This is only the beginning ...

Private land parking disputes are set to become the big issue over the next 18 months and 2012 will be the year it all comes to a head...

It doesn't take a Mayan Prophecy to work that one out as clamping is banned and the Protection FROM Freedom Bill works its way through Parliament shifting liability for 'breaches of contract' to a third party and allowing private ticketers to pursue the Registered Keeper using 'purchased' information from the DVLA.
You have been warned.

Express and Echo
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Calls for action over 'harsh' parking firm

ANGRY motorists are demanding action from the private parking regulator after claiming they were treated harshly by an enforcement firm in the city.
The Echo has highlighted a string of recent complaints about parking firm PPS.



ANGRY: Victoria Davison has complained after being given a parking ticket
at Exeter Central Station

Motorists have expressed concern about the way they have been treated at Exeter's Central Station and other privately owned city centre car parks.
Now two more drivers have contacted the Echo claiming they should not have been given tickets by Premier Parking Solutions, based in Newton Abbot.

Both have contacted the British Parking Association (BPA) – a trade body which regulates firms. They are calling for it to cancel membership for PPS.

Schoolteacher Chris Charlwood, 50, from Cheriton Fitzpaine, was given a £75 fine at Exeter Central Station after PPS claimed his ticket was not visible enough.
The deputy headteacher said: "I was given a fine despite my parking ticket being displayed," he said.
"But because it was in a recess on my dashboard common on some Peugeot cars the parking operative did not see it.
"Nowhere is the motorist specifically directed to a designated display position within their vehicle where the ticket must be displayed. I have complained to the BPA in the strongest terms about the Draconian and unaccountable manner in which this firm appear to manage their parking operations."

Victoria Davison, from Bradninch, was also given a £75 fine after parking at Central Station. She has also complained to the BPA.
She said her ticket was also on display, but facing downwards. "I have written to PPS about the fine," she said.
"But they have threatened to place it in the hands of a debt collector if it is not paid.
"I'm not paying it because my parking ticket was valid. I've complained to the BPA," she said.

The latest complaints come after the Echo featured a story about a patient fined by a different company at the Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital when her treatment overran. Her appeal was rejected.

A BPA spokeswoman said complaints would be investigated.
She said: "We urge those who feel that they have been treated unfairly to contact us with full details.
"The BPA investigates all complaints made against members of its Approved Operator Scheme and disciplinary action is taken against any operator who is found to be in breach of the code of practice." Earlier this year PPS was ordered by Network Rail, which owns the car park in front of Central Station, to be more lenient towards drivers.
It followed complaints made by city MP Ben Bradshaw following a spate of enforcement tickets issued to drivers.
In one case a driver from Exeter was given a parking charge within a minute of pulling on to the station car park.

Despite being contacted by the Echo, nobody was available for comment from PPS.
If you feel you have been harshly penalised by a parking firm contact the Echo newsdesk on 01392 442239.

BBC News ...Private Land Parking Breaches

DVLA helping top parking firms despite code breaches
BBC News

8 April 2011

The DVLA is giving drivers' names and addresses to some private parking firms despite breaches of the industry's voluntary code, the BBC has learned.

The DVLA's rules restrict access to the data to companies complying with the British Parking Association code. Breaches include overstating powers by threatening fines and penalties and failing to handle complaints promptly. The DVLA says it investigates alleged breaches and stops firms' access to the data if they are proven. "We have to strike a balance - allowing fair enforcement but protecting motorists," said a DVLA spokesman. The DVLA insists any firm it gives the data to must be belong to the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme - which sets out how they should operate. "If it is brought to our attention that a company does not meet the necessary standards, we will immediately investigate, and if allegations are proven, stop the release of keeper information to them." Any companies failing to be "fully compliant" with the Association's Code of Practice would "not be eligible to request DVLA data". The DVLA receives an estimated £3.4m a year for providing access to drivers' names and addresses to private parking companies, but says this is to cover administrative costs.

Fines and Penalties

However, BBC One's Watchdog programme has found a number of companies were still being allowed to access private data even though they had been in breach of the scheme. As private parking companies have no powers under the criminal justice system, they cannot describe their charges as fines or penalties. One company, Searchlight Security and Parking Solutions, of Penzance, included the word "fine" on its website. It blamed this on "an oversight".

The code states: "You must not use terms which imply that you are acting under statutory authority; this will include terms such as 'fine', 'penalty' or 'penalty charge notice'." This rule also applies to any signs using these terms at a car park. The BPA has given companies in breach of this rule time to comply.

