Bloomsbury street that makes £2.5m a year in traffic fines

London Evening Standard
11 January 2010
By Ellen Widdup

This is the most lucrative road in London for parking fines and traffic penalties — raking in up to £2.5 million a year.
Wardens and cameras in Southampton Row in Bloomsbury, which is only 500 yards long, have snared almost 23,000 drivers in the past 12 months — giving out fines of up to £120 a time.
A Standard investigation has found that the road is one of many fines hotspots in the capital. Wardens issued almost 29,000 penalties for contraventions in Station Road, Harrow.

But the council charges half the level of fines of Camden, which regulates traffic in Southampton Row, making its potential revenue £1.7 million a year.
Across London in the past year, almost four million penalties were issued to motorists. Other roads which regularly rake in more than £1 million a year include Ripple Road, Barking; Queensway; and Atlantic Road, Brixton.

Today parking campaigners accused councils of using drivers as “cash cows” and focusing on single roads with poor signage as “entrapment spots”.

Barrie Segal, founder of Appeal Now, a website that helps drivers fight unfair penalties, said: “There are a few reasons that some roads are much worse than others. Often it's road signage — one sign will contradict another so it will be confusing for the motorist. Sometimes it's poor road marking. The problem is there's no incentive for councils to correct this.”

Camden's parking wardens and cameras have caught drivers in Southampton Row for a variety of offences, including driving in a bus lane, making an illegal U-turn and parking illegally.

A spokeswoman said 90 per cent of the fines issued were for traffic offences and the rest for parking violations.
“Several major bus routes run along the road, so bus lanes must be kept clear at all times to prevent them being delayed,” she added. “It is important to ensure motorists follow regulations so traffic is able to move freely and safely.”

Westminster was the borough that issued the most penalties with 684,000.
Last year Prudence Fay, 69, won a case against the council after receiving a £120 fine based on photo evidence faked by a warden.

Danny Chalkley, Westminster's cabinet member for city management, said more than half a million vehicles entered the borough a day which was bound to result in a high number of offences: “Every penny of surplus income from parking is ploughed straight back into transport improvements,” he added.

'I've lost 30% of my business'

Ruggerro Acar, 51, owner of Verdi Ristorante:“Two years ago there were much more restrictive traffic wardens. Now the council's parking rules are not so bad. We need to be reasonable, to think of ourselves and other people.”

Nikki Cottrell, 30, manager of estate agent Frank Harris: “A couple of [contractors] would risk pulling over to pop in, and a couple have had tickets. It's a frustration. I have to get our deliveries taken to our Bloomsbury office.”

Alan Mays, 45, delivery driver for two firms:“Now the council's taken over [giving tickets] it's a lot worse. Now it's cameras or wardens and there's no discretion. They have to keep London flowing but it's a nightmare.”

Thomas Sacker, 66, owner of florist Bonnie Blooms:“I've lost 30 per cent of my business because people can't park. Even with people coming to pick up funeral flowers, they can't stop. It's money-motivated for councils.”

Top 10 hotspots for fines

1. Station Road, Harrow (Harrow) Fines: 28,884
2. Southampton Row (Camden) Fines: 22,275
3. Chiswick High Road (Hounslow) Fines: 18,668
4. Queensway (Westminster) Fines: 12,464
5. Ripple Road, Barking (Barking & Dagenham) Fines: 12,266
6. Herbert Road, Southall (Ealing) Fines: 9,645
7. Fore Street(Enfield) Fines: 8,789
8. Lea Bridge Road (Waltham Forest) Fines: 7,719
9. Uxbridge High Street (Hillingdon) Fines: 6,425
10. Golders Green Road (Barnet) Fines: 5,868
*Local authority in brackets.

Council comes clean on parking ticket rules

Praise again to Sheffield City Council for 'doing the right thing.'
If parking enforcement is ever going to gain any public respect then the 'Sheffield Model' needs to become the industry standard. Full transparency and, when mistakes are made, public contrition. An apology and an admission of a mistake goes a long way. Cover-ups, obfuscation and evasion especially from public servants sticks in the throat.

What we will be revealing in the coming weeks will be pretty startling BUT there will be a new dawn on the 28th January 2010 when 'the future' will be revealed. However, it is set to become a very public and painful time for those (paid for with yours and my hard earned taxes) who have believed that they were above the law.

