Is this the end for the Penalty Charge Notice for commercial operators?

Virtual bays unveiled by Herron
Neil Herron showed how freight deliveries can be simplified
Parking Review
November 2010

A new system for actively managing kerbspace to enable freight deliveries to be made without incurring parking penalties was unveiled at Parking Management 2010 by Neil Herron of Activ8 (Virtual Parking Solutions).

Herron, best known for running www.parkingappeals.co.uk, revealed a real-time vehicle tracking and space ACTIV8 Virtual Parking Solution at the conference. “Parking is not always about parking, it is often about loading and unloading vehicles,” he said. “There are differing kerbside needs for different kerbside users. The challenge is recognising and differentiating between commercial users, blue badge holders and the ordinary motorist. We need to promote active management rather than blanket enforcement.”

A traffic management perspective emphasises the need to keep kerbside spaces turning over. Herron said the problem is that restricted kerbspace is being used at a time which is convenient to commercial vehicle drivers and not when it is conducive to smoothing traffic flows. Herron said: “The penalty charge notice (PCN) commercial drivers receive is not managing the kerbside, it is effectively a £60 dispensation to park where and when they like, on zigzags, in disabled bays or double yellow lines.”

Delivery companies and their clients absorb the cost of enforcement. “Commercial operators, freight transport industry, coach operators and the utility companies are paying £500m a year in PCNs for servicing customers, and there is a further £100m admin charge for dealing with all those parking tickets,” he said.

Herron said that he developed the Activ8 Virtual Parking Solution while handling parking penalty appeals for commercial operators. “The first thing we do is train drivers on where they can and cannot park. However, once you start knocking off the hotspots and working out alternative delivery areas you quickly get to a point where drivers have to park in contravention. The question then is what’s the least worst time you can choose for a delivery.”

Simply creating more loading bays will not work as the public will park in them, he said. “We need an innovative approach to differentiating user.”

The ‘Virtual Parking Bay’ system was devised by Herron utilising innovative, patented GPS technology developed by Dr Phillip Tann, a lecturer at Sunderland University, who made headlines when accused of doing 42mph in a 30mph zone. Dr Tann was testing out prototype GPS/GPRS telemetry so presented data at the court which proved he was doing 29mph. Herron saw how this system could be adapted to create real-time vehicle tracking and destination management system. “The answer is to create journey certainty,” he said. ”If you are on a journey from A-to-B the best thing is to know there is a guaranteed space when you arrive. With a virtual parking space you are saving CO2 emissions, fuel use and man hours. And it smoothes traffic flow.”

The Fleetm8 system has undergone initial trials with Westminster City Council and DHL Tradeteam, and the Virtual Loading Bay Solution emerged from those trials. “With the virtual parking bay we have created a system where you book your kerbside loading space in real-time, effectively a real-time dispensation to park on the highway. Local authorities will ‘risk-assess’ the bays, some of which may only be available for two or three hours a day when it least impinges on traffic flow.”

Delivery companies using Fleetm8 (or other telemetry incorporating the bespoke software) are able to pre-book a slot in a virtual parking bay. The virtual bays are only visible to a vehicle's on-board telemetry and are effectively real-time, site specific exemptions. The delivery driver’s in-cab GPS device or PDA receives details of the delivery window. The local authority’s civil enforcement officers’ GPS-enabled handhelds also receive real-time details of vehicles with a booked arrival so that they know not to issue a PCN.

“It is possible to create virtual ‘geo fences’ which, when breached by the delivery vehicle, send an automated alert the person expecting delivery so they can be ready for the arrival so as to further reduce loading time. When the lorry leaves, it breaches the virtual polygon forming the bay so that it becomes available for someone else can book. This is managing restricted kerbspace rather than just enforcing.”

Herron said the concept can be used off-street too, with a geo fence created at the entrance and exit.

Virtual bays offer local authorities a revenue stream because operators are prepared to pay for guaranteed loading slots. Herron said: “ACTIV8 would be a positive revenue model for the authorities based on the provision of a service with a traffic management benefit and something which commercial operators from delivery companies, couriers, coach operators and utility companies have expressed a desire to see implemented.”

Patients fine ... Doctor fined

Yet again this highlights that cash comes before common sense. Shame on you Sheffield Council.

