Press Reports High Court CPZ Case ... BBC Wear

Neil Herron loses Sunderland parking battle at High Court
BBC Wear
25th May 2010

CPZ signs - at each end of a zone - are said to reduce street clutter
If you want to understand the significance of Neil Herron's defeat in the High Court you need to understand Controlled Parking Zones.

Don't all run away at once - you might be grateful next time you park in one.
Here is BBC Wear's handy guide to what they are, how they work and whether it's worth arguing about getting a ticket.
It all revolves around technicalities - technicalities that the judge called "trivialities".
Neil Herron, a former market trader from Sunderland, first came to public attention late in 2000 over the issue of metric measurement.
He helped his friend, Steven Thoburn, challenge a prosecution for selling fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, the offence being that he didn't have the metric scales required.
Technicalities or trivialities?
Since 2000 Mr Herron has transformed into something of a parking campaigner.
His current challenge - to Controlled Parking Zones, or CPZs - went all the way to the High Court.
Again, the issue revolved around a technicality.
An important technicality, said Mr Herron, since the result of infringement is "penal" and, he claimed, councils rely on the confusion to make money out of parking fines.
His over-strict interpretation of the rules, said Sunderland City Council and the Department of Transport, flew in the face of common sense.
On May 25 2010 Neil Herron lost his case and was told by the judge that it was "entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit".

Neil Herron took his case to the High Court in London
What Mr Herron claimed:
The zone in Sunderland city centre is so large that it confuses drivers with its signs and is unlawful
The council relies on this confusion to make money out of parking fines
Penalty charge notices issued against him for parking on single yellow lines in the zone are unenforceable because, technically, there should be no road markings at all within a CPZ
In law, CPZs don't even exist but are "creatures of statute" and, in order to be enforceable, should comply with rigidly laid down road marking regulations
In order to meet the definition of a CPZ, there must be no road marking whatsoever within them, except signs indicating parking spaces and yellow lines
The presence of any other road markings at any point in the CPZ - including zig-zag lines or yellow bus stop clearways - render the entire CPZ invalid
Controlled Parking Zone rules
Entrance and exit signs show the hours during which all on-street parking is controlled
Parking is only permitted in designated parking spaces, the remainder of the kerbside is subject to yellow line restrictions
Single yellow lines prohibit parking during the hours of control, double yellow lines prohibit parking at any time
Some single yellow lines have signs showing different, usually longer, operation times
Parking during the permitted hours may be free or charged
What Sunderland City Council claimed:
Mr Herron's interpretation of road signage rules flies in the face of common sense
Legislators could not have intended the rules to be read thus
If this strict interpretation of the regulations was right a single pedestrian crossing marked on the road could invalidate a vast CPZ
The case could affect the legitimacy of parking tickets issued across the country in other "over-sized" CPZs and lead to thousands of motorists applying to have parking fines quashed
They vehemently dispute the accusation that local authorities rely on the confusion generated by the zones to make money out of parking fines
Their CPZ is being operated lawfully and drivers are being given the necessary information over where and when they can park

Technicalities or Trivialities?

The law is based on technicalities ... that is why the DfT spent so much effort drafting the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions in 2002 and the various Chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual.

Did the draftsmen of the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities on Parking Policy and Enforcement state that CPZs should be 12 streets or less just for the fun of it? Here is Annex E of that Guidance and it sets out the DfT's position explicitly.

So why is it that councils would wish to ensure that motorists didn't have adequate information as to the times of operation of single yellow lines in a CPZ (bearing in mind that the majority of single yellow lines in the country are 'out of force' for the majority of time in a 24 hour period)?

Could it be that there is more chance of a motorist being confused in a large CPZ and therefore issued with a PCN?

Could it be that greater confusion leads to more PCNs and a greater income?

It would be a brave Judge to publicly slap every council for 'giving it large' when it comes to CPZs. So, ask yourself what the DfT are prepared to do to ensure councils comply with their Guidance?

Their response was to throw all their resources at defeating the challenge by bringing in the Treasury Solicitors to argue that 'common sense' should be applied.