Lawyers have confirmed that they are available and prepared to act for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have confirmed that they have evidence of 'malpractice, misconduct and fraud.'

What is set to break in the coming months will make MPs expenses and the banking scandal look pretty benign when it is revealed how the motorists of this country have been fleeced by the biggest highway robbery in history.

The Star
06 January 2010
By Richard Marsden

RULES on when motorists can be granted exemptions from parking tickets and bus gate fines are being published by Sheffield Council for the first time.
It follows concern about people making appeals against fines citing sometimes bizarre reasons.

Kevan Butt, Sheffield Council's parking services manager, said: "Sometimes there are compelling circumstances when we recognise exemptions apply.
"We have always tried to be transparent, consistent and fair. We are now making our enforcement policy a public document so people can see for themselves what the rules are."

Mr Butt said some slight relaxations of current policy are proposed, set to be approved by Sheffield Council's cabinet next Wednesday.

These include giving delivery vehicles – exempt from restrictions while parked up to drop off their cargo – up to 10 minutes grace instead of the current five when nobody is seen coming and going from the vehicle.

If they are left unattended for longer, they will be ticketed but in some circumstances delivery vehicles can be left for up to half an hour as long as the business agrees this with the council in advance.

Unusual appeals against parking tickets cited excuses such as parking in a permit bay "to catch a cheating boyfriend" and a pensioner who said they were late returning to their car because they had been "modelling nude in a life art class".

One person even told of an "embarrassing personal incident" which left them suddenly needing to buy new underwear.

- The document will be published on the council's website at www.sheffield.gov.uk/parking once the changes have been approved by cabinet.

Cats now preparing to leave bags in their droves

Across the country it is starting to become apparent that parking enforcement is costing councils money. If revenue is down then enforcement policy is working and therefore becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, it is not about keeping the streets clear and traffic moving. It is about money and the cat is out of the bag (or at least a number will be in the coming weeks).

Councillors should not be talking about 'business models' and 'making cash' and, as the High Court case Camden v Cran before Justice McCullough in 1995 reaffirmed, councils cannot use parking enforcement to raise revenue.

Too many councils have come to rely on this revenue to fill the holes in their budgets ... hence the increasing drive towards more Draconian Enforcement. I am sure that Cllr. Letheren will regret letting Bucks be the first cat out of the bag.

New parking meters will be fought, Buckinghamshire County Council boss says Wednesday 13th January 2010
By Oliver Evans

BIDS to put more parking meters in Buckinghamshire streets will be met with fierce opposition, a transport boss has warned.

Councillor Val Letheren said councils which took over traffic warden duties are struggling to make cash - but plugging the gap with new meters would face resistance.
Residents are 'very very anti' new parking meters, she warned and pointed to a successful campaign against the introduction of on street charges in Amersham old town.
Wycombe, Chiltern and Aylesbury councils, which manage wardens, are now in a 'terrible dilemma' over how to break even, she said.

The Buckinghamshire County Council transport boss said: "The business model is just not working."
Cllr Letheren, cabinet member for transportation, said: "Our attempts to change this appear to have not been very successful given what's happened in Amersham."

The problem could be tackled by getting a private firm to enforce regulations on councils' behalf, she said.
Yet Cllr Letheren said: "They wouldn't be as nice as the district ones. They might enforce signs and lines more efficiently. That is where you get the income."

She was addressing the council's 'examination of the budget and medium term plan task and finish group', which is looking into the proposed BCC budget for 2010/11.
Wycombe District Council took over warden duties in October 2008 for all the district. It has said wardens are not target driven and profits go back into the service.
Click the links below for more parking stories.

Who is watching the watchers?

Councils use CCTV to collect £3million in 'ghost' parking tickets every year
By Scott Warren

Daily Mail
12th January 2010

CCTV cameras are being used to issue 'ghost' parking tickets by 34 councils, generating £3million a year in fines.
The cameras record parking rule infringements, with automated fine notices then sent to the vehicle's owner.
Always watching: CCTV parking fines amount to
£3million a year

More councils are expected to soon adopt the technology.
Motoring groups say 'ghost' tickets are unfair, as it makes matters more difficult for motorists hoping to mount an appeal.