Parking fines review after doctor case
by David Walsh
Sheffield Star
15th August 2009

A MAJOR review of parking ticket appeals has been launched at Sheffield Council after an A&E doctor, who was 14 minutes late because of an emergency, had his plea for leniency rejected.
Coun Ian Auckland, cabinet member for transport, said he wanted the authority to be "more flexible" and "fairer" over appeals, and for motorists to be given more help to lodge the best possible defence.

He announced the review after Dr Ashish Chaudhry wrote to The Star when his appeal was dismissed.

The medic, who was working in A&E at Sheffield Children's Hospital, received a ticket after being 14 minutes late back to his car because he was dealing with a sick child. He appealed, stating the hospital had been inundated with queries about swine flu and had been working flat out, and that day there were no other doctors available. But Sheffield Council dismissed his claim stating the excuse did not 'constitute grounds to cancel the penalty charge notice'.

However, Coun Auckland ensured the fine was refunded after the doctor wrote to The Star saying his treatment lacked humanity or respect. Now Coun Auckland has announced a wide ranging review aimed at giving officials greater discretion over appeals.

He said: "At the moment there is not enough flexibility in the policy. It could be more flexible - and this case highlights that. "I read the letter and thought, 'He's got a good excuse, are we cancelling enough such cases? And whatever the strength of someone's story, are we making it clear people can appeal?'"

In this particular case, as the doctor leaving his duties could well have caused unnecessary suffering to a child patient, the council felt the ticket should be waived."Officers are writing a report on changes to the appeals system which is set to go before cabinet - and could become policy - in three months, Coun Auckland added. In 2006/07 Sheffield Council raised £5.2 m from parking charges and fines and £1.4 m profit. The council says profits are ploughed back into traffic schemes.

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 ...

Councils launch parking website ... but they have missed a vital piece of information for the motorist

Doesn't seem to be anything on the site pointing out to the motorist in the clearest terms that PATROL is paid for at the rate of 60p per Penalty Charge Notice and that the PATROL Joint Committee (the councils) appoints the adjudicators and is responsible for their remuneration. It also fails to point out that Manchester City Council is the lead authority.

The next blog post will reveal the answers to some Parliamentary Questions.

At all times what must be borne in mind is that under Article 6(i) ECHR you have the right to be heard by an independent tribunal and that that it is a breach of Article 6 if it is perceived that the tribunal is not independent.

Councils relaunch new and improved parking information site
Hannah Wooderson for 24dash.com
in Communities , Local Government
6th April 2009

A group of over 200 councils have come together to re-launch their public information website today (Monday 6 April) www.patrol-uk.info.

The 200+ councils make up the Joint Committee of England and Wales for the Civil Enforcement of Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London. Their new-look PATROL site has been improved to take into account the 12-months of user-feedback received since its launch last year, when the Traffic Management Act 2004 came into effect.

PATROL aims to be a one stop shop for motorists, providing clear and accessible information about parking and bus lane regulations, and guiding people through the ensuing, and often complex, enforcement process – a subject of great interest to local residents.The site promotes a ‘pay it or challenge it’ theme, encouraging people to either challenge a notice they believe they have received unfairly or pay early to avoid a larger fine. It also features a useful flowchart, so that people can easily identify where they are in the process.

PATROL, and the Joint Committee which sponsors it, is an excellent example of partnership working from councils. The group is committed to working together to provide consistent information to motorists. The site has a search option, so people can identify whether their local council is part of the scheme, and also includes direct links to local information via council websites, to enable them to check whether particular circumstances apply to their locality.

Chair of the PATROL Joint Committee, Councillor Ken Gregory said: “The PATROL website is an excellent example of how collaboration and partnership working between councils can succeed. The main aim was to present complex information about the enforcement process which is common to all councils and translate this into clear information for motorists. We’re pleased to have received such a lot of useful feedback from motorists and have taken these views on board to inform the redesign.”