APCOA, another member of the BPA, which manages Luton and Gatwick Airport car parks, was found to have taken three months to respond to a driver's appeal when it should have done so in 14 days. It apologised, blaming an administrative error. The BPA is responsible for enforcing its own code. However, it only commits to visiting its approved operators once a year to check they are keeping to it. The BPA told Watchdog it received a number of complaints, all of which were investigated. It operates a sanctions scheme depending on the severity of the offence, which has led to two other companies being suspended in recent months.

Self-regulation

The RAC Foundation is calling for an end to self-regulation, saying the government should regulate the industry. "It should regulate the private parking industry and insist that anyone enforcing parking regulations sticks to a government code of practice," said the RAC director, Stephen Glaister. "It is difficult for the BPA to enforce this code adequately and this is unsatisfactory," he added.

Watchdog returned to BBC One on Thursday 7 April at 2000BST. Watch online at BBC iPlayer or catch up on the latest consumer investigations at BBC Watchdog.

Know your rights

The British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme also states: Motorists should have five minutes grace after overstaying before a ticket goes on their car. Where a clamp is to be used the motorist should have 15 minutes grace. The standard parking charge should not exceed £75 The maximum Parking Charge must not exceed £150. Parking tickets should not be put on a vehicle until at least 30 minutes after a clamp has been removed. The maximum charge for vehicle removal should be £250 with storage charges capped at £35 per day.

Another drafting blunder by the Department for Transport leads to breaches of the Data Protection Act

... another iceberg spotted.

It was mentioned at the time that the Traffic Management Act 2004 had been ill-conceived and there had been little proper consultation. The Operational Guidance similarly had been pulled together in a rush and dropped on local authorities toes just weeks before the legislation came into effect.

Now we can reveal a major blunder by the draftsmen which has compromised local authorities who may now have breached the Data Protection Act by acquiring data from the DVLA to which they weren't entitled and the DVLA for releasing data which they weren't entitled to release.

The 'Current' and 'Proposed' content can be seen below ...


The issue is quite simple.

When a PCN is issued there is a period of 28 days which MUST expire before a Notice to Owner can be issued.

The current drafting gives councils an illegal 'head start' on acquiring keeper details, in conflict with the legislation.

• The PCN, if attached to a vehicle, can be removed by the driver who may or may not be the registered keeper and who may decide to pay within the 28 days … perhaps to avoid the Registered Keeper being aware.


• However, in law the Notice to Owner (and therefore the keeper details) CANNOT be requested until after the 28 day period has expired because the law does not permit a Notice to Owner to be issued before then. The Guidance is in conflict with the law.
  
• Because the Registered Keeper is responsible in law any attempt to acquire such details prior to the 28 days will constitute procedural impropriety.

The Guidance gives local authorities a ‘head start’ but this creates a breach of the Data Protection Act because the keeper may be provided details of the movements of the driver of the vehicle. This ‘sharing’ of data will constitute an offence. I am sure the ICO will wish to comment on the implications under DPA

BUT
the big blunder is the fact that any local authority who has acquired the data early will be guilty and the PCN will have to be cancelled AND, for those who have paid, monies refunded.

A simple FoI will reveal the extent but I would anticipate that the majority of councils would have done it and with £1.3bn PCNs a year this will run into tens if not hundreds of £millions.

Perhaps this new Government will consider a shake-up of the Department responsible for yet another shambles. Quite clearly Captain Smith has not been control of this ship as another iceberg approaches.
The same draftsmen seem to have forgotten that at Annex E in the same guidance they remind local authorities to comply with TSRGD 2002 AND that CPZs should be no bigger than a dozen streets!

The leaked document is shown below in full ...

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.

'Anti-scrap' scheme auctions untaxed cars

Motoring News
Thousands of cars seized for tax evasion are to be auctioned rather than scrapped, under a scheme beginning this week.
Following an eight-month trial, Newport Auctions in south Wales won the contract to hold a fortnightly sale of around 150 of the most valuable seized cars. The first auction was held on Tuesday 7 July, with prospective buyers able to bid in person and online.
The scheme provides an alternative to the Government's cash-for-bangers' programme, which allows motorists who own a car or small van that is more than ten years old to scrap the vehicle in return for a �2,000 discount on a new purchase.