They also argue the cameras cannot tell an illegally parked car from one with a disabled permit, or from a car that has been briefly stopped so the driver can consult a map.
AA president Edmund King said: 'We regard them as 'ghost tickets' because drivers are unaware of their alleged offence for some time afterwards.
'These tickets are very hard to challenge because drivers are in no position to check the roadside signs or whether the ticket was issued by mistake.'

Throughout England, 265 local authorities collected £328million in parking fines last year - more than three times as much as speed cameras raked in.
Fines range from £120 in London to £70 elsewhere, with a 50 per cent discount offered for offenders who pay their fine within 14 days.
Cameras help authorities issue tickets for parking over yellow or red lines, in bus zones, on zig zags or in a restricted bay.

Not fair': AA boss Edmund King said because motorists didn't know they had been fined until afterwards, it was more difficult to check signs and mount an appeal

Most councils issuing fines based on camera evidence are in London.

Westminster is one London council using the technology. It saw the number of fines increase by almost 100,000 a year to 823,836, while in Enfield, north London, camera-generated tickets accounted for 40 per cent of all parking fines in the first year.

Department for Transport advice says the cameras should only be used where it is too difficult for personnel to issue tickets.
A Local Government Association spokesman told the Telegraph: 'Councils will not apologise for giving out parking tickets to stop cars parking illegally.
'If people do not want a parking ticket, they should not park illegally.'

Is the Traffic Penalty Tribunal independent and impartial? You decide

The lady on the left is Caroline Sheppard, the Chief Adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal of England and Wales.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal's only source of income is 60p from every Penalty Charge Notice issued in the country (outside of London).

After over two years of obfuscation and evasion, including a side-stepped Parliamentary Question we have finally received answers to questions ... but only after we raised the objection with the District Auditor. It has been decided to place this information in the public domain. This material was not disclosed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in the recent application to the High Court.

Even Lord Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport seemed unable to provide the answer.

However, perhaps the following answers will assist Lord Adonis and Central Government. The first is from Manchester City Council:

However, the most damning revelation and one which seems in clear breach of Article 6(i) ECHR has been provided by Sarah Howard of Grant Thornton, the District Auditor for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

There is a further case pending before the High Court.

It is Glenn Dickinson v The Parking Adjudicator and Glenn raised the point that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal were not independent or impartial. This evidence has been made available to Glenn. The date for his case has yet to be fixed.

The Yorkshire Post reported on Glenn's case earlier in the year:

'Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds.'

The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, fighting for justice on behalf of Britain's Motorists is ready to support this and other cases.

£Millions of parking fines unpaid ...

Look at the figures for Leeds and then look at the piece we did with BBC. Government Officers alleging theft and extortion. As more and more evidence is gathered across the country it is only a matter of time before more and more is exposed. My repeated attempts to get a Leeds City Counil parking ticket to adjudication have failed. The Council have cancelled EVERY PCN issued. However, they have not done so for other motorists issued in the same locations.

400,000 parking fines as councils owed millions
Yorkshire Post
11 January 2010
By Jack Blanchard

Traffic warden hot-spots where motorists are more likely to be hit with a parking ticket than anywhere else in the region, are revealed by the Yorkshire Post today.
Figures released under the Freedom of Information act show more than 400,000 parking tickets were given out by council traffic wardens in Yorkshire last year – about one for every five motorists in the region.The fines brought in more than £10m in revenue for Yorkshire's local authorities during the 2008/09 financial year. But it has emerged millions more are still owed to councils in unpaid fines dating back a year or more – including more than £5.4m owed to Leeds City Council alone.

Our investigation reveals Yorkshire's worst street for parking tickets is Clarendon Road in the Woodhouse area of Leeds, where traffic wardens handed out more than 3,000 tickets last year. Close behind was Cookridge Road, also in Leeds, with Sheffield's Ecclesall Road in third place.The car park where motorists are most likely to receive a ticket is the Castle car park by Clifford's Tower in York, where more than 1,800 fines were issued during 2008/09.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Leeds City Council issued by far the most parking tickets in the region. About a third of all parking tickets handed out in Yorkshire are issued in Leeds.The council's team of 84 traffic wardens handed out nearly 350 tickets a day throughout last year, bringing in £3.3m in revenue for the authority. A spokesman said: "Leeds is the largest city in the region and we would expect to issue the most parking tickets, collect the most money and have the most unpaid fines – despite our collection rate being higher than the national average."Parking tickets are only ever issued where motorists have parked outside of restrictions which are quite clearly marked and visible."

