mob. 07776202045

cc. Chris Mullin MPcc. Bill Etherington MP

cc. Lord Lucas
cc. Dave Smith, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council

cc. Councillor Paul Watson, Leader
cc. Councillor Colin Wakefield

cc. Councillor George Howe
cc. Councillor Bob Francis
cc. Councillor John Walton
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Burney Johnson, Head of Transport and Engineering.

cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Richard Bentley RMB Consulting
cc. John Munns, Graham Hanson Department for Transport
cc. Oliver Mishcon, barrister
cc. James Johnston, Peter Jeffrey, Ross Robertson, Sunderland Echo

cc. Sara Nichol, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. BBC North East News

More refunds to come ... this time Leicester City Council

If they are marking the bays 'so that they are clearer' according to the council's statement then there should be no alteration to the format. Anyone with pre and post photographs please forward them. We are building up evidence against many authorities.
Thanks also to council officials and Civil Enforcement Officers who continue to forward information of deliberate misconduct by colleagues. We can reassure you and others that such matters will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Drivers may get tickets refund over parking bay errors
Leicester Mercury
Wednesday, June 24, 2009,

Drivers given parking tickets may be able to claim a refund after it emerged the wrong measurements had been used for parking bays.
Leicester City Council workers are remarking many of the 240 bays in the city centre.
However, the authority has insisted it is only doing the work to make the bays clearer, and not because they are wrong.
It comes after a driver successfully appealed against a ticket he was given in a loading bay in the city because, he said, the dimensions of the space did not meet legal requirements.
The Leicester Mercury carried out its own checks on five random bays in the St George's area and found all were incorrectly marked out.

Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, lines marking out a pay-and-display bay must be 60cm long.
However, a slight leeway is allowed with gaps of a minimum of 60cm and maximum of 90cm between each one. However, in the city centre, several are not marked out in that way, which experts say makes them unenforceable. Therefore, tickets handed out are invalid.
See measures for Pay and Display bays
Measures for Disabled bays
Measures for split Pay and display bays
The council. however, said if the experts' comments led people to believe they could get their parking fines overturned, that would be "raising expectations which will almost certainly prove to be unreasonable".

Richard Bentley, a former North Yorkshire police officer, is now an expert witness on the issue.
He said: "The format for parking bays is set out in law and those laws cannot be ignored.
"A mistake in law means any money they have taken in those bays has to be repaid. Any tickets issued must also be repaid.
"Put simply, if the lines are wrong the fine is wrong."
Mr Bentley said there was no time limited on appealing against tickets handed out in incorrect bays.
It is not known how many people might be able to claim refunds on tickets given since the city took over parking from the police in January, 2007, but it could be thousands.

Between July 2007 and July 2008, the latest figures show more than 62,000 fines were issued in the city and drivers handed over about £2.7m.
It is also not clear how many of the bays are incorrectly marked, but the council said it was repainting up to 95 per cent.
The bays in question are disabled spaces, loading bays and on-street pay-and-display spaces.
City council traffic manager Andy Thomas said: "A person argued a loading bay was incorrectly marked. It was not contested because the issue was ambiguous and not because we recognised we were wrong.
"This work has not been prompted by any appeal.
"My main concern is all bays are clearly and accurately marked. While we are repainting, we will also check they are correct."
Mr Thomas said if any bay was wrong – adding he did not know of any – the council could rebuff appeals because there was "clear intent" to police parking.

Parking rule expert Barrie Segal, founder of AppealNow.com which has successfully appealed 50,000 parking tickets across the country, said that argument was "rubbish".
He said: "This argument that because there is intent to police bays, even if they are wrong, is the same rubbish councils trot out in these situations."
Mr Segal said the fact the council did not contest the appeal against the loading bay ticket "shows there is clearly something a miss".
He said: "They are measuring and remarking all of them, which suggests to me they are not sure if they are right.''

When the Mercury put its measurements and the arguments of the parking experts to the council, a spokesman said: "If people feel they have been harshly treated, our advice is that they should register a complaint via the council's normal complaints procedure."

PAID A PCN in an incorrectly marked bay?
ASSISTANCE
Click on here to open up a Leicester City Council complaint form
Complaint text:
It appears that the bay in which I received my Penalty Charge Notice was not marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The use of non-prescribed signs is unlawful and therefore all monies derived from such a mistake in law are recoverable under the principle established in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993].
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would like copies of any internal communications the council holds with regard to the enforcement of non-prescribed bays and the instructions (including copies of any TSRGD 2002 drawings) given to contractors detailing what 'corrections' are to be undertaken.
Under the Data Protection Act I would like details of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s) including any Parking Attendant or Civil Enforcement Officer notes, and any information the council holds on known signing deficiencies in the areas where my PCN(s) was/were issued.
Resolution text:
I would like a full refund of all monies paid for all PCNs issued to vehicle registration number...................(insert vehicle reg in bays which were not marked in accordance with TSRGD 2002 details)

Motorists are about to bite back ... as predicted.

...and as they prepare to do so more evidence is coming in from council officers and parking enforcement personnel detailing what can only be described as unlawful activity. We can accept people making mistakes ... but as soon as that mistake is spotted and covered up to allow unlawful enforcement to continue then that is when it becomes criminal.

We understand that a number of Police forces are going to be forced to initiate criminal investigations once evidence is placed before them.

Refunds to come in Camden, Kingston, Harrow and Merton for motorists who have been penalised with unlawful PCNs.

All of this was forecast in the last Tonight Special we did following the introduction of the 2004 Traffic Management Act on 31st March 2008. All the councils who have thought that they were above the law need to think again.

