COUNCIL FOUND GUILTY OF UNFAIR PRACTICES IN PARKING APPEALS AND PARKING TICKETS CANCELED!

PR Fire

Submitted by Barrie Segal on 05 July 2010

Camden Council found guilty by parking adjudicator of failing to make a full disclosure of evidence to motorists when their parking tickets were appealed to the parking Adjudicator. As a result the parking tickets in the case were cancelled!

In a landmark parking tickets decision a Parking Adjudicator has held that Camden Council have acted unlawfully and failed to make full disclosure of evidence to motorists when cases are submitted to the Parking Adjudicator.

In a case brought about by parking ticket expert Barrie Segal, founder of the parking tickets website http://www.appealnow.com/ on behalf of clients Barrie argued that the council had removed evidence from the evidence bundle which was required to be sent to all motorists appealing to the Parking Adjudicator. Barrie said: " Parking Tickets are an everyday hazard but when council issue parking tickets and act unfairly this is not acceptable."

The decision (Case 2100216116 Hizer -v- Camden) states;-

Mr Segal represents the Appellant and argues that the authority has not served a complete set of case papers to him and that prejudice has arisen and non-compliance with established Parking and Traffic Appeals Service directions.

The decision goes on to say:

I find that the authority has not complied with this direction, and that there has been prejudice to the Appellant by the failure to make full disclosure; this is especially so when the authority is aware that an Appellant is represented.

The appeal is allowed

Barrie says, I have complained for months about the way Camden Council deal with parking tickets when the appeal goes before an adjudicator. There have been cases where evidence in the form of copy parking tickets supplied to the adjudicator but not submitted to the motorist have been different from the original parking tickets received by the motorist (Case 2090479625 Hilton -v- Camden)

He went on to say, "When it comes to parking tickets it is not surprising in my view that Camden was the council with the lowest percwentage of winning appellants (34%) at the Parking Adjudicator. The council's scandalous behaviour in this case, I have now won demonstrates that motorists have been treated unfairly particularly where they have relied on the paperwork received from the council. I believe that motorists who have lost cases at the Parking Adjudicator relating to their parking tickets and have not received the full evidence can seek a refund from Camden Council.



Camden issued more than 320,000 parking tickets in 2009 compared to 404,000 parking tickets in 2008.

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)

Parking black holes set to appear in council's budgets

Are the black holes starting to appear because drivers are becoming more knowledgeable and therefore appealing more and more tickets successfully?

Cautious drivers 'leave council with a £1m black hole'
Islington Gazette
nlnews@archant.co.uk
01 October 2008

ISLINGTON Council has a £1million "black hole" in its finances - because cautious drivers are getting fewer tickets, it is claimed. A shortfall of between £700,000 and £1.4 million is expected in parking revenue this year as hard-hit motorists take much more care not to get fined.

Finance chief Andrew Cornwell made the admission at an Islington Town Hall meeting. Warning his colleagues on the council executive of the impact of the credit crunch, he said:
"This financial report is very different from financial reports I have been able to give you in the past. "I have been warning for several months that times are going to get hard. The rainy day that we have been putting money aside for has arrived."

He added: "A lot of this is due to a shortfall in parking money and it is related to the economy. People are more careful on compliance with parking regulations in this situation."

Barrie Segal, who fronts appealnow.com, a ticket appeal website, said:
"Parking is not intended to raise revenue - in fact it is illegal to specifically raise money from parking fines. If there is a black hole in their finances caused by less parking fines it would suggest they have been using it as a revenue raiser."

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayer's Alliance, said:
"This proves what motorists have long suspected - councils do exploit parking fines as a revenue stream. If that income is now falling the council have only themselves to blame for relying on it as a source of income when they weren't meant to."

Councillor James Murray, Islington Labour's spokesman on environment, said:
"Islington's Lib-Dems have had to admit what we have all suspected - they run parking for profit, not for people. We are calling on the council to give a fair deal for people on parking and stop treating it like some endless money-pot."