Is the British motorist afforded the same luxury of 'common sense' when a minute late back to a meter or an inch over a yellow line? Of course not and until the law is applied equally the fight for a fair deal for the motorist will go on.

Neil Herron loses Sunderland parking battle at High Court
BBC Wear
25th May 2010

CPZ signs - at each end of a zone - are said to reduce street clutter
If you want to understand the significance of Neil Herron's defeat in the High Court you need to understand Controlled Parking Zones.

Don't all run away at once - you might be grateful next time you park in one.

Here is BBC Wear's handy guide to what they are, how they work and whether it's worth arguing about getting a ticket.

It all revolves around technicalities - technicalities that the judge called "trivialities".

Neil Herron, a former market trader from Sunderland, first came to public attention late in 2000 over the issue of metric measurement.
He helped his friend, Steven Thoburn, challenge a prosecution for selling fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, the offence being that he didn't have the metric scales required.

Technicalities or trivialities?
Since 2000 Mr Herron has transformed into something of a parking campaigner.
His current challenge - to Controlled Parking Zones, or CPZs - went all the way to the High Court.

Again, the issue revolved around a technicality.
An important technicality, said Mr Herron, since the result of infringement is "penal" and, he claimed, councils rely on the confusion to make money out of parking fines.
His over-strict interpretation of the rules, said Sunderland City Council and the Department of Transport, flew in the face of common sense.

On May 25 2010 Neil Herron lost his case and was told by the judge that it was "entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit".

What Mr Herron claimed:
- The zone in Sunderland city centre is so large that it confuses drivers with its signs and is unlawful
- The council relies on this confusion to make money out of parking fines
- Penalty charge notices issued against him for parking on single yellow lines in the zone are unenforceable because, technically, there should be no road markings at all within a CPZ
- In law, CPZs don't even exist but are "creatures of statute" and, in order to be enforceable, should comply with rigidly laid down road marking regulations
- In order to meet the definition of a CPZ, there must be no road marking whatsoever within them, except signs indicating parking spaces and yellow lines
- The presence of any other road markings at any point in the CPZ - including zig-zag lines or yellow bus stop clearways - render the entire CPZ invalid

Controlled Parking Zone rules
- Entrance and exit signs show the hours during which all on-street parking is controlled
- Parking is only permitted in designated parking spaces, the remainder of the kerbside is subject to yellow line restrictions
- Single yellow lines prohibit parking during the hours of control, double yellow lines prohibit parking at any time
- Some single yellow lines have signs showing different, usually longer, operation times
- Parking during the permitted hours may be free or charged

What Sunderland City Council claimed:
- Mr Herron's interpretation of road signage rules flies in the face of common sense
- Legislators could not have intended the rules to be read thus
- If this strict interpretation of the regulations was right a single pedestrian crossing marked on the road could invalidate a vast CPZ
- The case could affect the legitimacy of parking tickets issued across the country in other "over-sized" CPZs and lead to thousands of motorists applying to have parking fines quashed
- They vehemently dispute the accusation that local authorities rely on the confusion generated by the zones to make money out of parking fines
Their CPZ is being operated lawfully and drivers are being given the necessary information over where and when they can park

RAC reports on High Court CPZ case ...

Council in court over parking zones
RAC
20 May 2010 at 08:27

A former market trader has taken his local council to court over a number of parking fines that he says are unfair.
Neil Herron, 47, argues that the controlled parking zone (CPZ) in Sunderland is too big and confusing for drivers, leading to them being given fines that they should not legally have to pay.

If he wins at the High Court, the case could be used as a precedent against other councils, preventing them imposing similar fines on thousands of motorists caught in CPZs.
It could also mean that motorists across the country could argue against paying parking tickets.

Mr Herron himself wants the 39 parking notices against him, for leaving his car on single yellow lines, to be made unenforceable.

He is challenging rulings against him by the National Parking Appeals Service (NPAS) parking adjudicator. However, the adjudicator, along with Sunderland City Council, says the CPZ are lawful and could not confuse motorists about where they can and cannot park.

Before the hearing at London's Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Herron said: "We have been stealth-taxed for long enough and abused by councils who have paid scant regard to their legal responsibilities whilst ticketing motorists for the most minor of contraventions.
"Hopefully what we will now see is councils forced to comply with the law."

