Not So Smart Car Refunds reported in today's Sunday Mirror

This story is set to grow and grow as more councils are added to the list of uncertificated Smartcars.

Nice work if you can get it ...

Just had Yosser Hughes on the phone asking for Merton's contact details ...

Seems as though the way the consultant sees the way to save money is to 'improve the chances of a PCN being issued' rather than streamlining back-office processes ... or am I missing something?

£85k consultant set to cut Merton Council parking costs amid charges hike
Wimbledon Guardian
Friday 13th May 2011

By Omar Oakes
A management consultant is being paid £85,000 for 12 weeks’ work in an attempt to make the council’s parking department “better value for money” – but critics have questioned whether the outcome will be good news for motorists.

The consultant, drafted in from CapGemini, is looking at how to cut back-office costs in Merton Council’s parking services department.

The department, which current employs 58 full-time staff, spends £2.8m but last year made £9.3m from parking charges, fines and permits.

But Neil Herron, founder of parking control watchdog Parking Appeals, said he was concerned Merton would end up making changes to maximise parking revenue rather than offer a cheaper service.

He said: “Once they’ve made these changes, will it be cheaper to park? Will fewer parking tickets be issued? Will the number of complaints go down? I doubt it.

“The best way to improve the service is to have better signage and an efficient and transparent appeals system.”

Last year the council made £9.5m from car park tickets, parking permits and fines – and motorists have already been hit with higher costs through this year’s budget.

Free parking in some council car parks was cut from 20 minutes to 10 minutes and the imposition of controlled parking zones on Saturdays was announced for residents living in Merton Park.

The council’s deputy leader, Councillor Mark Betteridge, said it was “working hard to transform services and to ensure it provides the very best value for money for residents”.

He said the review was funded from the transformation budget established under the previous [Conservative] administration.

He said: “This review will more than pay for itself as we look to implement the proposed changes that will reduce back-office costs.

“This will help in our drive to keep Merton’s running costs down so we can continue to maintain essential services and keep council tax low for our residents.”

But Rosemary McLaughlin, Merton Council branch secretary for trade union Unison, said: “It is outrageous in the current climate to engage even more consultants at the cost of £85,000.

"It would be expected in-house management with inflated salaries and pay increases would have the skills to transform any service within the council.”

In October, the Wimbledon Guardian revealed Merton Council was condemned by the Parking and Appeals Traffic Service for “underhand tactics”, after a traffic warden used an unmarked civilian car and issued a parking fine to a motorist after hardly any grace period.

And in March, papers released during Merton Council's 2011/12 budget showed the parking service had proposed a number of changes to take effect during this financial year.

Merton Council's proposed changes to parking services and enforcement:

1.Removal 20 min free parking at Pay and Display machines
2.Enforcement by mobile CCTV
3.Introduce borough-wide trade/business permit
4.New person set up charge for the issue of parking permits
5.Increase cost of business permits
6.Reduce observation time from five minutes to two minutes before the issue of a Parking Control Notice (PCN)
7.Review existing parking tariffs for Wimbledon Town Centre Car Parks and expand to all borough car parks
8.Increase by an average of 10% all On Street pay and display tariffs
9.Review all on street Pay and Display tariff structures
10.Expansion of Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) coverage subject to consultation
11.Increase enforcement at bus lanes
What do you think? Leave a comment below, call 020 8722 6335 or email: ooakes@london.newsquest.co.uk

Neil Herron and Parking Appeals Ltd. v The Parking Adjudicator

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 1161 (Admin)
Case No: CO/9104/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
25/05/2010
B e f o r e :
MR. JUSTICE BEAN

Between:
NEIL HERRON

PARKING APPEALS LIMITED
1st Claimant
2nd Claimant
- and -
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant

SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL (1)
PARKING AND TRAFFIC APPEALS (2)
TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL (3)
NCP SERVICE LIMITED (4)
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (5)
Interested Parties
____________________
Alun Jones QC and Rupert Bowers (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell) for the Claimant
Ian Rogers (instructed on behalf of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) for the Defendant
Stephen Sauvain QC and Jonathan Easton (instructed by the Solicitor, Sunderland City Council) for the City Council
Jessica Simor (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State

Hearing date: 18 May 2010 ____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT____________________
Crown Copyright ©

Mr. Justice Bean :

1. Neil Herron is a director of Parking Appeals Ltd, an organisation which in its own words, "advises, assists and campaigns on behalf of motorists". In 2006 one vehicle of which Mr. Herron was the registered keeper and another (whose registration number was changed to F1NED) of which the company was the registered keeper were parked on a total of 39 occasions on single yellow lines in Frederick St or St. Thomas St within the Sunderland city centre Controlled Parking Zone ("CPZ"). Penalty Charge Notices ("PCNs"), better known as parking tickets, were issued in each case alleging that the vehicle concerned had been involved in a parking contravention, namely that it had been "parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours".

2. Mr. Herron and the company did not pay the penalty charges. The traffic authority, Sunderland City Council, therefore issued in each case a Notice To Owner requiring the registered keeper either to pay the penalty charge of £60 or to make representations. Mr. Herron made representations asking for the PCNs to be cancelled. The Council refused to cancel them. Mr. Herron further challenged the PCNs by lodging appeals with the National Parking Adjudication Service ("NPAS", now known as the Traffic Penalty Tribunal).

3. The hearing before an adjudicator, Mr. Andrew Keenan, began on 12th September 2007. Mr. Herron produced 11 lever arch files of documents in support of his case. He also called an expert witness, a Mr. Bentley, who presented a report consisting of 156 pages. A large number of points were raised, including an attack on the independence of the NPAS and its adjudicators. The hearing continued on 20th November 2007. By a 45 page judgment dated 26 February 2008 Mr Keenan dismissed the appeals, save in one case where he directed the Council to cancel the PCN. Mr. Herron applied for a review and on 30 June 2008 another adjudicator, Ms. Kennedy, directed that Mr. Keenan's decision should stand and that the appeals should therefore remain dismissed.

4. This claim was issued on 25th September 2008. The Claimants sought judicial review of the decisions of Mr. Keenan and Ms. Kennedy on a number of grounds, one of which was that the NPAS infringed the Claimant's Convention right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR. They also sought a declaration that "the Sunderland Controlled Parking Zone does not comply with Regulation 4 and Direction 25 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD)", and that "all single yellow line waiting restrictions contained with it are unenforceable". By an amendment to the Claim Form they further alleged lack of adequate reasoning in relation to Regulation 4 of the TSRGD.