PATROL also has a general information section, which provides a series of simple hints and tips for avoiding Penalty Charge Notices.PATROL’s Head of Service, Louise Hutchinson, said: “The PATROL Joint Committee is committed to providing a single point of access for motorists, and we hope that the new-look website will help us to build greater public understanding of parking issues, traffic management and motorists’ rights.”

www.patrol-uk.info

Wycombe District parking fines revealed

Bucks Free Press

MOTORISTS have been hit with more than £300,000 worth of fines in four months after Wycombe District Council took control of traffic wardens, it has been revealed.
The council has billed 5,223 drivers since taking over enforcement duties from the police in October, worth £338,410.
Of these just 3,434 tickets have been paid, worth £125,867.

Catherine Spaltion, press officer for the council said as most people paid the fines within 14 days – during a 50 per cent “discount period”. This means the fine actually paid often falls below the amount officially charged by the council.
The full value of each ticket is £50 or £70, depending on the offence.

The council said none of its officers worked on an incentive, commission or target led basis.
It said reasons for unpaid tickets could include a vehicle's owner not being traceable, a disabled driver having been verified, or a successful appeal against the ticket. Some cases may have gone to formal adjudication or even be at the court stage.

Wardens rake in £150,000 for council

This is South Wales


ALMOST £150,000 has been raised by parking fines in Swansea in just five months.
More than 7,000 motorists have received parking fines since the local authority took over responsibility for issuing tickets.

Between September 1 last year and January 31, the council has dished out hefty fines which have seen them cash in £147,919.

However, while the council is receiving money for each ticket issued, a council spokesman said the authority was only responding to people breaking the rules.
He said: "Since taking over civil parking enforcement responsibilities last year we issued 7,106 penalty charge notices because of people parking inconsiderately. If people don't park inconsiderately, they won't receive a penalty charge notice." and we'd be more than happy to issue no such notices."

The income that is generated from the fines is ring-fenced and put back into maintaining the civil parking enforcement service.
Any extra money left over will be ploughed into helping improve transportation services in the city, such as car parks and park and ride.

A council spokesman said: "Our main focus has always been to discourage people from parking inconsiderately and causing an obstruction to pedestrians and other road users and we've received a great deal of support from the public who have contacted us to ask for our civil parking enforcement officers to patrol their areas."

Depending on the severity of the parking offence, some of the tickets issued are £70 and others will be £50. If tickets are paid within 14 days, there is a 50 per cent discount.

But one motorist parking their car in Swansea on Saturday, who did not want to give their name, claimed the fines were just a money-making exercise. for the council.
"I can understand it when someone is parked dangerously on double yellows, but there is just nowhere to park for free anymore in Swansea, and if you need your car in work, you're forced to cough up huge sums every week or gamble on not getting a ticket."

Should a yellow line have a t-bar? Is the adjudication service independent?

Parking adjudicators will have you believe that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles BUT it isn't a trifle when you get walloped for a £120 fine.

However, there is a High Court case pending which could re-establish the rule of law and ensure that local authorities comply with the law. Adjudicators (funded by the local authorities who have repeatedly failed to comply with the law ... the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) have seized on the phrase 'substantial compliance' with the interpretation that if a sign 'looks' like a sign (or line) then 'no reasonable motorist' could have been misled.

That is not how the law is written. TSRGD 2002 is explicit and sets out the dimensions (and permitted variants) for road traffic signs. Any deviations from prescribed signage requires Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State.

Don't take my word for it ...
Here is the British Parking Association's submission to the House of Commons Transport Committee:
TRAFFIC SIGNS
30. Traffic and parking regulations are given effect by traffic signs and markings. In the UK signs are prescribed precisely in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction TSRGD (SI 2002/3113) and if a sign or marking does not comply with TSRGD then the regulation has no effect. We believe that it is important that, particularly for parking, where drivers are expected to comply with regulations, that the precision of signing is preserved and enforced. Where a driver is at risk of a financial penalty, or worse, signs cannot be "about right".

Not convinced?
Check out the statement of the DETR (now the Department for Transport) in relation to the requirement to have t-bars terminating double and single yellow lines reported by the BBC here:

One of the main problems, he claims, is when double yellow lines are painted without a T-bar finishing off the lines at each end.

The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) confirmed that with single or double yellow lines there must be a block painted at a 90-degree angle at the end of the lines.
A spokesman said: "If this end line isn't there then the lines have been laid out incorrectly by the local authority and you would have grounds to challenge the ticket in court."