Copyright © Press Association 2010

Press Coverage CPZ High Court case ... Daily Mail

'Metric martyr' turns 'parking crusader' in landmark legal bid to overturn fines
By Beth Hale

18th May 2010

Neil Herron is fighting a crucial test case that could throw into doubt the validity of millions of pounds worth of parking tickets.
A crusading former market trader yesterday began a High Court battle that could 'blow apart' Britain's parking laws.

Neil Herron, one-time fishmonger, is fighting a crucial test case that if successful could throw into doubt the validity of millions of pounds worth of parking tickets and see thousands of motorists apply to have their fines overturned.

Mr Herron, 46, first sprang to fame as a metric martyr who led the successful campaign to stop the prosecution of British shopkeepers using imperial weights.

Now he has remortgaged his home and poured £100,000 of his own funds into a different fight: challenging the nation's parking regulations.

If he wins, it would 'effectively abolish' controlled parking zones - known CPZs - in towns and cities around the country.
The divorced businessman's battle began in his home city of Sunderland, where he is fighting 39 £60 penalty charge notices.

But he has become the figurehead for a national campaign against 'draconian' traffic enforcement.

Yesterday Mr Herron, wearing a pin-striped suit, arrived at London's High Court to take challenge the legality of CPZs, and as a consequence the validity of fines issued within such areas.
The father-of-two, who has been helped by donations from scores of fellow motorists, said he was 'David taking on Goliath' in a search for 'justice'.
'Councils have been using parking as a stealth tax - the more tickets they issue, the more money they get,' he said.
'There isn't a motorist in the land who doesn't agree.'

The campaigning father-of-two's battle dates back to 2005, when he was alerted to question marks over parking rules and the first penalty charge notice was issued against him by Sunderland City Council.

He argues that the legislation which created CPZs is flawed as it states that every road must be marked with a single or double yellow lines, except where parking spaces are provided.
Therefore any CPZ zone which contains other markings like zig-zags, bus lanes, pelican or zebra crossings is unlawful, meaning parking tickets issued in that zone are invalid.

Alun Jones QC, for Mr Herron, said his client had taken his fight to the Parking Adjudicator, who had 'misconstrued' the meaning of a CPZ.
'This is a matter of general importance to local authorities and motorists all over the country,' said Mr Jones.

'Our submission is that Sunderland City Council and others have used the CPZ in an inappropriately wide way which results in a confusion to motorists.'
He added that the council itself had admitted that a 'significant amount' of income would be taken away from local authorities if Mr Herron was right.

Between 2002 and 2009 alone fines from parking on single yellow lines in Sunderland are estimated to have totalled £460,000.

Motorists, he said, were entitled to more 'clarity'.

He said guidance from the Department of Transport stated that motorists could not reasonably be expected to 'read, understand and remember' parking restrictions at the entrance to CPZs of more than 12 streets.

But despite that some controlled parking zones, in areas such as Sunderland, Bristol, Manchester, Westminster, Kingston and Birmingham, were much larger.
'There are inappropriately large CPZs which we argue will confuse motorists,' said Mr Jones.

He said a CPZ ceased to be valid when other markings such as pedestrian crossings, taxi ranks, and zig-zags were in place.
Judge Mr Justice Bean responded: 'This probably applies to every CPz in the country doesn't it?'

When Mr Jones agreed the judge added: 'If you're right the CPZ is effectively abolished.'

Later Mr Justice Bean added that if he accepted issues raised by Mr Herron's team 'I may be blowing the whole traffic regime to bits'.

Mr Herron is bringing his claim against the Parking Adjudicator, the national independent parking appeals service, with Sunderland City Council and the Secretary of State for Transport both listed as interested parties.

They insist the CPZ is still legal, even with other markings within it.
'There is no suggestion that any motorists was or was capable of being confused or unsure as to the nature of the parking restrictions that were before the adjudicators because of the existence of other types of signage elsewhere in the CPZ,' said Stephen Sauvain QC, for Sunderland City Council.

The case continues.

Today at the High Court ...

After a hectic day at the High Court just TalkSPORT left to do.