Leeds's total of more than 127,000 parking tickets was more than double that of Sheffield, the next-largest city. However, Sheffield oversaw by far the largest year-on-year increase in parking fines last year – 30 per cent more tickets were issued than during the previous year.Sheffield has also introduced the biggest rise in traffic warden numbers. The city council now employs 54 enforcement officers, up from 36 four years ago. Our study also shows rural councils employ very few traffic wardens and hand out very few tickets. This is partly because many smaller authorities have opted not to decriminalise on-street parking offences, leaving ticketing in the hands of police. Councils such as Selby therefore only enforce parking in its own car parks. Selby employs just three part-time parking inspectors and issued 241 tickets last year.

This is the BBC piece on Leeds City Council's parking enforcement regime. You be the judge of its legality. The most powerful quote was not used in the excert above so it is listed below and forms part of the file handed to the Police. The names of the Government officials have been obscured but the Police are aware of their identity.

"... attempted fraud or extortion..." not my words but the words of one Goverment official to another. Hard to believe? The document we managed to get our hands on (along with many others just as damning, is shown below).

Parking Enforcement and Organised Crime

This is perhaps the 'cartoon of the moment' when it comes to parking enforcement.

Matters about to break in the coming weeks which will launch a firestorm across the country.

Parking ... a lawless industry out of control.

The 'rotten apples' need removing from the barrel in the most public of fashions to allow those who believe in operating a fair, transparent and accountable public service to do just that.

We are pretty tolerant of most things in this country but will fight to the ends of the earth at great personal risk and cost to expose injustice and unfairness.

Storm Clouds gathering over Bolton

Barry Moss is just an 'ordinary,' 63 year-old retired roofer. However, he is passionate about justice and fair play and due to his dogged determination he is very soon going to be before the High Court with what could be a pivotal moment for Britain's motorists.

Barry (left) first hit front page headlines in Bolton in 2007 when he represented his daughter-in-law at a parking tribunal

The case made front page of the Bolton Evening News and now, three years later and after more campaigning and investigating by Barry and evasion and obfuscation by Bolton Council it looks like the issues which Barry and others have uncovered have serious financial implications not only for Bolton but also for every other council in the country who have used road markings which did not comply with the law.

Further investigations revealed massive failings in Bolton's on-street as well as off-street bays and more headlines followed.

The Bolton Evening News broke this news in November 2007

"A report to councillors yesterday conceded that most bay markings did not comply with the Traffic Sign Regulations from the Department for Transport, highlighting problems including the bay lengths and dimensions of white line markings."

There followed another National Parking Adjudication Service decision this time by respected adjudicator, Mark Hinchcliffe which included a statement from John Munns at the Department for Transport in which he remarked that that the bay in question was 'unlawful.'

The implications of Barry's case are enormous and he is seeking a declaration from the High Court that there are unlawful items of account in Bolton's accounts and, as such, these will have to be refunded. This will impact on all similar cases across the country.

You can support Barry's case at The Motorists Legal Challenge.

In allowing the appeal the adjudicator reinforced the decision of adjudicator Gary Hickinbottom (now a High Court Judge) in Burnett v Buckinghamshire County Council where he concluded (note TSRGD 2002 has replaced TSRGD 1994):

Furthermore, although not relevant to this particular case (in which there was no sign at all), not only must the traffic sign must be present, it must also comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1994 No 1519) (“the 1994 Regulations”) (Section 64(2) of the 1984 Act): and the 1984 Act makes clear that the signing of parking restrictions etc. by a local authority in pursuance of its powers under the provisions of the 1984 Act with which we are here concerned must comply with those regulations (Section 68(2)).

There is an express prohibition of signs that do not comply (Section 64(4)).

The 1994 Regulations are over 350 pages long and, in meticulous detail, they provide for every particular of permitted signs - including the type, size, colour and dimensions.

