Westminster Council in the spotlight

'No wrong-doing' council broke EU law
By Ed Davey 25 November 2010
BBC News, London


Council faces EU parking inquiry
A council has been censured by the European Commission for infringing contract laws - and criticised for earlier claiming in a press release it had been "cleared of any wrong-doing".

Westminster Council was the subject of an EU investigation after setting up Partners in Parking (PiP), which allowed local authorities to join forces to purchase cheap parking services.

Westminster was found to have infringed EU law

Transport for London and six local authorities in the city joined when it first started, hoping for a better deal from private parking enforcement firms.

Canadian company Verrus was awarded the contract to provide pay-and-display services, pay-by-phone, parking tickets and debt collection to the members.

Additional local authorities were then persuaded by Westminster City Council to join PiP but these contracts under European Union rules should have gone back out to tender rather than being passed automatically to Verrus.

This move prompted an investigation by the European Union after an un-named parking company complained about the process and the failure to put subsequent contracts out to tender.

But on 8 November Westminster Council released a statement saying an investigation by the European Commission into its parking contract "has cleared the authority of any wrongdoing".

Councillor Lee Rowley, Westminster's parking boss, said at the time: "We always maintained this contract was properly awarded following a tender process carried out in accordance with the law and we are obviously pleased that the EU has decided to close this case."

But BBC London has obtained documents showing the Commission found against Westminster Council and that it was ordered to make changes.

'Infringed EU law'

In an written statement it said: "The Commission considered that Westminster City Council has infringed EU law.
"The United Kingdom authorities recognised the Commission's allegations and committed to take appropriate and adequate measures for the purpose of terminating the infringement."

This statement was obtained by Gerard Batten, a Member of the European Parliament and also of UKIP.

Gerard Batten MEP said Westminster's press release was 'simply not true' He said: "The press release Westminster sent out is simply not true.
"They have not been cleared of any wrong-doing.
"They certainly were not let off scot-free."

He said he was not surprised the authority had put out "such a silly statement".

In light of the revelations, the BBC has learned some councils are considering withdrawing from PiP.

A head of parking at one of the PiP councils, speaking to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said: "The whole issue of legal capability has to be explained.
"I had the press release saying everything was in the clear.
"Then I received other information - now I am trying to ask how these things relate."

Asked if the council would now withdraw from PiP, the officer said: "Whether it is a deal-breaker I don't think we can say until they respond."

Westminster Council's initial claims followed an exchange of emails with the Office for Governmental Commerce (OGC), which dealt with the EU over the issue.

"Our earlier statement did not intend to mislead anyone”
Cllr Lee Rowley
Westminster Council

The OGC says it does not comment on individual cases but the BBC understands the OGC is privately adamant that Westminster's press release was inaccurate and the council should not have based its claims on their emails.

On Wednesday Cllr Rowley said: "Our assertion that we had been cleared of any wrong-doing was based on the fact the OGC had said that the Commission had closed the case.
"It was also based on the EU saying there had been a satisfactory outcome to its investigation.
"Our earlier statement did not intend to mislead anyone and it's important to note that there was no punitive action taken against the council."

PiP once had ambitions to go nationwide.

The minutes of its December 2009 board meeting read: "The board received a report to consider the recommendation enable non-London authorities to join PiP.

Expansion plans dropped

"An Associate Membership would be created in order to enable UK authorities outside London to take advantage of PiP procurements."

A PiP report from 2009 described Bristol, Maidstone, Swindon, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Chiltern and Oxford as having a "potential interest" in joining.

One PiP report referred to the "harmonisation" of a Westminster policy to charge motorcyclists for parking, promising to "review national policy context".

Bristol City Council was one of several authorities nationwide interested in PiP But Bristol Council raised concerns about PiP with regard to the legality of authorities outside London joining the organisation.

After the EU investigation began, expansion beyond London was shelved.