Just want to say thanks to everyone for their support from the legal team to everyone who has offered practical, moral and financial support and to the press and media for ensuring that the message got out there. You have all been fantastic. We stood toe to toe with the might of the establishment ... and their worried faces said it all.

Regardless of the way the decision goes we are witnessing the death throes of decriminalised parking as an out of control stealth tax on Britain's motorists.

To all the council officers and Government officials who believe in open, transparent and accountable government we thank you for your integrity, especially those who continue to provide evidence of the failings of others who fall way short of what is required from paid public servants.

A decision will be handed down in a week's time. Regardless of the outcome, the fight goes on.

Another email from the DfT obtained under FoI

Sunderland City Council were granted Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers after telling the Department for Transport in 2002 that ALL their lines, signs and Traffic Regulation Orders were correct.

The DfT were fully aware that there were many restrictions which were not lawful, and this had been confirmed by officials from the Government Office for the North East.

The DfT have chosen not to intervene as many motorists have been fined illegally. This document was obtained under FoI.

CPZ Test Case Required ... DfT says...

More documents released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This meeting was not held in Sunderland as Sunderland City Council officials did not want the DfT to be aware of the systemic failings of their parking enforcement regime. The meeting was held in Wellbar House in Newcastle.

More papers will be revealed in the coming days.

It will also be revealed that, since 2005 Sunderland City Councillors were made fully aware of the behaviour of their council officers yet turned a blind eye and failed to initiate an independent, external investigation.

Members have today been informed of serious allegations made to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal by a member of the Sunderland business community. He .won his case against the City Council

Business boss calls police in parking row

Bizarre comments from Sunderland City Council .. yet again. At least Camden's Councillor Knight (see post above) has had the decency and humility to accept his council's failings with a great degree of contrition. Sunderland however, seem to maintain that it is just 'one man's war' against the council. Perhaps Mr. Odunaiya should watch the video clips
Sunderland Car Parking pt1 of 3
Sunderland Car Parking pt2 of 3
Sunderland Car Parking pt3 of 3
and then look at why an Internal Investigation was launched in 2005. Then look at why all the signs were corrected and why council officers ignored advice from the DfT and Government Office for the North East.
Question on everyone's lips is why, after the BBC Inside Out Documentary was broadcast on 2nd Ocober 2006 did it take until 30th November 2007 to remove NCP Services or was it National Car Parks from the contract?

Here's one from Elton to Sunderland's officers responsible ...




Jarrow & Hebburn Gazette
Published Date: 18 February 2010
By Tim Booler
A BOLDON businessman has complained to police about a council parking contract.
Northumbria Police's economic crime unit is believed to be looking at matters raised by campaigner Neil Herron, who runs Boldon Business Park-based Parking Appeals Ltd.


It relates to Sunderland City Council's handling of the transfer of the parking enforcement contract when NCP Parking Ltd was replaced by NCP Service Ltd in 2007/8, and whether that adhered to European Union procurement directives.
Mr Herron said: "There are concerns over whether it was done without proper scrutiny."
He added that because of alleged "evidence issues," and similar problems occurring in other council areas, it needed to be reported.
Northumbria Police confirmed it had received a complaint "which is being reviewed".
The complaint has also been lodged with Sunderland Council's auditor, and has delayed the signing-off of its annual accounts.
In a recent report to the authority's ruling cabinet, district auditor Steve Nicklin said: "I received a formal objection to the 2007/08 financial statements in relation to car parking enforcement.
"Similar objections have been received at other authorities, which means we're obliged to consider them together and co-ordinate a consistent response.
Also, I have recently received correspondence from the same objector, indicating that he also wishes to object to the 2008/09 accounts.
"Until these two objections have been resolved, I cannot issue my formal certificate to confirm that the audit has been completed for 2007/08 and 2008/09.
However, I am satisfied that the issues raised do not have a material impact on the financial statements."

Sunderland Council said it is aware of the complaints lodged with Northumbria Police.

Ron Odunaiya, executive director for city services, added: "Mr Herron has conducted a long-running campaign against the city council and its officers in relation to parking matters, and this latest correspondence should be seen in that context.
"On this basis we have no further comment to make."

