Another PATAS decision supporting strict compliance with the law

Yet again we have a PATAS adjudication which confirms that there are mandatory signing requirements.
Well done to Ian Osang for his dogged determination to expose this injustice.
My question to Waltham Forest council highway officers is "You are aware that the signing at this restriction appears not to be fit for purpose given the number of motorists receiving penalties. What action have you taken to address or rectify this?"

WALTHAM FOREST: Motorist claims council could owe thousands after appeal victory
Tuesday 11th May 2010
By Sian Harrison »

A MOTORIST who won an appeal against a penalty notice for an "illegal" right turn claims the council could be forced to pay out thousands of pounds.

Ian Osang was given the penalty charge notice (PCN) after being photographed by one of the council's mobile camera cars turning right from Lea Bridge Road into Essex Road in June last year - a manoeuvre council enforcement officers said was illegal because of a sign fixed near the junction.
However, following an appeal to the Parking and Appeals Traffic Service (Patas), the penalty has been ruled invalid on the grounds the sign is in the wrong place.
Mr Osang, of Campus Road, Walthamstow, said he now believes the council may have to refund motorists who have been given PCNs for the same contravention at that junction.
He said: “It was patently obvious that this penalty had no legal validity, so it was reassuring to be vindicated.
“The implication of this decision is the council have now got to refund thousands of pounds.”
The ruling from Patas states the sign indicating there is no right turn allowed is opposite the no entry signs at the junction - not opposite the entrance to Essex Road as it should be.
Mr Osang initially raised his objection to the PCN with the council in July last year, but he referred the matter to Patas in October after the council insisted the notice was valid.
Having done his own investigation, the 42-year-old accountant found there were 2,313 PCNs issued at that junction during the past 12 months, which equates to £138,780.
He added: “It is a point of principle. Although the fine was only £60, it was clear there was no legal validity to it.
“People are now entitled to have a refund for any notice that has been issued at this junction.”
Mr Osang is now considering taking legal action against the council to compensate him for the time he has spent fighting the notice.
The Guardian is awaiting a comment from the council.

Restitution ... another council doing the decent thing

But London Councils' Nick Lester wriggles and squirms ...

Before we look at his comments ( I must point out that Mr. Lester some 12 months ago accused me of being a conspiracy theorist with no evidence that councils were acquiring monies unlawfully ... another few months and a few more whistleblowers and we will perhaps see where Mr. Lester wishes to place his comments) ... let us look at what the council says:
"apologised unreservedly" "taking steps to ensure it never happens again"

Now Mr. Lester:
"there was no legal requirement for any council to refund all those fined in cases where an error had been identified."
Based on what Mr. Lester. Case law?
Legal opinion?
Check out the phrase 'unjust enrichment' and in light of the number of District Auditor complaints, pending legal action and Police complaints starting up across the country it is likely that more councils will follow the line of Waltham Forest, Sheffield and Nottingham to avoid more costly litigation.

"Those who had already paid the PCN were, arguably, not entitled to a refund because they had accepted liability"
Oh really.
Did they not pay because they were of the belief that the council were operating legally using restrictions which were signed in accordance with the law?
What about those who paid under duress with bailiffs in attendance. Did they accept liability?

The nature of the non-compliance is important, he said. In some cases the error may be no more than a “triviality”
A triviality?
In the same way as being a few minutes late back to a meter is not a triviality?
Or being a couple of inches out of a bay is not a triviality?
Or placing a Blue Badge the wrong way round attracts a ticket?

“Drivers who thought a fine was unfair should always challenge it."
Which is precisely what they all intend to do. It is unfair that a council can take money when they have no legal entitlement to do so ... but the challenge will come through complaints through the courts, through the Ombudsman, the Auditors and the Police.

“A PCN is not a requirement on a motorist to pay. It’s a requirement to either pay or explain why they don’t think they should pay.”
Need to stop calling them fines then. Looks like we are on the verge of parking meltdown once the motoring public realise how they have been well and truly 'drive shafted.'

"In cases where a PCN was found to be invalid it was not always practical or viable to refund everyone"
No Mr. Lester ... it is essential!