Westminster Council, which insists the EU probe did not affect the plans' termination, has since dismissed claims of national ambitions.

In July 2010 the then PiP chairman, Alastair Gilchrist, who is now strategic director of resources at Westminster Council, told other members: "Concerns about PiP's nationwide expansion are ill-conceived and regional savings are still at the heart of PiP's focus."

The EU's ruling means that only the seven authorities which first joined PiP - Westminster, the City of London, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Islington, Camden and Transport for London - may continue to use the Verrus contract.

An OGC advisory in light of the ruling suggests councils who subsequently joined PiP may be said to have made an "illegal award" of the contract to Verrus, if they used the company.

There is no suggestion of any wrong-doing by Verrus.

Enfield, Richmond, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Havering and Croydon joined PiP after its start date.

The BBC understands at least one of those authorities, Tower Hamlets, is now actively seeking to award a new contract.

Another legal challenge involving parking

The spotlight shining on this lawless, unaccountable industry is getting brighter and it is only a matter of time before matters are properly exposed with the full glare of publicity.


Legal challenge halts Westminster parking deal
Nick Appleyard

21 May 2010

The bidding process for the biggest local authority parking contract in the UK has been halted by a last-minute legal challenge. Mouchel has disputed Westminster City Council’s decision to award the £50m contract to rival parking firm NSL Services. The council has already had to defend its conduct during the long-running process, after it received heavy criticism from the Labour opposition, which called for a full explanation of the ‘mismanaged fiasco … revealing serious failures’.


The council was accused of spending more than £1M trying to award the contract, which was initially awarded to Mouchel, before being revoked and reopened for tender. Sources close to the negotiations then revealed to The MJ that NSL Services was the preferred bidder but Mouchel contested this on the final day of a ten-day cooling off period.

NSL is the firm formerly known as NCP – the incumbent operator of the council’s parking contract. The council’s cabinet member for parking, Cllr Danny Chalkley, has already stepped down from his role to be replaced by Cllr Lee Rowley. But Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg, Labour leader in Westminster, said people must still be held accountable for ‘this very unsatisfactory and expensive fiasco’. ‘We are calling on the new cabinet member to wipe the slate clean, scrap the charging of motorcyclists and call a summit of all those stakeholders involved in parking to flesh out a sensible approach. ‘Whether Cllr Chalkley was dropped or has jumped, it cannot hide the fact Westminster parking is in tatters and needs new direction, instead of being used to prop up the council’s finances.’

Cllr Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster City Council, demanded Mouchel ‘see sense’ and drop the challenge which he branded ‘unfounded and misconceived’. ‘We believe it will be dismissed by the high Court. However, if they persist on pursuing this course of action it will inevitably cost taxpayers thousands of pounds in officer time and council resources spent defending the claims. This is all the more pressing at a time of planned deep cuts across the public sector.’

The council's approach to procurement has already been tested in the High Court, which threw out a claim by Apcoa for an injunction earlier in the year. The council is confident this challenge will be similarly unsuccessful.

Investigation into Westminster's parking contract must leave no stone unturned ...

There needs to be a full, transparent investigation into the Westminster parking contract, leaving no stone unturned.


Parking enforcement and all issues surrounding it need to be addressed as a matter of urgency by the new Government otherwise the stealth tax stigma will be an albatross around their neck.

Parking enforcement needs to be perceived to be fair, proportionate and lawful and then perhaps it will gain the respect of Britain's motorists.

Check out the Motorists Manifesto for the Reform of Parking and Traffic Enforcement.

Revealed: ‘fiasco’ of Westminster’s parking contract
Lucy Tobin
14.05.10


If any of London's newly-elected councillors want a lesson in how not to run a contract-bidding process, they might like to take a field trip to Westminster.
The Conservative-run council has spent six months and more than £1 million trying to award a £50 million parking contract. After a long-running process that saw Westminster award the contract to a new firm, revoke the appointment, fight a law suit, and re-open the expensive tendering process for a second time, the Evening Standard can reveal it has now decided to stick with its incumbent parking company.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Labour leader in Westminster, today called for heads to roll over what he termed a “very unsatisfactory and expensive fiasco”.