Consequently, in summary, as a condition precedent of a local authority enforcing a parking penalty as a breach of a TRO made under the 1984 Act, the obligations of the motorist must be properly signed in accordance with the detailed provisions of the 1994 Regulations."

A timely reminder of why we are at the High Court ...

It has been a long journey. The investigation began in 2005 and it took over a hundred cancelled tickets before the council 'dared' go to adjudication.

This is what NCP were up to in Sunderland and what was revealed in an award winning BBC Inside Out Documentary. However, the Parking Attendants' behaviour grabbed the headlines. The council officers' behaviour is yet to be revealed.

To get 'decriminalised' powers in 2003 certain Sunderland City Council officers 'misled' the Secretary of State. Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) allows councils to keep the money issued from parking fines, rather than the money going into a central pot. That is why revenue from parking has hit £1.9 billion per annum.

The number of fines in Sunderland went from 3000 before DPE in 2003 to 30,000 after. More will be revealed in the coming weeks and we will start to publish (in the public interest) all the documents released by the Government Office for the North East and the Department for Transport which will show how many people knew what was going on yet not one Governemnt official was prepared to intervene to prevent motorists being fined illegally.

The following Youtube clips will help to set the scene ...

Are Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) ready to collapse?

Department for Transport thinks so.








Check out the link here. These documents and presentation were released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Police ordered to investigate

With this new Home Office initiative it is going to be diffcult to for Police dismiss claims of misconduct by council officials as simply 'civil matters.' With some very serious investigations pending and some serious allegations of criminality about to enter the public domain it is only a matter of time before the civil parking enforcement industry is brought into the public spotlight. The years of lawless, unregulated behaviour is reaching the end of the line.

Police ordered to investigate all incidents
Police are to be forced to fully investigate every case reported to them under new Home Office rules to prevent victims' complaints being dismissed too quickly.
By Tom Whitehead,
Home Affairs Editor
16 Dec 2009

Officers will have to provide "hard evidence" that no crime occurred before writing off an incident following concerns by the police watchdog that genuine offences are being wrongly rejected.
The new guidelines, which have the backing of police chiefs, mean officers will have to give every report their full attention and makes it far more likely that they will visit any alleged victim.

Police forces are under growing pressure to commit to attend every single victim of crime who wants to see them, a policy that now has the backing of several senior figures including the Home Secretary.
There are concerns that some alleged offences, from serious assaults and rapes to theft and criminal damage, are too quickly dismissed as unfounded because they believe the victim or witness is lying or wrong.

Now they will have to demonstrate to senior officers that cases and available evidence were properly examined before deciding whether a crime occurred.
That will include independent evidence that no offence took place, such as CCTV images, witness statements or even images from mobile phone cameras belonging to members of the public.

However, rank and file leaders warned the demands will only lead to yet more bureaucracy for officers and time spent chasing incidents that are clearly not crimes.

A spokeswoman for Victim Support said: “We are glad the government is taking this issue seriously because if victims feel their experience of crime is being dismissed by the very agencies that are meant to deal with the situation that risks adding insult to injury.
"But as well as making sure crimes are recorded properly, the police need to do more to promote the help available to victims and witnesses of crime.”

Guy Dehn, director of the charity Witness Confident, welcomed the rules and said it will lead to police giving more attention to victims and witnesses.
He said one of the key causes for a lack of faith in policing is a belief that nothing will be done even if a crime is reported.
"If there is a message coming from politicians and police leaders that when cases are reported they will be looked in to and dealt with properly that will increase public confidence and more people will believe it is worthwhile engaging in the criminal justice system," he said.

In October, Denis O'Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, warned that violent assaults and domestic attacks were being wrongly written off when they should have been treated as crimes and fully investigated.

In a joint response to that report, the Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) have drawn up new rules that officers will now have to back up any decision to write off an incident as a so-called "no crime" with "additional verifiable information".
Officers will no longer be able to dismiss an alleged offence simply because they think the victim is lying.

It is estimated that around 200,000 incidents are dismissed as not a crime each year, which in future will now require more time and resources before being rejected.