But Councillor Greg Foxsmith (Lib-Dem) said:
"We control parking to protect spaces for residents and to stop roads getting clogged. If everyone parked correctly there would be no parking revenue. Things are moving in the right direction with a fall in revenue as more park correctly and that is reflected in our budget.

New parking fine threat to motorists ...

and another licence to print money for the councils. When inconsiderate parking was handled by the Police any argument could be heard before a court of law ... but more importantly, proper consideration would be given to the gravity of the situation because the Police did not have a financial interest in the outcome.
Now vehicles can be fined but the problem remains as the vehicle will still be 'causing the alleged obstruction.' The only difference is that the more tickets issued the richer the councils become. Also bear in mind that to prove your innocence your only option is to go before an adjudicator ... who is funded by the very system he is being asked to deliberate upon.

This lawless 'civil enforcement' has torn up the rules of justice and fairness and continues to ride roughshod over the country's motorists. At what point will you say enough is enough ... when YOU are fined £120 for being 51cm away from the kerb?

New parking fine threat to motorists
Millions of motorists risk being fined up to £70 for "anti-social parking" such as parking more than 19 inches from the kerb even if there are no warning signs under new proposals unveiled by the Government.
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Daily Telegraph
29 Jul 2008

Drivers who park too far from the kerb or by a dropped kerb would be at risk of receiving a penalty charge.

The Department for Transport is ready to allow councils to impose fines even where no warning signs which note restrictions have been placed.

This would hit motorists who are guilty of "inconsiderate parking", such as leaving their cars more than 19.7 inches (50cm) from the kerb.

Drivers who park by a dropped kerb would also be at risk of receiving a penalty charge notice from a council traffic warden – now known as a civil enforcement officer.

Under existing arrangements police have the right to remove a car which is causing an obstruction – such as double parking and blocking in another motorist.
They can also move cars left by dropped kerbs when there is a complaint – for example from someone whose driveway has been blocked.
Councils, however, can only issue fines when they put up notices making it clear to motorists that parking restrictions are in force.

Motoring campaigners fear that town halls will capitalise on these new powers just as they did when they were first given the right to control parking and pocket the fines under "decriminalisation".
"Nuisance parking should be tackled and the original intention of the guidance was to give drivers half a chance from committing an offence," said Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA.
"Now it seems now that councils want the powers to levy fines without any responsibility to deter unwelcome parking and worse they do not have to prove anything if it came to an appeal.
"The current position has worked well as blatant obstruction was always simple to deal with.
"If a car is causing a problem it is towed way. It's as simple as that.
"These proposals introduce a massive grey area which will lead to countless disputes where motorists will say they were unaware they were doing anything wrong.
"The danger is that if councils can make money out of this they will."

Barrie Segal, whose organisation AppealNow regularly takes up the case of thousands of motorists, was equally horrified.
"If councils get these powers, the number of tickets will zoom."

But Rosie Winternton, the roads minister, defended the changes. "Dropped footways are provided to help wheelchair users and those with powered mobility vehicles or prams get around easily and safely. They also allow residents to easily reach their garages or park on their driveways."
The minister also insisted that action against double parking was essential, describing it as an “anti-social activity that causes an unnecessary obstruction of the road, putting all other road users at risk.”
The changes will apply to councils outside London which will be brought into line with authorities within the capital.

Motoring organisations’ biggest fear is that those who are caught by the changes will have no knowledge that they are even parking illegally at all.

In some cases confusion could arise with motorists - and council traffic wardens - unsure whether cars have been parked next to a kerb which has been lowered to allow wheelchair access or one which is merely worn down.
However the Government believes the changes are justified and that forcing councils to put up signs would add to “street clutter”.

Simon Cowell to launch Councils Have No Talent?

Rumour has it that Simon Cowell is going to launch a new show ...

Council's Have No Talent

When they visited Yorkshire no-one showed any sign of competence in the parking department.