In the above case North Yorkshire Police admitted:

We have been open and honest about this matter from the beginning and we have admitted we were in the wrong
North Yorkshire Police

One has to ask the question when was the law allowed to be 'dumbed down' and by whom?
Well, it seems to be that adjudicators are applying their own interpretation to the law (TSRGD 2002) ... and just remember that the adjudicators are appointed by the Joint Committee and are remunerated by the Joint Committee.

Who are the Joint Committee? The Joint Committee comprises of members from the councils participating in Civil Parking Enforcement.

To ensure that all the lines and signs comply with the law is an expensive business ... hence the reason for 'dumbing down.'
Apparent bias in the Judicial context. Lord Goff of Chieveley cited the dictum of Blackburn J in R and Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, 232:
“Any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter.”

Once it is realised by the motoring public that the 'independent' adjudication services are remunerated on a per ticket basis (60p per PCN in the case of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) then the more tickets issued the more money they receive.

Successful technical defences based on councils failure to comply with TSRGD 2002 reduce the amount of PCNs that can be issued and enforced.

Any rocket scientists care to comment?

Oh, the case of Glenn Dickinson v Hull City Council has been given leave for Judicial Review on the grounds that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are not independent and signs must be as prescribed in law. Looks like Herron v The Parking Adjudicator (independence of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and TSRGD points) and Pendle v The Parking Adjudicator (TSRGD points) are likely to follow the same route after being refused at written stage are now both moving towards an oral hearing.

In the meantime, anyone with a ticket on an incorrectly terminated yellow line or coming before the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and raising concerns over their independence can request that their case be 'stayed' sine die pending the outcome of Dickinson.

Please don't all aspire to be as bad as this ...

Driver wins £20,000 for stress over parking tickets

and sends bailiffs to collect his money!

Daily Mail
By Colin Fernandez

A motorist sued a council for £20,000 over the stress of receiving four parking tickets.
Zun Noon, who refused to pay the four £50 fines, claimed he suffered emotional distress after bailiffs were sent round to reclaim the money.
After a court found in his favour, Mr Noon gave the council a taste of its own medicine and sent his own bailiffs to its offices to collect his damages.

Mr Noon's battle against Newham Council in East London started in October 2007 when he was apparently captured by a council CCTV camera committing the parking offences.
Two more fines arrived the following month, as well as a fourth penalty which was a duplicate of a previous one and was later dropped.
Mr Noon, from Tower Hamlets, was so incensed he launched a counterclaim for emotional distress at Bow County court.
After Newham Council failed to attend the hearing the judge awarded him £20,000 - £5,000 for each ticket.
Bailiffs went to Newham's 'Parking Shop' in East Ham last November to present a 'notice of seizure' and began taking computers and putting them in a van. The council took 30 minutes before paying up.
Si-Ling Pang, a spokeswoman for Newham Council said: 'They were unplugging computers and taking them away. If they'd unplugged the server it would have cost us thousands of pounds worth of damage so we had to pay to stop it.'
The cost to taxpayers has since risen to £27,566.83 including a service charge and costs resulting from the time taken to settle the case.
The council, which says it never received a summons, has since taken the case back to Bow County Court, which ruled in its favour and ordered Mr Noon to repay the money.

City steps up parking fines... to balance the books

Balancing the books?
Thought it was about improving traffic flow and keeping the streets clear of congestion.

Sunderland Echo
By Ross Robertson
Drivers will face steeper fines if they are caught out by parking attendants.
Sunderland City Council is upping parking penalty charges from £60 and £40 to £70 and £50, bringing it in line with other towns and cities in the North East.

Council bosses say the move will prove an ever greater deterrent for parking pests as well as helping them balance the books.

The city's parking service costs £2.7million to run and produces a total income of £2.6million.

The new charges will bring in an extra £53,000 a year if a similar number of motorists are caught breaking parking rules.

The council was given two penalty charging options – Band 1 and Band 2 – when the new civil parking enforcement scheme was brought in last March.

It opted for Band 1, meaning motorists would either be fined £60 or £40, depending on how serious their parking offence was.

But after it was revealed that only a handful of other authorities in the country were operating on Band 1, senior councillors on the city's ruling cabinet have opted to switch to the higher band.Coun Jim Blackburn, responsible for transport and planning in the city, said: "All neighbouring authorities operate with Band 2 – and introducing the Band 2 charge will provide consistency.

