Well done Cherwell DC for refunding motorists

Parking fine refunds after Cherwell District Council error
BBC News Oxford
The council will repay £11,600
worth of fines after the ombudsman's ruling

Residents in Oxfordshire are to be refunded £11,600 worth of parking fines after a council failed to properly signpost new charges.

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) found Cherwell District Council had not
acted "reasonably" over new rules it introduced last April.

A council spokesman said the authority did not agree with the findings.
But the council said it would repay all fines issued in the nine days in April when adequate signs were not in place.

Dr Jane Martin, from the LGO, which upheld five complaints, said: "In this case I found that there was indeed unfairness, the council did not act reasonably.'

'Above Legal Requirements.'
"It was not at all fair in my view that the onus was on the complainant to check when they'd been used to not paying charges in the past."
Councillor Barry Wood said: "We are disappointed with the findings.
"This authority went over and above the legal requirements to ensure that changes to parking charges were communicated well in advance of implementation.
"In recognition of a high level of [fines] issued during the first two weeks of the changes, we introduced additional signage, as well as writing to every Blue Badge holder in the district informing them of the changes."

The council said it has the details of those affected in the district between
4 and 13 April last year and will contact them directly to repay the fines.

London Borough of Richmond ... CCTV Smartcar Refunds

Let us not forget that the revenue derived by Richmond Council is UNLAWFUL income to which they are not entitled. Whilst their admission that their vehicles were incorrectly certified and refunds must be made requires praise along with some very laudible statements in their press release which I hope will serve as a reminder to other authorities that they are not above the law.


It is a requirement that they keep details of every financial transaction and therefore there should be no problem whatsoever contact everyone who has paid to advise them of the situation ... thus allowing them an opportunity 'to appeal' as Richmond claim their legal advice requires. That way they will not need to expend vast sums of money on press and media advertising.

Some cynics would perhaps suggest that a few adverts will result in significantly fewer refunds. I would like to believe that Richmond's intentions are honourable and an example that many others will be forced to follow in the coming months.

RICHMOND ON THAMES WEBSITE STATEMENT

Appeals for fines issued by camera cars (from March 2009 until April 2011)
At a Cabinet meeting on the 21 July, members will discuss a recommendation that Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by the Council’s mobile camera cars from March 2009 until April 2011 are refunded. This is due to the cars being incorrectly certified during this time.

The PCNs issued fall outside the usual 28 day appeal period. Legal advice to the Council is that there is no need to repay parking charges outside the appeal period. However, as motorists had no way of knowing the charges were incorrectly levied, the Cabinet, in accordance with its Fair Parking policies, is being recommended to allow a special 3-month appeal period to enable motorists caught by the camera cars to request a refund. Appeals made on this basis would automatically be allowed. Unclaimed funds would be reinvested in parking, highway and footpath related schemes.

If the Cabinet Meeting approves this approach the Council will launch an extensive advertising campaign to contact motorists, letting them know how they can apply for a refund and what the precise starting point for the three month appeal window is. This process will not be in place until the Cabinet decision has been taken, so motorists are urged to wait before they contact the Council.

Adverts will be placed in the local newspapers and on the Council website after the likely Cabinet approval.

Please monitor the local media following the Cabinet Meeting on 21 July for further information on how to apply. In addition, please note that only Parking Charge Notices issued by the mobile camera cars and during the above dates will be entitled to a refund.

For more information see our recent press release

No excuses. No TRO then give back the money

Another blunder by another council. Traffic Regulation Orders are legal documents. If you don't have one or it's incorrect then you can't keep the money. Council cutbacks should come from culling the people paid handsomely from the public purse who have failed to deliver the most basic of legal requirements. No point politicians blaming the previous administration. The responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the council officers responsible.
No law ... no penalty. The District Auditor needs to be tasked with the investigation and the Local Government Ombudsman brought in to investigate the maladministration causing injustice to thousands.


Hyndburn parking tickets since 2008 'could be invalid'
Lancashire Telegraph
Tuesday 24th May 2011
Exclusive By Emma Cruces

EVERY parking ticket issued in an East Lancashire borough over the last three years could be invalid, it has emerged.

Hyndburn Council failed to update its bylaws in line with a new Traffic act in 2008.

Parking campaigners have described it as a ‘major blunder’ and believe it means thousands of tickets issued ‘could be overturned’.

Similar cases have seen the government agency, which would adjudicate on the matter, order that mass refunds occur.

It says ‘outdated terminology invalidates a penalty charge’.

However, the council is confident it will not have to return thousands of pounds in fines, claiming the use of incorrect terms ‘does not affect liability’.

Hyndburn Labour MP Graham Jones said if the fears proved correct it was the latest in a ‘long list of disasters’ his party’s new ruling group had inherited from the ousted Conservatives.

Town centre trader Chris Fisher said he discovered the council’s bylaw document was out of date after looking into a parking ticket he received this March.

Mr Fisher contacted Neil Herron, the founder of parking watchdog Parking Appeals.

Mr Herron has become a thorn in the side of councils across the country, helping drivers overturn tickets.

He urged motorists to appeal claiming the situation could see all tickets since 2008 overturned. He said: “It’s a major blunder.

“Hyndburn uses the wrong terminology, refers to the wrong legislation.

“They expect members of the public to obey signs to the letter and not be one minute late but can’t even get their own house in order.”

The government repealed the 1991 Road Traffic Act in March 2008, but gave councils two years notice to apply for new powers under the 2004 act.

Though Hyndburn tickets themselves quote the 2004 act, the council’s bylaw document still quotes the 1991 act.

A spokesperson said they believed this ‘does not affect liability’, adding: “We don’t accept their view of the law and have responded saying this.

“Mr Fisher is entitled to set out his case before a parking adjudicator however and they will make the decision.

“The council's view is that the penalty charge notice in question was correctly issued by a civil enforcement officer in accordance with requirements of the Traffic Management Act 2004.”

Hyndburn’s bylaw document is said to use outdated terminology such as ‘parking attendant’ instead of ‘civil enforcement officer’ and refer to the Road Traffic Act 1991 instead of the Road Traffic Act 2004, in key areas.

The fine amount in the council’s bylaw is also said to be set at £60 however the 2004 act quoted on on Mr Fisher’s ticket gives the amount as £40.

Mr Fisher, who owns Printing.com, Blackburn Road, Accrington, said: “As a trader there is nowhere where you can park all day so you have to keep moving your car on from place to place.

“I was a bit late moving from a three hour spot on Blackburn Road one day and this is the result.

“I just find it frustrating you get no thanks or help as a trader in the town centre and are expected to do extra work just to get yourself from A to B.

“After all that it turns out the council hasn’t done its own homework.”

Earlier this month Labour seized control of Hyndburn Council from the Conservative group.

Hyndburn Labour MP Graham Jones said: “If this is proved accurate, it can be added to a long list of disasters at the hands of the council.”

Labour leader Miles Parkinson, who takes official control of the council tonight, said: “It sounds as if it warrants a serious investigation and could have a serious effect on the borough.”

But outgoing Conservative leader Peter Britcliffe he had been assured by the legal department the parking tickets were still valid.

He added: “However, it is for the adjudicator to decide. ”

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.