5. At an oral hearing on 15th June 2009 Keith J refused permission for judicial review on the Article 6 and "lack of reasoning" grounds but granted permission on the question of statutory interpretation of Regulation 4 and Direction 25. He said:

"Although I am very sceptical about the correctness of the approach to the legislation which the Claimants advance, I cannot say that it is so unarguable that a full hearing to consider it is unwarranted."

The statutory regime

6. By section 1(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 the traffic authority for a road outside Greater London may make a traffic regulation order where it appears to the authority expedient for facilitating the passage on the road of traffic. By section 2(2)(c) such a traffic regulation order may include a provision prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles. There is no dispute that many years ago Sunderland City Council made traffic regulation orders which restricted parking in Frederick St and St. Thomas St, among other locations, and designated a substantial area of the city centre as a CPZ. The CPZ appears to have been established in about 1969.

7. Section 5(1) of the 1984 Act provided that contravention of a traffic regulation order was an offence. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provided for a decriminalised parking regime, with penalty charge notices of the kind used in the present case, where an order has been made extending the decriminalised regime to the area in question. A PCN may then be issued where a vehicle has been parked in the relevant area in circumstances such that a criminal offence would have been committed but for the decriminalisation order. Again, there is no dispute that a valid order has been made (SI 2002/3266) bringing the decriminalised regime into force in Sunderland city centre. (I was told that the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act have been repealed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 in respect of PCNs issued on or after 31 March 2008. This amendment does not affect the present case.)

8. Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires the traffic authority to take such steps as are necessary to secure that, where a traffic regulation order has been made relating to any road, traffic signs are placed and maintained "on or near the road… in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road."

9. The definition of "traffic sign" in section 64 of the 1984 Act includes not only objects such as traffic lights, but also lines or marks on a road conveying a prohibition. Section 64(2) requires that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations. Section 65(1) says that the traffic authority "may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near a road, subject to and in conformity with such general directions as may be given" by the appropriate Ministers.

10. The TSRGD is a 447 page book containing regulations, directions and a large number of diagrams. Direction 25(1) provides that, subject to direction 25(2), certain road markings may be used only in conjunction with, and on the same side of road as, certain upright signs. The all too familiar single yellow line, diagram number 1017, may only be used in conjunction with one of five upright signs, the one relevant to the present case being that shown in number 639 which has the prohibited hours (for example 8am to 6pm) shown in black against a yellow background with a no waiting sign and an arrow. Direction 25(2), however, provides:

"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a road marking placed on a road within a controlled parking zone if signs shown in diagram 663 or 663.1 [upright signs saying "controlled zone" or "voucher parking zone" with a no waiting sign and indicating the prohibited hours] have been placed at the entrances for vehicular traffic into the zone, except where the road marking is placed to indicate restrictions different from the restrictions indicated on those signs."

11. It can be seen that the effect of Direction 25 is to create a general rule that a yellow line restricting parking must be accompanied by an upright sign, but to allow an exception in a CPZ. The question I have to decide is whether the area including Frederick St and St. Thomas St was a lawful and effective CPZ. This turns on Regulation 4 of the TSRGD, the interpretation section, which defines a CPZ as follows:

"….an area (i) in which, except where parking places have been provided, every road has been marked with one or more of the road markings shown in diagrams 1017 [single yellow line], 1018.1 [double yellow line, indicating no waiting at any time], 1019 [no loading or unloading at certain times] and 1020.1 [no loading or unloading at any time]; and (ii) into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1…)." [There is an alternative definition which does not apply.]

12. Nothing turns on the entrance signs requirement in subparagraph (ii) since there is no suggestion of failure to comply with it; nor on diagrams 1019 and 1020.1 relating to loading and unloading, since these are not in practice used independently of single or double yellow lines. The Claimant's case is that the prohibitions in a controlled parking zone can only be enforced if every part of every road has been marked with either parking places, a single yellow line or a double yellow line.

13. There is no dispute that there were single yellow lines on the road at the locations in which Mr. Herron parked in Frederick St and St. Thomas St. The Claimant's case, however, is that a departure from the strict terms of Regulation 4 anywhere in the CPZ means that the area ceases to be a CPZ as defined by that regulation.

14. In the skeleton argument on behalf of the Claimant settled by Michael Caplan QC the main example relied on was the approaches to pedestrian crossings, where (as required by the TSRGD) there are white zig-zags which prohibit not only waiting and stopping, but also overtaking. In oral argument Mr. Alun Jones QC relied not only on this, but also on defects, for example in relation to the delineation of specific parking and loading bays, elsewhere in the CPZ. Mr. Jones was prepared to concede that a de minimis exception might apply where a yellow line had faded over a very short stretch of road some distance from the relevant location, and perhaps also where a yellow line had not been repainted for a very short time after the completion of road works; but otherwise, he submitted, the rule is an absolute one. If the CPZ includes any part of any road which has no single or double yellow line and which is not a parking bay, the entire CPZ is invalidated.

15. Mr. Jones sought to bolster what might otherwise seem a surprising submission by reference to an operational guidance document issued by the Department of Transport in March 2008. This says at Annex E, paragraph E5:

"The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets. CPZs rely solely on zone entry signs to give times of operation and to remove the need for time plates within the zone, except on lengths of road where the restrictions apply at different times to the rest of the zone. The area of a CPZ should, therefore, be restricted to, for example, a town centre shopping area. A single zone covering a whole town, or suburb of a conurbation would be much too large. Conventional time plate signing, without zone entry signs should accompany the yellow sign markings where large areas have waiting restrictions. Time plates are not necessary where there are double yellow lines."

Mr. Jones submitted that the larger the CPZ, the greater the risk of confusion. If traffic authorities designate large areas as CPZs and in consequence fall foul of the technical interpretation of Regulation 4 for which he contends, he argued, they have only themselves to blame.

16. But this is not a challenge to the designation of a substantial part of central Sunderland as one CPZ. We are about 40 years too late for that. Moreover, there is no evidence of confusion, either individual or general. Mr. Herron knew perfectly well that on each of the occasions in question he was parking on a single yellow line during restricted parking hours. There is no evidence of more general confusion either. I accept that there is a risk in the case of a large CPZ of a motorist forgetting the exact hours indicated at the entry point by the time he reaches his parking place. But that risk is neither increased nor decreased by the presence in the zone, otherwise than at the location where he parks, of pedestrian crossings with white zig-zags on the approaches, or parking bays with defective delineation.