Payback for parkers ... Sunderland Echo

Payback for parkers
Sunderland Echo
29 July 2009
by Tim Booler

Thousands of motorists could get refunds from city centre parking tickets, it was claimed today.
Campaigner Neil Herron says up to 5,500 individuals and businesses could benefit after penalty charges in Sunniside and Park Lane Shopping Village, Sunderland, were scrapped by an independent adjudicator.


Mr Herron represented estate agent Brendan Hackett, who won his appeal against Sunderland Council after parking attendants incorrectly slapped £40 tickets on his car in a pay- and-display area near his office in Frederick Street, on four occasions up to February.

Adjudicator Mark Hinchcliffe noted that the council's Parking Charter says commercial vehicles can have 20 minutes' observation – to see if they are loading or unloading – before a ticket can be issued, but this did not happen.


Mr Hackett said: "Often we have to pop into the office to pick up case files and we were aware that there was an exemption for loading, but it seems that the Civil Enforcement Officers had been told to ignore this and issue instant tickets." "I am pleased that everyone else ticketed illegally will now be able to ask to have their money refunded."

In his ruling, Mr Hinchcliffe questioned the council's policy, adding: "It is hard to understand why in Sunderland some motorists have to pay to park in pay-and-display bays and some don't, depending on what their purpose is."It will, perhaps, be seen that this exemption makes proper enforcement of the on-street pay-and-display parking restrictions very difficult indeed."


Mr Herron, from High Barnes, labelled the council's parking policies "shambolic" and added: "It's a pretty fundamental thing when financially penalising motorists to at least read your own legal documents."You couldn't make a bigger blunder than creating a charter for the public to follow, then deciding not to follow it yourself."

The former market trader urged everyone who has ever had a code five or six penalty notice in one of Sunderland's 13 pay-and-display areas in the last two years to write to the council and request a refund. He also said anyone who did get cash back to make a donation to a good cause, such as the Grace House Children's Hospice Appeal.


Mr Herron also claimed hundreds of drivers ticketed in Derwent Street are due their money back, after winning an appeal against a penalty charge of his own there. It was overturned because a parking bay failed to comply with a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

Burney Johnson, head of traffic at Sunderland Council, said: "In pay-and-display bays if loading and unloading is not obvious then observation periods are not normally undertaken. "It is up to the motorist to discharge the onus of proof that they were actually loading and unloading. "

NB. Mr. Johnson really needs to read the Parking Charter, the TRO and the adjudicators decision which stated that 'as there was no observation the appellant does not need to be put to further proof. Looks like this is set to be escalated should the council wish to maintain this position.

As there was no observation period recorded in the Civil Enforcement Officer's notebook, the adjudicator did not consider that there was any justification for putting the appellant to provide further proof and the appeals were allowed."The council's civil enforcement officers have now been requested to ensure that observation periods are carried out."

Mr Johnson said the adjudicator noted the Derwent Street ticket appeal was won on a "somewhat technical basis" as the council had inadvertently refered to an incorrect item number in the TRO.
NB. The 'somewhat technical basis' is a Sunderland City Council phrase to replace the more colloquial term ... 'cock-up.'

Payback for Parkers ...Another Front Page

Another Victory for Motorists as 'bungling' Council breaches its own Parking Charter

At a Traffic Penalty Tribunal in Sunderland on 21st July 2009 representations were made by Neil Herron, who runs a national parking ticket appeals company http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/ that his client, local Estate Agent Brendan Hackett was loading / unloading in the on-street pay and display bays (on-street) and that ‘instant’ PCNs had been issued without any observation period to establish whether loading or unloading was taking place.

The Traffic Regulation Order states that loading/unloading is allowed ‘for up to 20 minutes' and the Council's own Parking Charter refers to a 'five minute observation period.' Former Parking Attendants confirmed that they used to observe for aa period of 5 minutes so it seems to have been a deliberate policy decision which is in clear breach of the Council's own Parking Charter.

The adjudicator ruled that the tickets were not enforceable because there had been no observation period.
This blunder means that all Penalty Charge Notices which have been issued incorrectly will have to be refunded as the procedures detailed in the Traffic Order and the Parking Charter have not been followed.