The long-running process began at the end of last year when the council launched a procurement process for bidders to apply to run its parking contract. Then in February Westminster named Mouchel, the FTSE-listed support services group, as its preferred bidder for the four-year contract to provide parking enforcement services for the borough.

Mouchel then happily told shareholders at its half-year update in February: “It has been confirmed that we have been appointed as preferred bidder in Westminster, the largest on-street parking enforcement and city management service contract in Europe. The commission is for a four-year period (extendable to six).”

But not so fast, Mouchel. That was just the start of a near-farcical process which is said to have cost local taxpayers £1.1 million and has been branded “totally unprecedented” by perplexed contractors.

After naming the firm as its top choice, Westminster then admitted it had botched part of the procurement procedure. In-house lawyers discovered “a flaw in the contract document” which meant the council had to re-open the bidding. That admission then sparked complaints from one of the bidders, Apcoa of the US, one of the world's biggest parking enforcement companies.

Westminster then ran the entire tender again but with a new clause that effectively excluded Apcoa from bidding. Enraged, Apcoa launched a legal action to get the decision overturned but recently lost the case.

Now the Evening Standard has discovered that Mouchel has been stripped of its preferred status, with Westminster instead awarding that status to NSL, the parking giant formerly known as NCP, which has been operating the contract for the past seven years.
Mouchel insiders said they were furious at the action and may appeal. Apcoa is also expected to protest.

The preferred bidder status means NSL could be re-awarded the deal as early as next week.

Labour leader Dimoldenberg said: “This whole process has cost the council over £1.1 million. Now we find the original contractor has got the job. It's a ridiculous, crazy situation. Residents and motorists are entitled to a full explanation over this mismanaged parking contract. Somebody at Westminster needs to take personal responsibility for this very unsatisfactory and expensive fiasco which has revealed very serious failures.”

Campaigners called for an official inquiry into how the contract was awarded. Graham Jones, spokesman for the campaign group No to the Bike Parking Tax, said: “Westminster awarded the contract to Mouchel, then faced a legal challenge which was thrown out of court, so why did it not stick with its original decision? This scandal requires a council inquiry.”

Kevin Goad, Westminster council's head of commissioning, said: “Following the discovery of a flaw in the initial contract process we stopped the procurement exercise. This was to ensure we were being fair and transparent to all those involved in the process which was the right and legal course of action to take. This week, the council has named a preferred bidder for its new parking enforcement contract. We are currently in a ten-day standstill period and expect to sign the formal contract with them later this month.
“Any additional costs incurred through this process will be recovered many times over through substantial savings with the new contract.”

Tim Cowen of NSL commented: “We have noted the announcement that we are preferred bidder but would not wish to comment further because of the legal 10-day standstill period.”
An insider in the parking enforcement industry stalwart said he “couldn't record a process quite like this ever before”. He added: “We're now in tthe standstill period, when it would normally be very, very unusual for a challenge to crop up, but the rest of this case has been unprecedented, so who knows?”

The £50 million contract covers monitoring and maintenance of CCTV cameras to pick up illegal U-turns, illegal driving in box junctions and other parking offences. It also pays for the 100 or so parking attendants patrolling the streets of Westminster.

Danny Chalkley, Westminster's cabinet member for city management, did not respond to calls.

Law enforcement on the streets of Britain today ...

While we watch large scale X Factor style political debate with popularity being decided not on policy but on body language and presentation the clip and story below shows how real people are affected by the failings of politicians. Privatising law enforcement on the streets of Britain and a failure by politicians and council officers to accept any responsibility has led to the need for campaign groups and individuals to stand up and expose this.

Please support The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund.