17. Mr. Keenan had his attention drawn to a number of such features or defects in places within the CPZ other than where Mr. Herron had parked. He found that they "should be considered trivialities which could not mislead a driver who parked on a clearly marked restriction." That is a finding of fact with which I cannot interfere, and which seems to me in any event plainly correct.

Authorities

18. In Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 the appellant motorist had been convicted of crossing continuous double white lines in the middle of the carriageway at a bend in the road. Contrary to the diagram set out in the Regulations the double white lines had an intermittent white line between them, and the distance between the two continuous white lines was also incorrect. Lord Parker CJ said:

"One asks, therefore, here, whether this was the prescribed sign. I thought at one point that it might be said that the older intermittent line on a sensible approach forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different from that prescribed by the Regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me, and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach of the Justices it is impossible to say that an offence was committed."

19. In that case the defect was more than trivial and was at the very spot where the alleged offence was committed. Similarly, in O'Halloran v DPP [1990] RTR 62, another double white lines case, the mandatory warning arrow at the beginning of the sequence had been omitted. Again, the motorist's appeal to the Divisional Court succeeded; but the defect was in or very close to the relevant location. In French v Dover District Council, Case no. DD05005E, 8 January 2007, by contrast, the Chief Parking Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard, held that where the defect was in a different location from the one where the motorist had parked it could be treated as immaterial. I agree with that decision.

20. In the Claimant's Grounds annexed to the Claim Form, Mr. Caplan QC cited some observations of the late Professor Glanville Williams:

"The ancient rule was that penal statutes are to be construed strictly… on the theory that the legislature must make its intention clear if it proposes to have people punished. The rule was important at a time when many crimes were punishable by death, but it has not necessarily lost all its value in these more lenient days."

21. I am prepared to assume that a statute, regulation or direction which permits the issue of a penalty charge notice must be construed strictly, in the sense that where there is a genuine ambiguity in the language used the motorist is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in interpreting it. But that does not mean that it has to be construed so literally as to produce an absurd result. The question "did the draftsman of the Regulations and Directions intend that the presence of a pedestrian crossing within a CPZ should render the zone wholly ineffective?" only has to be asked for the answer "of course not" to be obvious.

22. Mr Sauvain QC, for the City Council, pointed out that if one is going to adopt a truly literal construction of the definition of a CPZ in Regulation 4, it does not support the Claimant's case. The requirement is that every road must be marked with a single yellow line, double yellow line or parking bays. It is not that every part of every road has to be so marked. That is a possible construction of the regulation, but Mr Sauvain did not advance it as his primary case, and I do not accept it.

23. In my judgment regulation 4 on its proper construction means that every part of every road in a CPZ, other than a parking bay, must be marked with a single or double yellow line (with or without the "loading and unloading" equivalents), except where an alternative parking prohibition is marked out such as that imposed by the zig-zags on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. Furthermore, I consider that any non-compliance, whether accidental or (if I am wrong on the previous point) arising from the presence of an alternative parking prohibition, is immaterial if it is too far from the location of the particular motorist's contravention to have led him or her into error.

24. In Canadine v DPP [2007] EWHC 383 (Admin) Sir Igor Judge P, as he then was, said:

"It is something of a relief to be able to conclude that an appeal, so entirely based on technicality, and so utterly devoid of merit should be dismissed."

25. Despite Mr Jones' elegant presentation of the Claimant's case I conclude that it, too, is entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

Victory for Belfast Traffic Wardens

Fair pay and fair conditions for all Traffic Wardens. We wholeheartedly support that BUT this can only be achieved by ensuring ALL parking enforcement is taken back 'in-hose' by local authorities where fair pay and conditions, and pension rights will be in accordance with other local authority employees.

Victorious Belfast Traffic Warden speaks
Submitted by Choccy on Aug 5 2009
from libcom.org
View Image Details]' jQuery1249469576859="21">
From issue 2 of The Leveller, this is an expanded version of the story of the four-month battle against bosses by Belfast traffic wardens. This article contains extracts from an interview with an NCP worker involved in the dispute elaborated on the deal they had won, and how they fought their bosses.
Traffic wardens this week expressed joy at finally winning their demands in their struggle against their employer NCP. The workers were engaged in almost daily protest since April after 28 were sacked for taking part in wildcat industrial action over working conditions and sick-pay. On Friday, after a four-month battle, they were informed that they would all have the option of reinstatement or a substantial redundancy package.

More ...

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 ...

Croydon Council parking team caught breaking rule they were enforcing

How many more councils have to be exposed before someone takes action?
There needs to be a change in the legislation to have an independent watchdog with powers to censure and fine local authorities where necessary to prevent this licensed mugging!

This is Croydon
Croydon Council parking team caught breaking rule they were enforcing
Saturday, May 16, 2009

Council parking spies have been blasted as hypocrites for breaking the very rules they were supposed to be enforcing.
A car with a CCTV camera attached to the roof parked on double yellow lines - to try and catch drivers illegally parked on double yellow lines.
The Croydon Council Smart car was caught in central Croydon by shopkeeper Praduman Bhimjiani.
His photographic evidence prompted the council's parking chief to brand the behaviour "unacceptable".

Councillor Phil Thomas explained that council staff were undertaking surveillance work after complaints from a bus company that people were parking on double yellow lines in the road, making it difficult for buses to manoeuvre around them.

He said: "We will investigate the complaint that we were doing it illegally."
But he admitted the evidence appeared damning and added: "We've got to hold our hands up."

Mr Bhimjiani runs NN Confectioners, in Park Street, where the picture was taken - and where he himself was given two parking tickets in January.
The 55-year-old, from Ellesmere Drive, Sanderstead said: "We get a lot of hassle from these people.
"It's not fair on the public really because it's just generating revenue for the council.
"It's also hypocritical. They shouldn't be parking on a double yellow line."
Mr Bhimjiani believes the council should not be excused from breaking the rules.
"If the law is for everybody they should get the penalty as well," he said.

Cllr Thomas confirmed the CCTV car had been in Park Street at around 10.30am last Wednesday (May 6) when the photo was taken.
He added: "It's not acceptable for our staff to be parking on double yellow lines when we ask the public not to do it themselves."

Not about revenue? Check out Edinburgh's nice little CPZ earner

Controlled Parking Zones lead to more fines ...