However, not wanting to be overshadowed by other local councils like Leeds, Harrogate, York and Scarborough featured on the BBC (story posted below) ... Huddersfield jumped in with a performance that ensured three XXX's ... vying for a place in the regional semi finals.

The report below had the crowds going wild ...


Oh, Mr Mayor, you can’t park there!
Jun 2 2008 by Nick Lavigueur, Huddersfield Daily Examiner

KIRKLEES parking chiefs have been left red-faced after it emerged Huddersfield Town Hall’s permit parking bay is illegal.

The Ramsden Street bay fails Government rules on various counts, with the sign and road markings both failing to conform to regulations.

A simple search on the Government Transport Department’s website would have revealed that only white markings are allowed for permit holder bays and not the yellow used for the council’s private space.

And Kirklees could be further embarrassed after it emerged that dozens of parking bays across the district are unlawful, including most of Batley town centre and parts of Dewsbury and Holmfirth.

The council refused to comment, but a highways department statement said:

“We will look into issues with parking spaces if the details of the location and problem are reported directly to us.” More ...

Well, looks like we had better do our civic duty and the letter has gone off to Kirklees Council asking them to suspend enforcement of all non-compliant bays immediately, to begin the process of offering refunds without delay and to make public their application to the Department for Transport which confirmed that all restrictions were signed in accordance with the law.

More Double standards in Blackburn ... park anywhere if you are the Mayor

Mayor's car given bus stop parking space
By Tom Moseley

THE Mayor's official car has been given a parking space at a bus stop, prompting fury at council bosses' 'double standards'.
The 'scandalous and arrogant' decision has been slammed by critics who say the mayor's black BMW should be treated the same as everyone else.
And a bus operator accused the council of setting a bad example and inconveniencing passengers.

Parking wardens have been told not to issue tickets when the mayor's car is left in the 'space' at the bus stop in Exchange Street, next to Blackburn Town Hall.

But members of the public have not enjoyed the same treatment, with a number of complaints in recent months about 'over zealous' parking wardens.
Attendants have given fixed penalty notices to, among others, a security van as it picked up cash from a bank in the town centre and a resident who waited for one minute while picking his wife outside the Postal Order in Darwen Street.

Parking ticket champion Barrie Segal, who founded the website www.appealnow.com, said: "If you or I parked there we would get a ticket.
"This is scandalous, and typical of the arrogance of councils."

Parking campaigner Neil Herron, who has successfully challenged parking tickets across the country, said: "If bus stop regulations are not being enforced in this case, what sort of message does that send out to the rest of the borough?"

David Wilson, the commercial development director of Lancashire United, said that cars parking in bus stops created "huge problems".
He said: "Bus drivers need to be able to use bus stops properly and get to the pavement to make sure that passengers have proper access.
"It is not very good at all if the mayor is parking in a bus stop and we will certainly be raising it with the council."

The parking space at the bus stop was created after a £900,000 revamp of the area around the town hall.
A proper space was created, but that was found to obscure the view of pedestrians crossing a nearby zebra crossing.
The bus stop will be used temporarily while a review is undertaken to find a permanent parking space.

Opposition council leader Kate Hollern said: "Parking in a town centre bus stop sets a very bad example.
"Just a few weeks ago I was given a parking ticket because I parked partially in a bus stop. I know I shouldn't have done it, and I deserved the ticket, but it should be one rule for all.
"Whoever drew up the plans for mayor to park at the end of a bus lane is crazy."

Trader Krish Singh, of interiors store Milano's in Blackburn, accused the council of double standards.
Mr Singh said: "The wardens are very quick to issue tickets to our customers, as well as us, but not so quick to issue to the people in the town hall. It's clearly a case of do as we say, not as we do."

Last month council bosses were left red-faced after they forgot to replace the tax disc on the mayor's car.
The car, which has a registration CB1, is used on official visits by the Mayor of Blackburn with Darwen, Coun Maureen McGarvey.

Council leader Colin Rigby said: "Concerns were raised about the safety of pedestrians who may not be seen by motorists as they approached the zebra crossing.
"A safety audit will be undertaken, which could lead to a more official looking car park space."