Contaact us on enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk for more information.

District Auditor to investigate breach of council's own constitution

This investigation began with a spelling mistake. On 24th October 2007 I posted a story here about a hospital car park and used the logo of the company, who I believed was the hospital's enforcement contractor. Within minutes I had received an e-mail from NCP Services Head of Communications, Tim Cowen which stated:

"Neil,
You seem to be confused between NCP Services and NCP. They are two separate companies (used to be one and the same but were separated in March and are now separately owned).The hospital car parks in question are, I believe, run by NCP, so I would be obliged if you could remove the NCP Services logo. I work for NCP Services, which does not run any local services in Humberside. You spelt "indefensible" wrong as well

Cheers.
Tim Cowen
Director of Communications
NCP Services

With the NCP Services logo removed and replaced with that of National Car Parks Ltd. (and my spelling mistake corrected) an investigation began.

This resulted, around a year ago, in objections to the 2007-8 accounts in a number of council areas due to the fact that the original enforcement contracts (between the council and National Car Parks Ltd.) had been transferred to a newly formed company NCP Services Ltd. in what appeared, from the evidence obtained, to be a breach of the Councils' own constitutions.

The District Auditor is currently seeking counsel's opinion on the breach and Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Minister Norman Baker has raised the matter with his own council in Lewes East Sussex.

For the avoidance of doubt, Andrew Potter, Chief Executive of National Car Parks Ltd. cleared up the point as to whether National Car Parks Ltd. and NCP Services Ltd. were the same company with the letter (below) to the Sunderland Echo.

Sunderland did originally enter into a contract with National Car Parks Ltd. in January 2003 but after the BBC Inside Out programme was aired on 2nd October 2006 an internal investigation began which saw the sacking or resignation of 11 National Car Parks Parking Attendants and the eventual removal of the regime from the contract when the council took enforcement 'in-house' on 1st December 2007.

However, whilst all this furore was going on and the internal investigations were being conducted National Car Parks Ltd. 'de-merged' on 13th March 2007.

In Sunderland, the contract was simply transferred across by council officers without, as yet any evidence of anything in writing (in the form of minutes, legal advice, treasurer's advice) and without reference to the executive. This is in clear breach of the council's own constitution which clearly sets out Financial Procedures in such circumstances. and is now the subject of the investigation.

In other local authority areas legal advice led to 'novation agreements' hastily being put in place some time in 2008 but no such agreements were able to be put in place in Sunderland due to the fact that neither National Car Parks Ltd. or NCP Services Ltd. had any responsibility for on-street enforcement.

Once objections were lodged the District Auditor has a duty to investigate and they are now seeking counsel's opinion for the second time, this time specifically to decide on whether there has been a breach to the council's own constitution by 'an officer' who has acted without authority.

Documents released from the London Borough of Camden are quite revealing:

Wonder why this Parking Attendant tried to hide his uniform here

The story breaks in today's Sunday Sun

Sunderland Council in parking fines payback
Phil Doherty
Sunday Sun
5th July 2009

A NORTH council could be forced to pay back tens of thousands of pounds in parking fines because it failed to follow its own rules, according to campaigners.
They claim that Sunderland City Council failed to follow its own constitution and local government rules when NCP Parking Ltd was replaced by NCP Service Ltd in 2007/8.
More ...

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.

Comedian Dave Spikey helps car thieves ... you couldn't make it up!

In Sunderland car thieves used to have to wait in the cold and then take a chance as to which car contained valuables. Loitering in the shadows, shivering chance to be spotted and having to strike at random.

Now thanks to a forward thinking Sunderland City Council thieves can lie in bed in their bedsits adjacent to the city centre car park ... and wait until Dave Spikey's audible 'valuables waiting' alarm call wakes them from their slumber.

They can simply look out of the window and see who has a satellite tracking system or valuables because they are the ones who are hiding it in their boot.

Dave 'Friend of the car thief' Spikey now announces to the Sunderland criminal fraternity when the easy pickings have arrived.
Don't believe it? Watch it here.

No need to smash glass and leave an unsightly mess, simply jemmy the boot and straight to the pub.

Nice one Sunderland!