Car parking nets council £20m from motorists
The Scotsman
18 October 2008
By ALAN RODEN

EDINBURGH'S parking rules and regulations have handed the city council a record-breaking £20 million from motorists.

The income from fines, pay-and-display tickets, and residential parking permits soared by more than £3m in the last financial year, according to new figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The increase is largely the result of an expansion of the "controlled parking zone", which now takes in several city suburbs.

Critics today accused the council of using drivers as an "easy target" to help tackle its financial woes. The local authority insisted, however, that all money is ring-fenced for transport improvements in the Capital.

Between 2003 and 2007, the council's parking revenue rose marginally from £16.6m, before last year's sudden 18 per cent increase. The largest source of income came from pay-and-display tickets – up from £9.88m in 2006-07 to £11.58m last year.

Bruce Young, Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Far fewer people are driving into the city centre, so this is because there's been an extension to the controlled parking zone."It's actually less about controlling parking, and more about bringing in as much money as possible to recoup the losses from the congestion charging plans. They have not forgiven us for that."In all honesty, this is because the council is desperate for cash and motorists are an easy target."

The council has a contract with NCP to enforce parking rules, and last year that cost £4.48m. On top of that, the council paid out over £400,000 to maintain ticket machines.

The income included £6.75m from fines – over £1m more than the previous year, but less than the three years before that. Many city centre streets, including George Street, Chambers Street and Melville Street, recorded big drops in the number of penalties, while less congested roads away from the centre emerged as the new ticket hotspots. Council leaders believe the drop is down to better use of Edinburgh's variety of parking options, but business leaders say the falling number of city centre shoppers is the real explanation.

Nigel Duncan, vice chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses Edinburgh, said: "The council is getting a windfall, but that's to the detriment of the number of people coming to the city centre."Anything that stops people coming in is not good for Edinburgh's economy. If you look around the streets, there's a lack of people vying for parking spaces, and people from the outside won't come because they think the blue meanies will get them. This sends out the wrong signal."

City transport leader Phil Wheeler said: "The income from parking is ring-fenced and goes straight back into improving the condition of our roads and pavements. This council has budgeted £20m a year over the next three years to address the backlog of repairs and upgrades required for the benefit of people in the city."

Tom Conti leads for the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund

Screen star Tom takes on role as parking fine fighter
By Bob Smyth
Sunday Post

MOVIE star Tom Conti is leading the charge to raise a fighting fund for a court challenge to parking tickets.

The Scottish actor is a patron of the newly formed Motorists Legal Challenge Fund. Campaigners lodged a claim at the High Court in London at the end of last month seeking permission to apply for a judicial review that could force councils to scrap parking tickets worth millions of pounds.

Tom (66) has become involved because he’s a founder of the Motorists Action Group in London, where he is a long-term resident.He has put some of his own cash into the fund, which is backing the challenge to fines issued by councils across the UK. They include six local authorities in Scotland — Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth & Kinross, Dundee, Aberdeen and South Lanarkshire.

Incident

The Paisley-born actor, who starred in the film Shirley Valentine and TV series Donovan, became a campaigner after he suffered “an unpleasant incident with some bailiffs” over a ticket and because he thinks the treatment of motorists is extremely unjust.

He said, “I just hate unfairness in government and there’s a vast amount being perpetrated against anybody with a vehicle — and that’s an awful lot of people. “The local authorities are supposed to be there to help the people rather than harass them, but at the moment people are being harassed.”

He doesn’t consider himself a political person but admits his high profile can help the cause.

“Politics and the whole right-wing, left-wing thing is nonsense. There’s only common sense really and an understanding of what human beings are — and they do not want to be dictated to,” he said.

The case against the councils is being spearheaded by Sunderland campaigner Neil Herron, who runs the Parking Appeals website.Neil (45) has remortgaged his £200,000 home to raise £60,000 for the fight and says Tom Conti’s backing is vital.He said, “Tom has dipped into his own pocket to help and he is a very active supporter.

Well-known

“We are speaking to another well-known TV personality who may agree to become a patron alongside Tom.”

Neil claims that many parking tickets are invalid because of flaws in the regulations that cover Controlled Parking Zones. CPZs were designed to cut down on parking sign clutter by having a notice at an entry point that applies restrictions to several streets.

Neil argues the legislation that created CPZs states that every road must be marked with single or double yellow lines or with parking spaces. He claims a strict interpretation of the wording means any CPZ that contains other markings, such as zig-zags, bus lanes, pelican or zebra crossings, is unlawful and parking tickets issued there are invalid.

He said, “Ultimately, we hope to force councils to cancel unpaid CPZ tickets and suspend enforcement within the zones until they’re legal. “We’ll have to mount a separate challenge to get councils to refund fines that have already been paid so we’re trying to raise £1 million to pursue that and other cases.”

A spokeswoman for Sunderland City Council, which is contesting the action on behalf of all local authorities, said, “It would not be appropriate to comment at this stage.”.

Lysette Anthony suffers parking ticket hell in Camden

Let's not forget that the story below is about Camden's parking restrictions

Meanwhile, as the majority of the parking restrictions in Camden are suspect to say the least if anyone cares to pass on our contact details we will handle any appeal for Lysette neil@parkingappeals.co.uk

It makes me sick: Actress Lysette Anthony falls foul of parking wardens while visiting son in hospital
By Lysette Anthony
October 2008
Comments (43)

Lying in the harshly lit anaesthesia room at Great Ormond Street Hospital, my four-year-old son Jimi was frightened. So as his little body collapsed under the weight of the drugs, common sense told me this was the ‘good bit’ – that now he was asleep he wasn’t in pain.

Diagnosed a year ago with juvenile arthritis – a childhood form of the disease that causes swelling in sufferers’ joints, making their limbs seize up so they struggle to walk – he was having steroids injected into his ankles to make them stronger.

It is the latest in a string of intrusive and gruelling treatments, including chemotherapy and a cocktail of painkillers, that he has bravely endured to combat his condition.

Forty-five angst-ridden minutes later, he came round from the anaesthetic, groggy and disorientated. We were told to keep him off his feet for at least 24 hours. Carrying him away in our arms, I thought that although Jimi, myself and my partner Simon Boswell were exhausted, at least the worst was over.

But arriving back at our car, we came across yet another obstacle to an already traumatic morning. A traffic warden or, as Jimi calls them, a ‘green man’, on account of the colour of his synthetic uniform, was putting a parking ticket on our windscreen.
Because we had arrived back 20 minutes late, we were being fined £60.