The number of parking tickets set to escalate as the war on the motorist set to reach firestorm proportions

Be prepared for a massive escalation in the number of fines issued right across the country. No controls, no checks or balances. Adjudication bodies funded by, and financially dependent on the very industry they have to adjudicate upon. The Department for Transport neutered as councils attempt to 'dumb-down' the strict and pedantic requirements of the signing legislation, assisted by the adjudicators who are adopting the man on the Clapham Omnibus stance of 'well, it looks like a loading bay / yellow line / parking space ...' forgetting or ignoring the fact that the legislators have created the specific signing requirements for a reason.

2008 is going to be the year that motorists reach 'tipping point' and say enough is enough. Get a voice ... and join http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/

Councils to use cameras to catch drivers
By David Millward
Daily Telegraph Transport Editor
25/02/2008

Motorists face having to pay millions of pounds in fines after councils are given the power to use road cameras to punish minor traffic offences.

From the end of next month, town halls will be able to cash in on motorists drifting into bus lanes, ignoring no right-turn signs and getting trapped in box junctions. Even parking more than 19in from a kerb can be picked up by camera and trigger a fine of £60.

The new rules bring to an end the existing system where enforcement is left to the police, who are able to take into account the circumstances surrounding any offence. Transport for London and the local authorities in the capital have enjoyed this power for some time.

However, there have been complaints camera operators in control centres have issued tickets even when there is doubt the motorist's manoeuvre is illegal.

Motoring groups warned allowing councils to take over the enforcement of the traffic laws - and keep the proceeds - will lead to a surge in both the number of motorists being fined and the amount of cash being extracted from their wallets.

"My fear is that the bad councils will milk this," said Sheila Rainger, the acting director of the RAC Foundation. "There will be times when the need to raise money will take precedence over common sense."

The "decriminalisation" of parking - handing over enforcement to councils and allowing them to keep the cash - has already led to a surge in fines. Now there are fears allowing the same thing to happen for routine traffic matters will make life even worse for the motorist.
Several councils, including Manchester, Brighton and Hove, Nottingham and Sheffield, have already voiced an interest in taking on the new powers.

The change has been seen by critics as further evidence of what they regard as the "war on the motorist". It comes alongside a change in parking rules, revealed by The Daily Telegraph last week, which will enable councils in England and Wales to use remote cameras.

Barrie Segal, whose organisation, AppealNow, challenges thousands of parking and traffic offence tickets a year, warned motorists could find it hard to challenge any fines.
"You could get the ticket 28 days after the incident happened and if you travel the same road every day, it will be hard to remember what you are doing," he said.
"There are all sorts of reasons why people can stop in a box junction. Motorists can do so when turning right, but proving this could prove difficult. There could be other extenuating circumstances, such as making space to allow a police car or emergency vehicle to pass.
"I had one case where a London motorist was prosecuted for stopping in a yellow box, even though the photo shows that had he kept going he would have run two people over.
"If there is pressure to issue tickets because it's in a council's financial interests to do so, at the very least motorists won't be given the benefit of the doubt."

The changes have also alarmed Paul Watters, the AA head of roads policy. He said: "Some local authorities have shown varying degrees of ineptitude at dealing with parking enforcement so this doesn't bode well if they take on moving offences.
"Moving offences are very different to static ones. Mitigation may exist such as when a road closure or accident may necessitate an 'illegal' manoeuvre.
"There are many locations where traffic management arrangements are incredibly complicated or perhaps out of date. Sticking cameras up will be cheaper than 'fixing' a bad junction. What hope for unfamiliar drivers in an area using CCTV enforcement - they get home perhaps hundreds of miles away and a week later get a ticket?"
Mr Watters added: "How can they validate the legitimacy of the ticket - the CCTV image may show the offence but will it show that the sign was there and readable?"
"This type of enforcement could in some instances lead to bad driving, with drivers more worried about absolute adherence to road signs than the and people around them."