"It will also help to make the service more financially sustainable."

Guidelines say it is sensible for councils to operate self-financing parking enforcement, but they should aim for motorists to have 100 per cent compliance with the rules – meaning no penalty charges are issued.

Coun Blackburn added: "It is anticipated that Band 2 charges will have a positive effect on the degree of compliance with parking and waiting restrictions."

Changing to Band 2 was also recommended by consultants RTA Associates, which carried out a review of civil parking enforcement in Sunderland.

The new charges will come into effect on March 16. Motorists will still get a 50 per cent discount if they pay within 14 days – but can expect a 50 per cent increase if they do not pay up on time.

Sunderland's parking enforcement regime has never been far from the headlines in recent years. An undercover investigation caught parking attendants making racist remarks and cracking jokes about disabled people. Private firm NCP was stripped of its contract to run the off-street parking enforcement regime in the wake of the damming BBC documentary.

NCP Services' Tim Cowen has had a busy week defending the indefensible

I must be careful however, 'cos last time I wrote about a parking matter involving Mr. Cowen and NCP Services he told me I had spelled 'indefensible' wrong so let's have a look at this week's excuses ... and we shall see who is going through a bad spell ...

The first one is ... Parking Ticket for Funeral Vicar reported by the BBC. Hearse outside a church. Photo of vicar on Blue Badge. Mourners telling the Civil Enforcement Officer it was the vicar's car and a funeral was taking place. Spokesman Tim Cowan said: "The CEO who issued the ticket is adamant that at no time did anyone explain the car was owned by a vicar conducting a funeral. "
Would like to know on a believability scale of 1 -10 as to whose word you would accept. The vicar and churchgoers or the NCP Services employee. To check out how Mr. Cowen responded when faced with similar accusations that his employees were less than honest click here

Second one is what you would call 'Bang to Rights Guv.'
Veteran parking campaigner, and fellow TalkSPORT guest Barrie Segal exposed illegal activity by a NCP Services Civil Enforcement Officer in the City of Westminster. The story was reported in the News of the World last Sunday and shows a CEO faking evidence. Great work by Barrie and the NOTW.
NCP Services spokesman Tim Cowen insisted wardens were not on commission, saying: “There is no incentive to us to issue these unenforceable tickets.”

It must be pointed out that the tickets are only 'unenforceable' when the motorist knows the law and catches the CEO out as in this case. If it is shown that this is common practice then there must be a Police investigation. All the money from fines issued at this location must be refunded immediately.

Bromley Council taking the p

This time it is the council taking the p and receiving it.

This just shows the arrogance of a local authority ... and failing in its duty to exercise discretion ... even AFTER the adjudicator's recommendation.

Maggie Gebbett, 63, was issued with the fine back in May.
Carer wheels out pennies for fine
BBC News

A carer has paid her £80 parking fine in a wheelbarrow full of pennies in protest at the penalty.

Maggie Gebbet, 63, was fined in South Street, Bromley, south London, after the ticket she bought peeled itself off her car's windscreen in hot weather.

Despite an adjudicator recommending the charge be cancelled, Bromley Council has insisted it be paid.

Mrs Gebbett, from Chislehurst, Kent, said councillors had been "extremely shabby" over the charge issued in May.

'Credible witness'
"I can understand the council going through a procedure, but when they are given advice, surely they should take that advice. It's a total charade.
"I can't believe they have been so cavalier about the whole thing. I know this has happened to others, but people get frightened about the fine going up and won't pursue it."
I'm furious about the whole business and most upset about being criminalised when I have not broken the law

Maggie Gebbett
She added: I'm furious about the whole business and most upset about being criminalised when I have not broken the law."

The mother-of-two wrote to Bromley Council's parking officers enclosing a photocopy of her ticket asking them to see sense and withdraw the charge incurred in South Street.

The council declined and she was referred to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS).
Following a meeting with a PATAS adjudicator in October, he concluded Mrs Gebbett was an "honest, credible and convincing witness" and recommended the council cancel the charge.
However, the officers chose not to adopt the lawyer's findings and requested she pay the £80 fee by 3 December or face an increased charge of £120.
"The adjudicator concludes that the contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly," said a Bromley Council spokesman.
"Whilst we accept that mistakes do occur, motorists need to display their pay and display ticket."