I lost my temper.

I have spent the past year worried sick about my son’s health. I had been pacing our North London home since 4.30am and the last thing I needed was a ‘Civil Enforcement Officer’ – as they are called nowadays – laying down the law to us.

He didn’t speak, other than to reel off a string of numbers – presumably our offending code – and summon his ‘co-officer’ from across the street. The pair then repeated the numbers to each other, more inaudible machines than human beings.

As I reached in to secure Jimi’s seat belt I snapped: ‘Do you think we’re here for a cup of tea and a sodding sandwich? This is a children’s HOSPITAL. Our son has just had an OPERATION. For 20 minutes you’re fining us £60? Shame on you!’

To their credit they had the good grace to seem embarrassed but their shame was scant compensation. This was the second fine we had received in as many weeks, and it has left both Simon and me incandescent with rage.

Surely, with the parents of a sick child, they could have exercised compassion. Shouldn’t a guaranteed parking space in the proximity of any hospital be a patient’s right? What are we supposed to do, call an ambulance every time Jimi needs treatment?

As difficult as it is to accept sometimes, we are the lucky ones. This spring Camden Council, the London borough under whose control Great Ormond Street lies, issued us with a disabled blue badge.

This allows us to park for up to three hours at a time on the single yellow line outside the hospital, which only badge-holders and ambulances are allowed to do. It is a laminated card with a cardboard clock you adjust to show when you parked.

We had arrived at the sick children’s hospital at 7am one day last month, the time all youngsters awaiting an operation under anaesthetic are expected to turn up. Wardens control the area from 8.30am.

At 11.20am Simon had left us in our hospital room to check on the car. He knew he needed to move it but there was nowhere to go.

Parking in London is exorbitant for everyone. However, at Great Ormond Street Hospital there isn’t even a car park to complain about. So, unsurprisingly, the street was packed.
Simon adjusted the cardboard clock to 11.20, assuming, wrongly, that wardens patrolling the area would understand our predicament and allow us more time. For both of us, it was the last straw.

Only a week earlier, while waiting for Jimi’s pre-operation assessment, we had been fined another £60. Simon had accidently left our badge – showing the prerequisite photograph of our son’s face, along with the badge details, issue number and expiry date – the wrong side up in the car. It was an innocent mistake but one the traffic warden, the same man on both occasions, was prepared to penalise us for.

Technically, of course, we were in the wrong. But isn’t £120 of fines, received while clearly visiting a hospital, rather disproportionate? And is the surrounding area of a hospital, which has scandalously limited parking, really a fit zone in which aggressively to pursue council targets?
We’re not the only ones for whom proximity to the hospital is of paramount importance and I am sure many other parents have encountered the same problems. Nor is this solely an issue for the capital. Hospitals around Britain – ones that do have car parks – often charge an outrageous fee.
Before we were given our disabled badge, we frequented pay-and-display areas other relatives are still forced to use. It costs 20p for five minutes in these – £4.80 per hour – and the maximum stay is two hours. In the year it took for Jimi to be diagnosed we would often have to wait up to five hours to see a consultant.

We were never given a precise time for these appointments. Both Simon, a composer, and I would have to take time off work simply to deal with the parking problems, spending hundreds of pounds in the process.

We thought a blue badge would afford us the simple luxury of being able to care for our son – who has been in and out of hospital up to four times a week for the past 12 months – instead of worrying about our car. Evidently, we were wrong.

As a society, we seem to have relinquished responsibility to an automated tribe of traffic wardens who don’t even have the manners to offer an explanation.

All individuality has been stripped away in their zealous attempts to catch out decent, taxpaying citizens so they can reach the financial targets set by their relentless bosses.
They hunt like pariah dogs and relatives of the vulnerable and ill are not their only targets. They will prey on anyone who will help them increase their revenue.I admit that being a traffic warden must be a horrible job. But would it really hurt them to look us in the eye as they slap on their extortionate fines?

Needless to say, we haven’t paid either fine. Simon has written to Camden Council arguing our case and asking how they can justify their employees’ uncaring attitude. They say they will consider any mitigating circumstances when processing the appeal. I don’t blame Great Ormond Street, who are doing a fantastic job caring for our son.

But I worry that unless the council finds more space for patients and their relatives to park in, and exercises more tolerance towards its targets, it is not just his health that will suffer. Countless other sick children will not be able to receive the medical attention they require – simply because their parents cannot park near enough to the hospital.

Councils cannot keep unlawfully derived parking ticket income

In the article below the council deftly avoids the issue of refunds.
The Traffic Order is the legal document which allows the council to levy the charges. Quite obviously, because of the suspension and the need to create the new order and the offer of refunds, the original order was not valid ... therefore no financial liability can arise. Should the council not volunteer to refund monies then an objection to the council's accounts can be made.

However, it appears as though the council is set to do the decent thing for which they should be praised. This is precisely what happened in Sheffield.

If they decide not to then it is likely that legal action will follow.


‘Unjustly enriched council cannot keep parking fees’
By Colin Parker
Get Surrey
3/10/2008

PARKING authorities in Guildford may not be allowed to keep the £2.8m they have received in on-street parking fees since 2004, according to an appeals expert.

Neil Herron, who runs the website www.parkingappeals.co.uk , said that under auditing laws local authorities were not allowed to keep money gained illegally.

He added it was not enough for councils to offer refunds only if evidence was produced, rather they should contact anyone who has paid money to offer them their cash back.

Last month, Surrey County Council (SCC) discovered a legal blunder in its on-street parking order that meant fees had been invalid since 2004.

Mr Herron said he has been contacted through his website by Guildford motorists seeking information on the town’s parking mishap.
“If they are taking this money then they have been unjustly enriched and so they cannot keep that money,” he claimed.
“They should speak to anyone who has paid and offer to give them back the money voluntarily.”

Guildford Borough Council said a total of 24,000 on-street parking fines related to pay and display had been illegally handed out to motorists in Guildford since 2004.
As of last Monday, the borough had received a total of 47 letters concerning penalty charge notices and 16 on pay and display ticket refunds.
Some letters stated multiple claims.

The authority is working on refunds with the county council, who will consider the claims.
It is estimated the local authorities are losing about £2,200 for every day free parking has been in operation.

SCC, which has accepted full responsibility for the mishap, has now changed the faulty paperwork that led to the free parking in the town.