The Home Office/Acpo report said: "It is important that the public feel confident and comfortable reporting crime to the police. The accurate recording of those crimes is then essential to ensuring that each person who has unfortunately found themselves a victim of crime receives the appropriate level of response and support.
"No crimes are required to have sufficient 'additional verifiable information' (AVI) which demonstrates that the incident recorded as a crime was not actually one in practice.
"The expectation is that 'hard' evidence such as CCTV footage would be used. 'Soft' evidence, for example the belief of the reporting officer that the victim was lying without verifiable supporting information is not adequate."

The police inspectorate found that, in a sample of 479 "no crimes", one in three decisions was wrong. One in 20 should have been recorded as a serious violent crime, and a third should have been recorded as a less serious assault.

If repeated across all forces, it would mean 5,000 victims of violence alone being ignored. Among the cases was a woman left battered and bruised after her partner slapped her, grabbed her by the neck and threw her to the floor. The unnamed force recorded no crime as having taken place. It should have recorded actual bodily harm, the inspectorate found.
In another case, a victim needed six stitches to his head after he was set upon. The inspectorate said that should have been recorded as grievous bodily harm.
Mr O'Connor said the findings on crime reporting were "of concern" while David Hanson, the policing minister, called wrong decisions "unacceptable".
Fresh guidance on what is sufficient supporting evidence is to be drawn up and circulated by February.

However, Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, said: "We are going to end up investigating every incident to prove no crime has happened.
"We need to trust the officer's discretion. All we are doing is making the whole process more bureaucratic.
"Let's use our supervisors in the role they are designed to do. They should be looking at these crime reports when they come in."

Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "This Government’s reputation over its use of crime figures is so shot to pieces that frankly most people will think that Labour Ministers are engaged in yet another attempt to massage figures for their own political advantage."

Mr Hanson said, "The public and the government expect crime to be taken seriously and for crime statistics to be recorded accurately.
"Accurate recording of crimes is essential to ensure every victim receives the level of service and support they expect and deserve.
"The majority of forces perform well when classifying crime but the actions we are taking forward as a result of the HMIC recommendations will go even further to make sure the recording rules are properly applied."

Last month Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said the principle that police should visit every victim of crime, no matter how minor the offence, was "absolutely right".
His comments echoed those of Jacqui Smith, his predecessor, Mr O'Connor and Chief Constable Julie Spence, for Acpo.
Shortly before stepping down as Chief Constable of Merseyside, Bernard Hogan-Howe said in September that police who refuse to visit every crime victim are guilty of "arrogance".
The issue was first brought to the fore last year by the then Chief Constable of Essex, Roger Baker, who advocated such a policy. By the end of the year, eight forces had promised it.

£1,900,000,000 per annum and rising ...

Everything is now coming to a head and 2010 will be the year when this stealth tax is exposed and replaced with fair, proportionate, transparent and LEGAL enforcement.

Motorists hit by higher parking fees and fines
Local councils raised £1.9 billion from parking fees and fines last year, with some doubling the amount of money they squeeze out of motorists.

By James Kirkup, Political CorrespondentPublished: 9:00AM GMT 04 Jan 2010

Councils have increased parking fees and fines Photo: HEATHCLIFF O'MALLEY
Official financial returns from more than 400 local authorities for 2008/2009 show that the drivers are paying increasing amounts of money for parking their vehicles.
In 2005/06, the amount collected from parking fines, fees and permits was £1.7 billion, meaning the total has risen by 13 per cent.

Related Articles
Town halls urged to raise fees for motorists and leisure centres
Council tax may rise due to EU fines for missing landfill targets
Students 'should face graduate tax'
Banks accused of charging customers higher rates to cover losses on sale of PPI
Maria Eagle: bathroom renovated on expenses before flat was 'flipped'

Some councils increased their parking revenues by much more than the national average.
North Wiltshire’s parking revenue more than doubled, from £752,000 to £1.6 million. In North Tyneside, the increase was 94 per cent. The biggest parking revenues were in Westminster, which took in £180 million last year, a 19 per cent rise.

The disclosure comes as it emerged that motorists guilty of minor offences such as parking misdemeanours are to be hit with a £15 surcharge to help victims of domestic violence or sex attacks.

The fee will be added to fixed penalty tickets given out by police for offences such as breaking parking regulations or speeding.

The figures on parking charges were revealed in official council financial returns submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government.
The figures cover money paid for tickets in council car parks, sales of residents’ parking permits, and fines imposed for illegal parking.