“There can be difficulties tracing people. You have to ask whether it is a good use of public money to try and locate everyone.”
The councils took the money and expended all the resources in their gift to find those allegedly responsible to take that money. The same resource and effort needs to be expended to give it back ... and any surplus MUST be given to charity.

Yellow box error proves costly for Waltham Forest
By Deniz Huseyin

Waltham Forest council has agreed to pay back thousands of pounds worth of moving traffic fines after it emerged that one of its yellow box junctions did not comply with signs and lines regulations. The London borough was told by the Department for Transport that the junction did not meet the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 because it overlapped a cycle lane.

The yellow box junction was installed last summer to keep the junction of Leytonstone High Road and Burghley Road clear because of temporary roadwork closures. Between August 2007 and February 2008 the council issued 4,059 penalty charge notices (PCNs) relating to offences at the junction.

A council spokesman said: “We are now in the process of writing to all those who received a penalty charge notice for stopping in the junction. We intend to refund all those who received a fine.”

Waltham Forest’s environment cabinet member, Bob Belam, who is in charge of traffic and parking in the borough, apologized “unreservedly” to motorists and residents for the “oversight”.

He said: “The council is carrying out a thorough investigation to find out why this has happened and will be taking steps to ensure that it does not happen again. As soon as we discovered this error the council instructed our parking contractor to stop issuing tickets incurred by motorists at this junction and have cancelled all outstanding tickets.”

The council has now removed the junction. “It was only intended to be a temporary measure to help with the movement of diverted traffic from an adjacent one-way system which was partially closed during highway works.”

Nick Lester, London Council’s corporate director of services, pointed out that there was no legal requirement for any council to refund all those fined in cases where an error had been identified.

Those who had already paid the PCN were, arguably, not entitled to a refund because they had accepted liability, suggested Lester. “The nature of the non-compliance is important, he said. In some cases the error may be no more than a “triviality”, he said. “Drivers who thought a fine was unfair should always challenge it. The appeals process has been made as simple as possible. There is no cost involved and you don’t have to hire a lawyer to appeal.”

He added: “A PCN is not a requirement on a motorist to pay. It’s a requirement to either pay or explain why they don’t think they should pay.” In cases where a PCN was found to be invalid it was not always practical or viable to refund everyone, argued Lester. “There can be difficulties tracing people. You have to ask whether it is a good use of public money to try and locate everyone.”

Waltham Forest Council forced to refund Penalty Charge Notices

This time because of an unlawful yellow box junction.

What is extraordinary in this instance is that the council asked the Department for Transport if the yellow box was lawful ...and they were told it wasn't ... AFTER they had issued £thousands of tickets. Full story here

The case has enormous implications.

Environment cabinet member Cllr Bob Belam said: "The council is carrying out a thorough investigation to find out why this happened and will be taking steps to ensure that a similar occurence does not happen again.
"As soon as we discovered this error the council instructed our parking contractor to stop issuing tickets incurred by motorists at this junction and have cancelled all outstanding tickets.
"If anyone feels they have been given a fixed penalty at this box junction in error they should contact our parking section and a full refund will be made."
Notices will be placed in the council's WFM newsletter informing motorists they can get their fines refunded.
Cllr Belam said that a decision has yet to be made on whether the junction will be removed or merely altered."

Sorry Cllr Bellam. This is not good enough. It is not up to the motorists to contact you. You have the Registered Keeper details and the details of those who paid. If the two tally ... refund. If they don't (ie. if the driver not the Registered Keeper paid) then write to the Registered Keeper pointing out that a refund is due and can they inform the driver to ensure that an appropriate refund is made.
If there are any monies that cannot be refunded then it must be given to charity.

To get your refund call the council's parking department on 020 8496 3000.

The admission is that a council has been using a sign or road marking which has been confirmed by the Department for Transport as unlawful ... and the council has admitted that it has to refund the money.

Now consider the case of the unlawful (as confirmed by the Department for Transport) 1028.4 / 1032 hybrid parking/loading/disabled bays. Same principle.

Have you had a ticket in such a bay? Check out the Parking Appeals website and sign up to ensure that you have the latest info when councils are caught out.