Traffic warden faces the sack after foul rant about motorcyclist’s wife

Evening Standard
Felix Allen
19.04.10

A traffic warden faces the sack after his foul-mouthed rant at a motorcyclist was caught on video.
The Westminster council parking attendant is seen shouting at Warren Djangoly and making obscene comments about his wife during a confrontation in the West End.
Mr Djangoly, a management consulant from Barnes, said the abuse was “totally unprovoked”.

The warden, who has not been named, has been suspended after a video of the abuse, filmed by another biker, was posted on YouTube.

The recording shows the warden appearing agitated at being photographed, and saying: “Don't be taking my picture,” before he snaps at Mr Djanogly: “Go and give that to your wife because I'll be f***ing her soon.”
He repeats the comment as he turns his back and walks away.


Mr Djanogly, 46, said it was effectively a “threat of rape”, which he said was particularly alarming as private parking contractors have access to the DVLA database, including motorists' home addresses.

He told the Standard: “I was shocked when he swore at me but I didn't realise exactly what he said until I saw the video. It's really quite appalling. It was also totally unprovoked.
"I only said to him not to bother giving me a ticket because I was going, and he got all aggressive, saying don't tell me what to do'.
“What came out of his mouth next was astonishing and absolutely outrageous. It's very concerning when someone says that to you, and it was really quite traumatising because there's the worry that these people have access to our records.”

He said he has spoken to the police about the incident in New Cavendish Street this month, but is not sure whether to make a formal complaint.
He is also demanding a full apology from Westminster council and its parking enforcement contractor NSL Services, which employs the warden.

Dr Leith Penny, Westminster's strategic director of city management, said: “Our parking attendants do a difficult and challenging job. However, Westminster council demands the highest standards from its parking staff and we do not tolerate this kind of behaviour which is clearly unacceptable.”

NSL spokesman Tim Cowen said the warden's language was “shocking” and an investigation had been launched.
He added: “The civil enforcement officer in question has been removed from the Westminster operation and suspended while that investigation takes place.
"Behaviour like this is not acceptable and would usually result in dismissal if the case is proven.”

Westminster's wardens to issue warnings ... want to watch a warning in action?

Westminster announce that as from April drivers could receive a warning instead of an automatic fine ... it is reported here by the BBC.



Want to see the 'softer' approach and the 'verbal' warning this Civil Enforcement Officer issued to one motorist?

I think it is about time that a full, public inquiry was launched into this company and its practices. The British motoring public have had enough ... http://www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk/

This company has access to the DVLA data base and therefore potentially the home address of the motorist whose wife was threatened. A little point for the politicians to ponder when they begin to consider the real implications of allowing the privatisation of law enforcement and taking it away from real accountability.

This is the beginning of the end of not so civil parking enforcement. We have had enough!

Westminster propose increase in parking charges

It seems as that there is a shortfall in Westminster and money needs to be found from somewhere. However, parking enforcement cannot be used to raise revenue.

It is anticipated that there will be some very serious resistance to the move to extract more and more money from motorists and there seems to be no long-term planning or logic behind this decision which will be fiercely resisted by residents, businesses, commercial operators and individual motorists.

Councillor Chalkley seems to be throwing down many gauntlets to many groups but instead of courting public support is simply ensuring a 'gathering of the clans' for one almighty public airing of Westminster's Parking Endforcement Policy past, present and future.

Let's hope there are no dancing skeletons!

BBC Online report here

The only council in the country charging motorcyclists to park

There is no rhyme or reason as to why Westminster Council are continuing down this route in the face of growing public opposition. Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye. Who really makes the money when the claim is 'it's revenue neutral?'

Is that before or after the operating costs and payments to private contractors?

Westminster council agrees motorbike parking fees in spite of vandalism
David Williams, Motoring Editor
13.01.10

Motorcyclists will be charged to park in central London after council bosses approved the scheme.
Westminster will charge riders £1 a day for on-street parking from Monday 25 January, making it the first London authority to do so.