EXPOSED ... Ealing Council knew its junctions were illegal and still banked £1m

How many times did the cock crow?

How many denials have been issued?

More than 30 pieces of silver involved here ...

This will serve as a message to all councils, council officials and councillors out there.

This is not a game. Parking and moving traffic enforcement is not a revenue raiser and you cannot 'disregard' the law when it doesn't suit or when it impacts on the council's cashflow and budget. You cannot take money from the public to which you are not entitled.

It is one thing to be incompetent and get the law wrong. It is a very, very different situation to continue to take money in the full knowledge that such actions are unlawful.

The piece below is the result of the fantastic and determined work by Parking Appeals' Yellow Box expert Jim Douglas.

Taylor apologises over Southall box junction enforcement scandal
26th November 2008
By Alex Hayes

A COUNCILLOR has apologised after it was revealed officials knew six box junctions were unlawful five months before they were removed.

Councillor Phil Taylor gave the “unreserved apology” after it was revealed a council official was told by email in June by the Department for Transport (DfT) the six box junctions were too big.
However, thousands of tickets were handed to drivers until the DfT spoke to the council again at the beginning of November, and enforcement stopped.

The amount taken in fines on four of the boxes in South Road and High Street, Southall over that time could amount to nearly £1m.

Councillor Bassam Mahfouz, the Labour transport spokesman, said: “There is damning evidence to show the council has failed to act after it knew the truth.

“In June they said they did not need permission from the DfT for these junctions, but then went and asked anyway.
“They were trying to deflect blame from themselves and push it onto the DfT. I gave Cllr Taylor the chance in private and in a Full Council meeting to suspend these junctions until the DfT ruling was in, but he declined both times.
“Now it turns out someone at the council knew the entire time. Cllr Taylor has accused me of being inflammatory, but the really inflammatory thing her is people were forced to pay when the council knew they were not legal.”

The row over the junctions blew up after a series of victories for drivers at appeal hearings at the parking adjudicator which started at the end of 2007.

However, at an appeal hearing on October 29, where a bus company was handed £700 in costs, a lawyer from the council was still claiming they had not heard back from the DfT.

Cllr Taylor, who is in charge of parking services, said he had not been shown the June email until today (yesterday).
He said: “We will be refunding everyone ticketed at the affected yellow box junctions since June 20.
“At the beginning of November we immediately suspended the junctions following advice from the Department for Transport.
“I believed that this was the first time the Council had been given this advice or the decision to stop enforcing them would have taken in June.
“I am furious that this email was never brought to my attention and I have ordered an immediate investigation on how this could have happened.”

Parking campaigner Neil Herron called for resignations, and for every penny taken from drivers since the bays started to be enforced to be paid back.

He said: “If this had happened at any private institution heads would roll.
“I think there should be resignations on the table after this.
“The question now should not be who do we repay, but how fast can we repay everyone who has ever been caught on these junctions.
“These people are public servants yet their attitude has been to deny everything and refuse to listen to advice.
“It's not what the public expects.”

Over the last two years more than £3m has been taken from drivers on the six wrongly-marked junctions, with £1.2m being taken since April this year.

Let the meltdown begin ...

The last few weeks have been rather busy, preparing matters for the High Court Judicial Review The case was lodged last Thursday and was widely reported here

However, there have been a number of developments over the last few weeks arising from the fact that we have submitted Freedom of Information requests to councils asking them for details of locations which they are aware have signs and lines which do not comply with the law and whether they are aware of any Traffic Order problems.

Sheffield City Council was the first to do the decent thing and offer refunds. 'Tramgate Fines to be repaid.' Read it here

As the responses start to come in some councils are 'confessing' to the press before we have a chance to go public. As a result, collective cries of 'mea culpa' are beginning to be heard across the length and breadth of the land.

Here are a few ... this one followed our highlighting of the problem across Lancashire ...

Blunder may mean refunds for Pendle parking tickets
Lancashire Telegraph

PARKING bosses face having to pay back fines worth thousands of pounds after it emerged white lines may not have been painted properly.

A DfT spokesman said: “Local authorities need to make sure they operate reasonably and within the law. More ...