Previously, more than 100,000 untaxed vehicles were crushed on behalf of the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA) every year. The new scheme could reduce that number by around 4%.
Managing director for Newport Auctions, Jon Collingbourne, said: "The current car scrappage scheme is all well and good for those who can afford it, but many people just want a comparatively new, good quality, clean, tidy motor. Well, that about sums up 90% of the stock that we will auction."
Untaxed vehicles are seized on behalf of the DVLA by NSL Services Group, formerly NCP Services.

Commenting on the new auction, NSL's head of communications Tim Cowen said there was no excuse for failing to tax a vehicle.
"Some of the untaxed vehicles we seize are very good cars, and we are very pleased to be working with Newport Auctions to help make these available to law-abiding drivers," he added.

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

Parking Enforcement ... Unchecked, unregulated and out of control

This lawless industry is escalating out of control with more and more people becoming victims.

No censure, no scrutiny and no accoutability ... yet people are being harassed and bullied into handing over cash. The politicians' heads are buried in the sand.

The excuse that it's only a parking fine is not good enough. As more and more people wake up to this 'industry' then the politicians will be forced to sit up and take notice.

Pensioner bullied for £500 by parking ticket bailiffs
15 August 2008
By Julia Taylor

A retired university professor was bullied into paying more than £500 by bailiffs for a parking fine he was not even responsible for.
Dr David Russell, 72, sold his ex-wife's car to a Kent dealer when they separated and she returned to Thailand last year. He went to Thailand with her temporarily, and returned in January to discover a raft of parking tickets had mounted up at his Chapel Park Road home, while he was away.

When he investigated, Dr Russell found that the new owner - a dealer from Beckenham in Kent - had been on a "parking spree" around London before the M-reg Mercedes was officially transferred into his name by the DVLA. Now the transfer of ownership is complete, Dr Russell has negotiated with all-but-one of the affected councils, explaining that he was not in the country at the time of the parking offences.

But Southwark council in South London did not back down, and sent the matter, and their lawyers, to court. Despite applying for the hearing to be stopped Dr Russell found himself faced with two burly bailiffs demanding £560 this week.

Dr Russell called police for advice, and when they arrived the bailliffs made a complaint of assault against him, even though he is a pensioner due for a heart operation anytime soon.

He said: "They were trying to take my property away for a parking charge, when I wasn't even in the country at the time of the offence. "They were threatening to take away my car, so I called the police. By that time the bailiff was sat on my windowsill and refused to budge, and I tried to close the window. I then found I'd been accused of criminal assault by one of these bailiffs. "But you should have seen the size of him. "In the end I paid them, because I didn't want them to break in."

A spokesman for Southwark Council said: "Southwark Council carried out two separate checks with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to confirm who was responsible for the vehicle on the date the ticket was issued. One of these checks took place after the previous owner advised us that he had sold the vehicle and was overseas when the ticket was issued. "On both occasions, DVLA information confirmed the sale of the vehicle after the ticket was issued. The Council doesn't hold driver registration information - it's sourced from the DVLA - and any discrepancies about this information need to be raised with the DVLA. A vehicle owner has a legal duty to notify the DVLA of any change of ownership."

Littering Fixed Penalty Notice ... Guilty. No butts

Now just consider this for a moment ... and we are all in agreement that littering is anti-social and must not be tolerated.

Read the Fixed Penalty Notice ... then consider this ... as the Registered Keeper of a vehicle ( and you may or may not have been the driver) you are now faced with the threat of prosecution and a £2500 fine ... because you nominated yourself to be the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

The only evidence against you is not that you have been identified by a Police Officer, but because a lowly paid council official allegedly observed something being thrown from a vehicle that was registered in your name.

The onus is now upon you to prove your innocence rather than the council to prove your guilt.

Did the DVLA warn you that this was likely to happen when you agreed to be the Registered Keeper and filled in the V5C form?

Police and Hackney Council staff in the news again ...

... and this time a man is dead.

Read the BBC report here about how a pensioner died after being forcibly evicted from a Hackney property.

Perhaps a moment of reflection for heavy handed officials across the land ... just remember that the person you are dealing with has worries, concerns, feelings and family. Just pause and think for one minute ... 'What if this was my Dad?' or in the case of Janet Devers whose scales were unceremoniously seized, 'What if this was my Gran, trying to earn an honest living on an open air market at the age of 63?'

The other story involves another misuse of the DVLA data base which led to the death of another pensioner, this time after a parking dispute.

A pensioner's fatal heart attack was "highly likely" to have been caused by a brick being thrown through his window, a court has heard. BBC report here

The three defendants (left) have admitted conspiracy to cause damage to property.