Whistleblowers ... keep the information coming.

On the unlawful credit card charges issued by the four London Boroughs named above ... it is understood that London Council's Nick Lester has reminded councils that they must not levy such charges. It follows that if such charges are unlawful then, according to Mr. Lester

Another one bites the dust ...now Merton Council

Another Council guilty of adding an unlawful Credit Card surcharge to their Penalty Charge Notice. We will help you get you money back for any PCNs paid in Camden, Merton, Harrow and Kingston. Just e-mail enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk for more information.

Meanwhile, since we went live on the BBC last week another council has confirmed that it has suspended its credit card charge. Merton Council's press release is below (seems that they have missed a bit ... the bit about how you get your money back!) :

Merton Council suspends credit card surcharges
12 June 2009
Merton Council has suspended its credit card surcharges on Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking and bus lane offences. This follows concerns raised by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) about the legality of a 1.35% surcharge added to all credit card payments of PCNs. The council introduced credit card surcharges on the 15 April this year to recover costs imposed by the credit card companies. In addition to using a credit card, those looking to pay their Penalty Charge Notice can also pay with cash, cheque or debit card.

Paying within 14 days of receiving the penalty charge notice reduces the charge by half.

Information on paying parking Penalty Charge Notices can be found at: www.merton.gov.uk/living/transport-streets/parking/pcn/paying_pcn.htm

Merton Council's cabinet member for finance and regeneration Councillor Diane Neil Mills said: "As soon as we learned of the potential problem concerning the surcharges, we took action and suspended surcharges on credit card payments for Penalty Charge Notices for parking and bus lane offences. We are investigating the situation with urgency and would ask everyone to bear with us as we work on the necessary next steps.'

Chideock Speed Camera Refunds

For all those who think that you are not entitled to refunds when a Traffic Order is defective read the press release below ...

Meanwhile, just a reminder to all those councils who regularly read this blog ... Regulation 18 Local Authority Traffic Order Procedures ... if your signs are not correct then your traffic order is not in force. All monies derived from unlawfully marked locations will have to be refunded. The Chideock case wipes out the myth that is chanted regularly by Council press officers and Nick Lester of London Councils ... 'that if you paid the ticket you accepted the contravention.'


WRONG ... and more and more motorists are ready to start legal actions for restitution.



Chideock Speed Camera Partnership Update

Chideock Update - 19th June 2009

****PRESS RELEASE****

Technicality in the Traffic Regulation Order Relating
to the A35 in Chideock, West Dorset
This announcement follows the case of Regina v Dawe (see ‘Notes to Editors’ for details) and the Crown Court judgment that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock in West Dorset was defective due to a historical clerical error in the street name in the TRO.

The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) can confirm that it has secured agreement regarding dealing with speeding offences detected by the safety camera monitoring westbound traffic on the A35 in Chideock prior to 2007.
Each case will be reviewed individually and may result in motorists detected travelling over 30mph on the westbound safety camera in Chideock, prior to 2007, having the fixed penalty payment from this offence refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence, if still valid.

Adrian Whiting, Assistant Chief Constable for Dorset Police and the Chair of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, comments:
"Chideock is a small rural community with a main road running through the middle of the village and we are reassured that no one has tried to suggest that the speed limit should be anything other than 30mph.
"During the period this safety camera has been in operation it will have reduced drivers’ speeds through the village by acting as a deterrent, which will have helped to safeguard the safety of the people who live in Chideock and other road users. The public should be reassured by the fact that a new TRO is in place and the DSCP has recommenced enforcement there."
The DSCP will be writing to all drivers affected, to inform them of the situation and outline the process to follow if they wish to have their fixed penalty refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence if still valid. Details of the process to follow if drivers think their offence is affected are available on the DSCP website – http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/

The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership remains focused on working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed.
Media Enquiries - please contact Nikki Haine or Matt McKenna on 01425 472330 or email
emily@mckennatownsendpr.com

NOTES TO EDITORS
Background information on the issues relating to the A35 westbound in Chideock and the Crown Court case of Regina v Dawe:
1. In 1997 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock, West Dorset was arranged. The order defined a length of the A35 westbound as subject to a 30mph speed limit. This was necessary as that stretch of road does not have a system of street lighting.
2. The text of the order referred to the A35 junction with "Seatown Road". This was a mistake as the road was then, and still is, correctly named "Duck Street".
3. At approximately 23:15hrs on the 27th October 2005 Mr Dawe was detected speeding by a fixed safety camera, travelling west in the village of Chideock. He was travelling at 41mph in a lorry, passing the houses where the safety camera is located and approaching the village Pubs. He has never disputed this speed, nor suggested it was sensible to drive that fast in the built-up area of the village.
4. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the 30mph speed limit signs were not of the proper form. On the 26th October 2007 the Crown Court sitting at Dorchester found that the TRO was defective due to the road name issue, and thus the 30mph speed limit could not be enforced at that point on the A35 westbound. Accordingly the Court did not need to assess Mr Dawe’s actual grounds for appeal, and no finding on them was made.
5. Following the Crown Court judgement the organisations which make up the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership have been working with the appropriate Government departments to determine whether this judgement applies to other cases and agree an appropriate process for dealing with these offences.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, which was set up in August 2002, constitutes a partnership between Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset Police, NHS South West, Highways Agency, Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Partnership, through a combination of measures including education, engineering and enforcement, is working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed. It is responsible for the operation and maintenance of fixed site, mobile and red-light junction cameras throughout Dorset.