Thirty motorcycle parking road signs have been vandalised or stolen in the past five days, taking the cost of attacks directed at the scheme to £60,000 since trials began in August 2008.
The council has stepped up surveillance and says it will prosecute anyone found attacking the signs, which list regulations and hours.

Today Westminster said it was fair that riders should pay to park at about 6,100 on-street spaces after “dramatic” increases in demand for parking in central London.
It said that motorcycle ownership in the capital had soared by 50 per cent between 1997 and 2007 and that even before the rise, motorcycle bays in Westminster were oversubscribed by up to 150 per cent.

Motorcyclists have staged protests to defend free parking and websites challenging the plans have sprung up.
One site — www.nutsville.com — has pictures of damaged parking signs and tells riders that if a sign has been vandalised, they should refuse to pay.

Warren Djanogly, chairman of the “No To Bike Parking Tax Campaign”, said: “Motorcycles are part of the solution to transport; they do not cause high pollution or congestion.”
Westminster says it has listened to motorcyclists and increased the number of bays by 55 per cent.
It anticipates that the final scheme will be revenue neutral, but says any surplus will be invested in transport.

Parking goldmine lures fat cat enforcer to Westminster

London Evening Standard
Simon English
01.12.09

In the lucrative world of car parking contracts, Westminster Council is the bonanza prize, the jackpot at the end of the rainbow. Around 600,000 vehicles come into Westminster's 8.5 square miles every day.

That's like a giant school of plankton in a small pond to your average traffic warden whale — open wide and ticket. There are too many cars chasing too few parking spaces and in the frustrations of an average working day, some drivers take a chance in the usually false hope that they might just be lucky…

The council itself says it's not legally allowed to make a profit from parking enforcement. Its “surplus income” from parking — £35 million last year, thanks very much — goes to pay for the men on the streets and for other transport projects.

For the firms running the enforcement deal, however, it's a goldmine, worth around £12 million a year. For the last seven years the contract has been held by NSL, the former services arm of National Car Parks which split from the main company and is now owned by private equity.

Now it's up for grabs. This week firms who want to bid for the right to be parking enforcer for the next four years — with an option for two more after that — have to submit their final proposals. In the running, I am told, are three firms: NSL again, Apcoa (formerly the Airport Parking Company of America), and Mouchel, a publicly listed company formed in 2003 from the merger of two engineering firms, Mouchel and Parkman.

A preferred bidder shortlist will be approved in January, with a decision taken shortly after. Mouchel is perhaps the most interesting of the three in the frame. It only entered parking enforcement relatively recently and has been making headway in winning contracts, securing deals in Newham (the so-called Olympic borough) and Hillingdon among others.

In chatting to officials about which firm might win the prestigious Westminster deal, an intriguing name came up. Stuart Lawrenson is, to those in the know, one of the most successful players in the UK parking industry — a fat cat enforcer, you might say. He is also the former chief executive of Central Parking Ltd where he was accused of misappropriating assets belonging to the American firm for his own benefit. Lawrenson resigned as a director of the company and paid £130,000, as well as forfeiting Central Parking shares, in settlement of the allegations.

In filings to the Securities & Exchange Commission, Central Parking blamed former managers of its UK arm for “unauthorised related party transactions and improper and inaccurate accounting entries”. Lawrenson is back in the game. I'm told he attended a meeting with council officials at a Westminster hotel last month to discuss the parking enforcement contract, allegedly in the pay of Mouchel.

I asked the company what role Lawrenson plays for them, and got the following: “Mouchel does not comment on the details of live procurements as these are confidential and commercially sensitive. Stuart Lawrenson is not, nor ever has been, an employee of Mouchel but works for a company that provides technology products to the parking industry. In common with other companies, we use some of these as part of our parking enforcement offer.”

Lawrenson has paid his fine and is perhaps entitled to continue his career. As long as everyone involved knows of his history, there's probably no cause for concern.