Now consider the post about access to the DVLA data base by anyone who wishes to set up a 'Parking' company. What could they do with that information?

Woman faces trial over apple core ...

A woman is to stand trial at crown court for allegedly throwing an apple core out of her car window.
Kate Badger, from Cornwall Road in Tettenhall, Wolverhampton, refused to pay a £60 on-the-spot fine after the alleged incident in March last year.

More here

So now a Registered Keeper of a vehicle is to be legally responsible for any alleged contravention by a passenger?
If it is the case that the incident was witnessed and a registration number noted then what evidence is there that the registered keeper was the alleged offender?

When you nominate yourself to be the registered keeper of a vehicle should the DVLA not inform you that you will now be legally and financially responsible for any civil contraventions committed by any other user (or passenger in cases like this) of that vehicle?

Not had any parking fines ... no worries, we'll still take your car

The 'parking industry' is unregulated and out of control.

Now this time it is a grandmother who has had her car seized ... because of fines racked up by a previous owner. More ...

This is just another example of how the DVLA and the enforcement industry do not and cannot interface to create a streamlined system, and an example of how you, the motorist, are being abused by a system which is ill-conceived and unworkable.

Just wait until the 'persistent offender' legislation kicks in ... a persistent offender being anyone with more than 3 unpaid Penalty Charge Notices ... and we will have more and more nightmare stories like the one above.

If you think it is not going to happen or statistically it won't happen to you ... let us have a look at the accuracy of the DVLA data base (thanks to No2ID for the content below). The response is from a DVLA official (my comments in bold):

"DVLA holds in excess of 36 million vehicle records and 47 million driver records, so as you can imagine, maintaining accuracy is extremely difficult, particularly when the Agency is totally dependant upon the motoring public for much of its information.
There is the first and most fundamental flaw ... entirely dependent on Joe Public for the information it holds. Joe Public forgets to post the letter, leaves it a few days etc. and the 'system' is affected.

DVLA takes its responsibility for providing accurate information to customers and stakeholders very seriously, and is continuously looking for ways to improve the quality of the information it holds. Over the last 6 years, there has been a progressive phasing-in of new initiatives aimed at improving accuracy.
But if Joe Public is the one who causes the system the most problems then there needs to be root and branch reform of the whole way vehicle registrations operate. Perhaps the US system where you own the registration number and it moves with you to your vehicle ... and local licensing centres control the transfer ... but it is politically sensitive as that could put thousands of jobs in Swansea under threat.

These include the introduction of Statutory Off Road Notification in 1998, the mandatory production of a registration document at licensing in 2003 and Continuous Registration in January 2004.

However, a single measure/level of accuracy is not appropriate because of the different measuring processes used by DVLA. The following information will give you an indication of how difficult it is to quote a single accuracy percentage. As a benchmark, DVLA conducted an Accuracy Survey in 2003. The results of the survey showed that 68% of the records on the vehicle database were perfectly correct in every aspect.
I love it when they play the percentage game. That means that 32% were not ... that is 15,040,000 driver records were not perfectly correct.

A further 22% contained spelling mistakes in name and address details or had out of date postcodes. However, these errors are minor in nature and, more importantly, do not stop mail being delivered or prevent police or manufacturers from tracing vehicle keepers in the event of an accident or a vehicle safety recall.

This, in effect, amounts to a 90% traceability level using the information on the vehicle database, which is extremely important in order for DVLA to meet its key objectives of helping to improve road safety and reduce vehicle crime.

90% traceability level means 10% are not traceable ... 4,700,000 vehicles / drivers. Now it becomes a concerns for enforcement agencies ... they cannot catch up with fine evaders BUT if you buy one of those 4.7m cars and correctly register it ... they will now catch up ... and you will be inconvenienced by either having to prove your innocence or having to recover an impounded car as illustrated by the story above.

Incidentally, the 2003 survey indicated that the main cause of inaccuracy on the vehicles database (as much as 10%) was as a result of vehicle keepers not informing DVLA when they sold/scrapped their vehicle or changed their address. Additionally, DVLA carries out a monthly monitoring exercise of the accuracy of information at data capture. The results show that DVLA staff consistently meets an accuracy level in excess of 97.5% each month. As you can see, there are 3 quite separate accuracy percentages; 68% perfect records, 90% traceable records and 97.5% records accurate at data capture, all of which are valid percentages, which are used for different purposes."

Linda Weaver

ACGB1

You have been warned ...