... and then we met Haringey MP Lynne Featherstone and a few councillors and highlighted how many of the restrictions across Haringey were non-compliant ...

Council blunders make up 40 per cent of cancelled parking tickets
Hornsey and Crouch End Journal

NEARLY 40 per cent of parking fines cancelled at appeal last year were down to bungled council signs and road markings, the Liberal Democrats have claimed.More than 1,400 residents had their parking tickets cancelled from August 2007 to July 2008 due to Haringey Council error after appeals found road signs, markings and traffic management orders were at fault. More ...

... a local coffee shop owner in South Tyneside got in touch after getting a ticket in a loading bay ... trouble for the council ensued ...

Loading bay blunder could cost thousands
Shields Gazette
22 September 2008
By David MacLean

COUNCIL bosses could have to pay back thousands of pounds after it was discovered some of its loading bays were too narrow.

South Tyneside Council has suspended issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs) on all 45 of its loading bays while they are being reviewed and, where necessary, re-marked. The move comes after the Department for Transport told the council four bays in the Market Square and one at the western end of Smithy Street, next to Argos, were 20cm too narrow.

More ...

... and the most recent in Guildford, perhaps coming from the fact that it seems that after we asked every council in the country whether their Traffic Orders and signs and lines were compliant a lot of councils are hastily checking. It seems that they are all aware now how serious it is to take money from people illegally, and aware of the fact that the matter is set to become a lot higher in profile and The Motorist Legal Challenge Fund is likely to end up taking legal actions against those who think that they are above the law.

Legal blunder leads to free parking in Guildford
By Colin Parker 18/ 9/2008

GUILDFORD’S shoppers can temporarily park on the town’s streets without having to pay following a legal error.

Signs were put up this week near the 495 on-street pay-and-display bays advising motorists about the situation.

The suspension in charging, which does not affect off-street parking or yellow lines in Guildford, is likely to last until November.

Experts working at Surrey County Council (SCC) noticed a mistake in the authority’s written parking order, which has meant all fees and fines are invalid. More ...

Had a ticket here in Leeds?

This was where the car was parked whilst attending the adjudication of Mr. David Flasher.

The decision which is in the Key Decisions section on the website shows that Leeds City Council's Notices of Rejection are invalid.

If you have been pursued by bailiffs or have had an appeal rejected you can now revisit your case.

Meanwhile, the PCN issued at this location has been cancelled ... along with the admission that the restriction is not signed in accordance with regulations. Therefore, until it is there is no Traffic Regulation Order in force ... and therefore any monies which the council has had must be refunded.

Dear Mr Herron

Traffic Management Act 2004

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): LS32102873

Date of Issue: 11/06/2008

Location of Contravention: BRITANNIA STREET - CENTRAL

Nature of Contravention: 06 WITHOUT PAYING CHG OR DISP VOUCHER

Thank you for your e-mail dated the 17 June 2008 and letter which we received the 20 June 2008 in regard to the above PCN.

The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the PCN because your vehicle was parked in a pay and display bay without displaying a fee ticket.

I have noted your comments and have checked the CEO’s pocket book notes which state the sign advising the restriction was on lamppost number 3 approximately 4 yards to the rear of your vehicle on the opposite side of the road therefore does not comply with regulations

I can confirm the PCN has been cancelled.

Thank you for bringing this information to our attention.

Yours sincerely

Anne Goldthorpe Appeals Officer

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.

Lib Dems lead again on parking shambles

This time it's Vincent Cable calling for fairer parking rules for motorists. It seems they are ahead in the realisation that the game is up for the current civil enforcement regime and public consent for all parking fines is set to be withdrawn.

Whilst not advocating parking anarchy the British public have an in-built sense of injustice ... and parking enforcement is now out of control and careering for meltdown. The public have had enough ... and when you consider that a £60 to £120 fine for the most minor of contraventions when money is as tight as what it is means that the public anger and resentment will grow.

No-one has any sympathy for the repeat or persistent offender but these form the minority. Perhaps the only way to get Parliament to sit up and take notice is to copy your appeal in to your MP especially if there is question over the legality of the enforcement practice by the council.