It has confirmed motorists can go about paying for parking in the same way as before, and added there will be no increase in charges and residents’ parking will remain unaffected.

David Munro, the executive member for transport, said: “We can assure everyone we are now committed to getting things back to normal so motorists, residents and others have a parking system that meets all their needs.”

The authority must now advertise the changes for three weeks, until October 24, after which SCC’s Executive will rubber-stamp the new order at the beginning of November.

A spokesman for SCC said: “We took careful legal advice before making the decision to suspend charging and we continue to follow this advice."

You can do it the easy way or the hard way ...

As peoples' frustration over parking enforcement continues some are driven to desperate measures to get that ticket cancelled...


May we humbly suggest that an easier solution would be to contact Parking Appeals.co.uk
;-) and we will show you how to successfully appeal with a lot less effort.

Parking protestor wins appeal
Woodford Green Guardian
4th September 2008

AN irate motorist who chained herself to the railings of a vehicle pound after being fined £250 has won her parking appeal.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was angered when officials gave her the bill but instead of stumping up the cash she decided to chain herself to the pound's railings. More ...

Now she has been told that her appeal has been successful and she does not have to pay her fine.

Scrap Hospital parking charges

Petition - To Scrap Hospital Parking Charges In England

Car parking at most Welsh hospitals will be free from 1st April 2008.

The Welsh Assembly Government's Health Minister Edwina Hart has confirmed the move, the first of its kind in the UK, which will see charges scrapped or reduced.

The Scottish Paliament have announced that they too are to scrap charges

Sign the petition here

Council law-breaking a 'technical problem'

Motorists break the law and ignorance is no excuse.


Councils break the law and it is a 'technical problem.'

This is the most telling extract from the article ..."Claire Vranch, a spokesman for Ealing Council, said the markings on the road were consistent with other London Boroughs."



We will shortly be revealing the extent of the 33 London Borough's 'technical problems' but in the meantime Parking Appeals.co.uk will show you how to spot an illegal bay and how to successfully appeal a ticket every time.


Council admits 'technical problem.'
29th August 2008
By Alex Hayes

A DOUBLE white line on the end of parking bays in the borough could lead to parking chaos.
Many residential bays are among those affected, meaning any tickets given to people parking there is effectively unenforceable.
The lines are on parking bays which have no individual bays marked inside them. Guidelines say these should be marked out by a single white line at either end, but in many cases workers have painted two.

Last month Ealing Council pulled out of an appeal hearing over a parking ticket because it acknowledged the bays the driver was parked in were improperly marked.

Nazma Begum, 21, was slapped with a parking ticket in Warwick Road, Ealing, last November when she bought a pay-and-display voucher but put her car in a residents bay accidentally while she went into Thames Valley University to hand in an assignment.

However, the Airline and Airport Management student came across the website www.ticketfighter.co.uk and found the council’s marking mistake.

She said: “I didn’t realise I was parked in a residents’ parking bay and I couldn’t believe it when I came out and saw the ticket, as I had only been gone for a few moments.
“When I appealed to the council they refused it, so I took it to the parking adjudicator and the day before the hearing the council wrote back to me saying they were pulling out and were sorry for any inconvenience.
“To be honest I think they knew all along they were wrong but they still pressed me for money. It seems like a deliberate tactic from them, and I want to know why they haven’t stopped enforcing these bays if they know they are wrong, it’s been a month now.
“If we do something wrong we are punished for it, but they do not want to take responsibility for their actions and will not admit they are wrong. It’s very unfair.”

The man who runs the Ticketfighter website, who does not want to be named as he is an industry insider, says Ealing Council should stop enforcing all wrongly marked bays until they are sorted out.

He said: “These bays should only have one line. The council has got it wrong and it means they are unenforceable.
“Motorists have to abide by the law and so have the council.
“They can’t just go around putting down whatever road markings they want to. If they know it is wrong and are still enforcing it that is obtaining money by deception and is completely illegal.”

Councillor Bassam Mahfouz, the Labour transport spokesman, said he would be asking council officials what they intended to do about these parking problems. He said: “Now that this issue has been highlighted with the council, I want to know what action it will be taking to answer all its parking bays are properly marked.
“They will need to find out how many of these bays need repainting, otherwise the council opens itself up to further risk.”

Cllr Mahfouz also said unless the council acts fast to address the problem it risks allowing people to start parking in restricted bays and getting away with it.

Claire Vranch, a spokesman for Ealing Council, said the markings on the road were consistent with other London Boroughs.

She said: “Although we believe the bays in Warwick Road are marked clearly, we have reviewed this individual case and found there may be a technical problem with this particular bay, which we are investigating.”

Hackney Council writes off £millions

However, the are still intent on spending thousands on lawyers to pursue market traders in a campaign of harassment.

Read this and then compare it with the Hackney Gazette report below ...

In Thames Magistrates Court yesterday market trader and 'Metric Martyr' Colin Hunt (left) faced the most bizarre of criminal charges. (What must be borne in mind, and must be placed in context, is that Colin Hunt, one of the original five Metric Martyrs, is the brother of Janet Devers, the 63 year old Hackney trader who currently faces charges by Hackney Council of selling goods by the pound ... the first such prosecution for 6 years).

The charges ... obstruction of the public highway by having his mango boxes 12" over the white line ... his pitch boundary.

What staggered the court was the fact that the council's evidence clearly showed people walking past the boxes. However, Colin produced damning evidence ... perhaps finally revealing the true agenda behind the Metric Martyr's prosecution ... two separate written statements from former Market Inspectors claiming that their bosses had been conducting a deliberate campaign against the market trader, currently on sticks at work recovering from a hip operation.

The Magistrates immediately adjourned the case and the witnesses have been requested to appear in court to give evidence.

Perhaps now, finally the truth will out.

COUNCIL WRITES OFF MILLIONS

Hackney Gazette
mailto:hg.editorial@archant.co.uk
07 August 2008

A Gazette investigation has uncovered millions of pounds of taxpayer's money written off by Hackney Council. Almost £40million of debt went uncollected in the last financial year, an audit of the town hall books revealed.

Opposition councillors and campaigners slammed the council for its inefficiency and unfairness.

Parking fines accounted for more than half the £38million of debts Town Hall officials wrote off in the last financial year. An audit of the town hall books found council's parking officials failed to collect more than £21million in parking fines. Mark Wallace, campaign director at public spending watchdog, Taxpayers Alliance, said it seemed that the council was using the parking fines to make money off people who would pay the first time of asking but let those who didn't get away with it.