Only public pressure will force the change ... but after the subdued Transport for London enforcement conference which we attended yesterday the 'industry' or service as they now call themselves, were a lot more contrite and conciliatory. Gone has the cocky arrogance and reckless indifference to the plight of the motorist. Now it is one of uncertainty as to the level of the maelstrom which is about to unfold.

Putting it right now will be a start but it doesn't let go what has gone before ... a burglar caught after years of unlawful activity can pledge to go straight but he is still accountable for his previous actions.

The public is at tipping point on this and many other matters ... and we now know the politicians are starting to realise that failure to address matters could make things very uncomfortable indeed.

Oh, and despite the 'industry' now deciding to now call themselves a 'service' I must point out that I am not a 'customer.' A customer makes a choice to be a customer ... and we certainly choose to get a parking ticket. I think the word 'victim' is perhaps more appropriate in light of the unlawful activity of some councils.

Meanwhile, back to Mr. Cable in the Richmond and Twickenham Times ...

MP calls for fairer rules on parking
By Chris Caulfield

The constant stream of residents' parking horror stories may come to an end after fresh moves were launched to create fair and flexible guidelines. More ...

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"

Parkwise in trouble. The meltdown continues ...

... and is set to get worse once all the restitution cases start to have an impact. The short term financial rewards that clouded the vision of the myopic council officers and elected members when they embarked upon decriminalised parking enforcement is now going to come back and haunt them. In the haste to implement the new 'cash-cow' proper checks and controls (signs, lines, Traffic Orders, contracts, paperwork compliance) were overlooked or disregarded.

As the net begins to close and councillors begin their own investigations it is only a matter of time before we see resignations and dismissals.

For all the council officials and Parking Attendants who were, and still are concerned at the activities that you have been asked to condone you can check out www.pcaw.co.uk or e-mail us in complete confidence at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk

Lancashire councils to be left with '£1.1m Parkwise bill'
Blackpool Citizen
By Tom Moseley

COUNCILS have been told they need to save more than £1million to retrieve the money lost by a "shambolic" parking ticket scheme.

A new audit of Parkwise, which controls parking enforcement in Lancashire, has revealed the true extent of its debts.

Bosses say the doomed arrangement between the county and 12 district councils cannot continue after experts said it was "not sustainable".

In January the Lancashire Telegraph revealed how the current model was to be scrapped when the contract with operator NCP expires in September 2009 because it was dogged by costly overheads, admin costs and bickering between council leaders.

The report, released tomorrow, looked at the year up to March.

It reveals:

• A financial black hole predicted for September 2009 has risen to £1.1million and will increase further if nothing is done.
  
• The cost to the scheme of handing out a parking ticket is more than £60 in some areas.
  
• To maintain the current model would cost the county council more than £300,000 a year.
  
• In some districts the scheme lost more than £200,000 last year.
  
• 1,401 tickets were cancelled due to "parking attendant error" in 2007/08.
  
• Almost 6,000 tickets are currently unpaid.

It has also been revealed five councils, including Burnley and Ribble Valley, have never even signed the agreement.
It has not yet been decided who will pick up the bill for the shortfall when the contract expires, and urgent meetings are being held between county and district finance chiefs to decide who is responsible.

Lancashire county council's cabinet member for resources Tony Martin said: "Our view is very clear.
"It's a district council scheme and we administer it.
"Their view is equally clear - it's a partnership scheme and we should pay for it."

Parkwise was set up in 2004 when councils took over control of parking enforcement from the police.
The county council is in charge of roads, and districts control off-street parking.
Parkwise covers both on and off street enforcement under a partnership agreement.

Council leaders will now be presented with a series of options for the future.
These include setting tough targets for district councils to save hundreds of thousands of pounds from its parking enforcement budget and form a new agreement after 2009.

This would need to be agreed by all councils by September 1, the report said.
But the county council's cabinet member for resources Tony Martin said: "Don't hold your breath.
"We do work together well on some projects, but if it costs more to issue a ticket than the amount you're getting back, we're all doomed.
"We will go our separate ways."

The most likely outcome is thought to be the county council taking over responsibility for highways and district councils patrolling car parks.
District councils would be offered the chance to pay the county for its wardens and back office facilities, Coun Martin added.

Parking campaigner Neil Herron said: "It's been a shambles from start to finish."