He said: "I think this has become a total farce. It makes a mockery of the law."

Most of the cash was lost through parking tickets expiring and errors when issuing the tickets.The council also pays Central Parking System (CPS) almost £3million per year to give out parking tickets. No provision is made in its contract with CPS to be fined for mistakes made when issuing tickets and the company receives thousands of pounds in bonuses for meeting its targets.

Council tax was the next sizeable chunk written off with more than £6.7million in debt not collected, nearly double the amount written off in the previous year. The council said that this was due to the debts being irretrievable as they were more than six years old, the amount owed was so small it would be uneconomical to collect or the person had died.

A similar explanation was given for the £6.5million outstanding in rent arrears on council properties. The failure to collect council tax and rent arrears, Mr Wallace added, sent a message that people didn't have to pay it.

But while the council were writing off millions of pounds they were also spending significant amounts as well. The Gazette ploughed through the council's finances after they were made public at the end of last month. More than £42million was spent on agency staff by the council in 2007/08, £11million more than neighbours Tower Hamlets. On top of this, nearly £3million more was paid to consultants.

Mr Wallace also slammed the council splashing out £545,000 to produce and distribute its newsheet Hackney Today. "It is utterly outrageous that the money paid by hard working taxpayers is being squandered on council propaganda that hardly anyone reads." If they want to publicise themselves, they should do a good job.

More refunds ... more excuses

Another council another 'inexplicable' error. Who will be the next to confess?

As more and more councils start to realise that this outrageous abuse of power is being scrutinised now from all angles, civil parking enforcement is being brought into national disrepute.

There are going to be no excuses and no hiding places for those who have been fully aware that THEIR actions have exposed others to a risk of loss ... and therefore an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act.

It is only a matter of time before this episode of disgraceful behaviour by councils and council officials is aired before a court of law. I understand that many Parking Services Managers are now being called to account for their actions and being asked to 'confess' any wrongdoing, potential errors that may affect the council and their fellow officers. The Chief Executives, Heads of Legal Departments, Treasurers and Heads of Services are all likely to be implicated and afected by the fall-out ... for failure to exercise due diligence in ensuring not only that the actions of their council were lawful, but also that the monies unlawfully derived were refunded.

The next year is likely to be very interesting indeed, especially in light of pending legal matters.

Council owes £8k in wrong fines

The council has known about the mistake since 2003

Council officials forgot to paint double yellow lines on a side street in Bristol but still handed out fines to motorists who parked in the area.

The lines should have been painted in a street in Kingsdown five years ago but never were. Dozens of drivers who unwittingly parked there were fined.

The city council is now trying to trace 70 drivers to repay a total of £8,000 in parking fines and tow-away fees.

The lines have now been painted in as it is illegal to park in the area.

David Bishop, of Bristol City Council, said: "In 2003 a parking adjudicator told the council that we should make changes to the yellow lines and the enforcement in this area of Montague Hill South and allow some appeals against parking tickets.

"At the time she said the yellow lines were misleading and we shouldn't be enforcing.

"We took the steps necessary to put things straight except for redoing the yellow lines which is an inexplicable error."

Are speed cameras legal?

This could be a blunder of bigger proportions than the parking ticket one ... again arising from the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

Robbie puts brakes on speed cameras

By Robert Wight

Sunday Post 13 July 2008

MILLIONS of motorists have been convicted of speeding on dodgy evidence from illegal cameras, claims a Scots roads campaigner.
Community lawyer Robbie the Pict, who helped bring an end to tolls on the Skye Bridge, has identified a legal glitch he says makes evidence from all speed cameras — fixed and hand-held — inadmissible in court.
Known as the ‘Irn Bru Defence’ because of its Scottish roots, the argument is being used by lawyers in several test cases on both sides of the Border.
If successful, it could lead to more than 10 million motorists convicted since 1992 claiming back around £600 million in fines.
"This has been called the Irn Bru Defence because it was made in Scotland and promises to throw a girder — not just a spanner — into the legal works," said Robbie.

Compensation
"Millions of drivers have had monies unlawfully extorted from them because of convictions based on images from these illegal cameras. Compensation could take the Government's potential bill to way above what it would cost just to pay back the fines."
Robbie argues that prior to 1992, radar-type speed measuring devices needed only the approval of the Home Office. But from that July, the Road Traffic Act (1991) required all
new makes and models of speed camera to be specified in a Parliamentary Order.
This is supposed to be done using a Statutory Instrument (SI) — best described as a "mini-Act of Parliament" — and a new SI must be issued for each individual type of camera.
Robbie reckons that since 1992 over 40 different devices have been approved by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, but without the say-so of Parliament.

Barrister
In June, barrister Michael Shrimpton used Robbie's argument to convince magistrates in Nuneaton to throw out a case. He is acting in around 10 upcoming cases and in Scotland the defence is currently being used in five more cases.
"Any driver who receives a letter notifying them of a £60 penalty and three points on their licence on the basis of video-graphic evidence should write to the relevant Chief Constable to ask which Parliamentary Order covers the device," explained Robbie.
"Or write a caveat on the back of your cheque stating it's only payable subject to the existence of the Order for the device."
A Home Office spokeswoman said, "All generic descriptions of speed measuring device producing records acceptable to the courts have been prescribed in the proper manner."

CCTV ... if you can't be trusted then take them down

Despite reassurances from Westminster and other councils they still cannot behave themselves with CCTV being used to spy in peoples' windows.

Not only are the cameras inadequately signed (why tell motorists that they could be captured on CCTV ... it would only reduce the revenue) thereby not providing any deterrent, it is now revealed that they are being used to look in windows.

PARKING CCTV ‘SNOOPED IN ON BEDROOM’

Jamie Welham

West End Extra

27th June

Fury as council cameras are caught looking into private homeA CCTV camera set up to catch parking cheats has been caught snooping on a Bayswater bedroom. The West End Extra has seen video footage from one of Westminster Council’s spy cameras zooming into a luxury flat in Moscow Road.

The council had assured residents that the rotating street cameras, manned by operators in the council’s CCTV control centre in Lisson Grove, would automatically blur out when passing over residents’ rooms. But the video, released following a Freedom of Information request, shows they are not. More ...

Find out if your council is doing the same by submitting the following:

Dear Sir / Madam

Information Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Please provide a list of ALL the CCTV camera locations (used for moving traffic or parking contravention monitoring) across the borough and also provide the following:

(i) the type of equipment used (camera and recording device) in each instance

(ii) the date the camera was installed

(iii) whether each individual camera has been fitted with a privacy zone

(iv) details of whether the privacy zones are fitted to each camera as a matter of standard installation procedure and any protocols and guidelines for installation / use / monitoring of CCTV cameras.

Yours faithfully,

What's going on in Huddersfield? Councillor says no-one is going to get their money back

The Huddersfield Examiner reports today ... Are 1,000s of Kirklees parking tickets unlawful?
Jun 27 2008 by nick lavigueur, Huddersfield Daily Examiner

An extract from the report ...

Sheffield City Council was recently forced to offer motorists who were wrongly fined a refund, but Kirklees Cllr David Hall, cabinet member for highways, said no one in Kirklees would be getting their money back.
He said: “If we are aware that any area or bay is not compliant with legislation then we have not fined people for parking there.
“The difference between us and Sheffield City Council is that they had full knowledge that what they were doing was not compliant.
“I assure you that in this council that is not the case.
“As soon as we are aware that somewhere is non compliant we are out within days to put it right.”





However, a word of advice to the councillor ... it was a necessary condition of the council's application to the DfT for decriminalised parking enforcement powers that signs were marked in accordance with TSRGD 2002. So who has been misled? The DfT? Kirklees motorists?
The million dollar question is whether the council has enforced in any of the dozens of locations identified as non-compliant.

The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees) Order 2006 came into force 3rd July 2006 and this was the point enforcement began and the point the council began enforcing restrictions it knew did not comply with the law.

Is Ealing Council going to refund motorists?

ParkingAppeals.co.uk will assist with obtaining justice for motorists unlawfully fined at this location. For more information visit our website where we will not only give you the defence but show you how to go about seeking restitution.


Drivers’ rage at £1M money box
By Alex Hayes
Ealing Times

Cllr Bassam Mahfouz at the Ruislip Road box junction which the council stopped policing after it was declared too big by a parking ombudsman.

A CONTROVERSIAL box junction in Southall has netted Ealing Council more than £1m in just 12 months.

Nearly 19,000 motorists were fined after being caught on CCTV while stopping in the box junction between South Road and St Joseph's Drive, despite two rulings by the Parking Ombudsman saying it is too large.

Two other junctions, situated within 200m and of the same design, have also netted the council thousands.

Jim Douglas, who runs consumer website Moneybox Junction which gives advice to motorists who believe they have been unfairly charged, said Ealing is the authority he gets the most complaints about.

He said: "It's disgusting. The council is not obliged to enforce these junctions, but the fact it does so vigorously suggests it is using this as a tax farm, a cash cow to top up its revenue.
"It wouldn't take much for the council to change the junctions to bring them in line with the regulations, but to do that would cost it money in fines, and it would also be admitting it is wrong.
"However, it continues to send out tickets like confetti and whenever someone takes it to appeal it does not contest because it knows it is in the wrong."

Last week the Department for Transport (DfT) advised councils to pay back money which had been raised through unfair enforcement to motorists.

Now Councillor Bassam Mahfouz (Lab, Northolt Mandeville), is urging Ealing Council to refund thousands of people caught stopping in a box junction between Mansell Road and Ruislip Road in Greenford, which was also ruled unlawful and is no longer enforced.

He said: "There were lots of complaints about this junction last year. The council's blunt response was that residents should pay up or appeal.
"The problem for residents is when you appeal you risk doubling the fine and that's one thing many couldn't afford - and hundreds were pressured into paying fines that should never have been levied."

Father-of-two Parmjit Jassal, 43, has sent the council his own bill for a fine he paid on the junction between South Road and Cambridge Road in Southall in April.
Parmjit, a customer services manager, said: "I have increased the amount I'm asking for to £120 as the council has not responded. I am playing it at its own game. All it is interested in is taking the money.
"I was in hospital having treatment for my slipped disc when the fine came ten days after I was photographed, and my wife paid it because she did not want the stress of it hanging over her.
"The reason I stopped is another driver had pulled out in front of me and was blocking the road, but it was only a matter of seconds."

Claire Vranch, a spokesman for Ealing Council, said the council has received no information from the Department for Transport (DfT) that the Greenford junction is unlawful and will not be issuing any refunds.

She said: "Box junctions do not need DfT consent, and the council and our specialist highway design consultants are confident box junctions in Ealing meet all the necessary guidance."

Have you been caught out on one of these box junctions and would likea refund?

If so e-mail us at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk and head it "Ealing"

Ticking time-bomb in Lancashire ...

The Lancashire Evening Post today reports on a potential problem for Lancashire Councils' parking enforcement operations run by Parkwise.

An adjudication listed for yesterday was adjourned for 28 days to allow skeleton arguments to be submitted.

Have you had a ticket in Lancashire? If so, the story below will be of interest to you (and potentially your wallet) ...

Driver brings landmark case over Lancashire parking fine
By Tom Moseley
Lancashire Evening Post

THOUSANDS of parking fines could be torn up if campaigners win a landmark case, it has been claimed.
According to campaigners the case turns on the precise wording used on fine notices.
They said it could trigger refunds worth millions of pounds.

But bosses at Parkwise, the Lancashire-wide parking agreement between councils, said they were not aware of a problem and would await a judgment from a tribunal before commenting.

A woman from Chorley has brought a case against Park-wise with the help of parking ticket campaigner Neil Herron.
He claimed the "notice to owner", sent when a fine increases because it is not paid within 14 days, had been worded illegally for years until a recent revamp of traffic laws.

The case relates to notices issued before April 2008, when the new Traffic Management Act came into force.

Mr Herron, who has successfully challenged parking fines across the country, said:
"This would mean every notice to owner issued to drivers in Lancashire under the old regime is invalid and could be refunded."

He said drivers had been told to pay the £60 fine within 28 days of the date the notice was sent, which should have been the date it was received.
He added: "It effectively shortens the time period people have to respond. "

The case was adjourned yesterday at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in Manchester to allow legal arguments to be prepared.

The case does not affect Blackburn with Darwen, which runs its own parking enforcement.

In January, the Lancashire Telegraph revealed Parkwise was to be scrapped when its contract expires in 2009 as it is expected to end up almost £1million in the red.

A spokeswoman said: "Until the facts are presented and a decision made by the independent adjudicator, we cannot investigate the specific details relating to this case."
"Following adjudication we will be in a position to seek relevant legal advice should it be required."