Some councils have increased their income simply by raising parking fees. In Wolverhampton, the cost of staying for two hours in one of its car parks, at Fold Street, jumped from £1.20 to £1.50 between 2006 and 2009 while the cost of three hours at the Civic Centre, rose from £2.30 to £2.50.

The council's total take from parking fines and charges over the same period climbed from £3 million to £4.6 million over the three years, a jump of 53 per cent.
Separate figures published in November suggested that illegal parking fines raised more than £300 million for councils this year.

Privately, some council leaders say they have been forced to raise more money from parking because council tax and central government grants are not covering their rising costs.
Peter Roberts of the Drivers’ Alliance, a motoring group, said parking costs can hurt local businesses.

He said: “These figures will reinforce the belief from the driving public that they are being used as motorised cash machines by a government desperate for money.
“With the economy in dire straits and businesses needing customers, encouraging visitors to towns should be a priority.
"Instead we see insatiable money-hungry councils charging excessive parking fees which not only leave people with less spending money but also dissuades them from visiting.
"It is time for a reality check and less of the fleece-the-driver mentality.“

Jennifer Dunn, Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the figures showed councils are using drivers as “cash cow”.
She said: “Councils are generating huge amounts of revenue through parking, which has clearly become an increasingly lucrative source of income to finance rapidly growing bureaucracies in the local authorities.
“With council tax having doubled across the country, motorists in some areas where parking revenue has also doubled are being treated as cash cows.
"It is time for local government to stop seeing drivers as a means to plug their finances and acknowledge the benefits they bring to local economies, particularly in the recession.”

The Local Government Association, which speaks for councils in England, insisted that any money councils get from parking is reinvested in improving the local transport network.
Defending the use of parking fines, the LGA said: “Parking restrictions are in place to keep people safe on our streets, stop traffic jams and keep roads clear for the emergency services.
"Councils will not apologise for giving out parking tickets to stop cars parking illegally.”

Nice little earner, nice little street in Leicester

The question has to be asked of the council is that 'if the signs are clear and unambiguous why are so many people being issued with penalties?'

This is not managing restricted kerbspace, it is exploiting it.

£40,000 in fines issued on one of Leicester's smallest streets
Monday, January 04, 2010,
Parking wardens have issued more than £40,000 worth of fines in one small city street during the course of three years.
East Street, in the city centre, is just 400ft long, but has been the focus of so many tickets one driver believes it is a "trap" for motorists.
During the past year, 552 tickets have been issued to motorists parking on the single yellow lines in the road, with 223 of those handed out on Sundays.
One of those caught out was Adam Krupa, from Oadby, who was fined after parking there in November. He has refused to pay his £70 fine and says he will go to court to challenge the case.
Mr Krupa claims the street is seen as a parking warden's "bread and butter" and signs which warn drivers it is illegal to park there are too small and in the wrong place.
TIN.adverts.adWriteDC('article-detail-impact-tile', '452x118');


After getting the fine, Mr Krupa used the Freedom of Information Act to ask Leicester City Council how much money it had collected from other motorists in East Street since it took over parking enforcement – and discovered it was £40,000.
He said: "One of the biggest shocks was the amount of revenue generated from this tiny street.
"I'd parked for 10 minutes and went into Dunelm Mill opposite – when I got back I'd got the ticket.
"After speaking to people, I'm told this is happening day in, day out, and that everybody is getting caught because they think they can park there.
"Double yellow lines should be painted and the signs are too small – it really is a trap."
The fine for parking on yellow lines is £70, which is reduced to £35 if it is paid within 14 days.
Kim Pelham, manager of Dunelm Mill, which sells soft furnishings and home wares in East Street, agreed.
He said: "It happens all the time, especially on a Sunday.
"There are usually three or four wardens out there waiting for people, they know it's hard to tell if you can park there. The signs aren't very clear and they should really paint double yellow lines."
Last year, more than 56,000 tickets were given out in the city – equivalent to £3.6m in fines. In 2007, 65,000 tickets were issued.
According to Mr Krupa's Freedom of Information request, the most common reasons people were ticketed in East Street was because they contravened rules against waiting and loading.
Under Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 legislation, signs on the street show no parking is allowed from 7.30am to 6pm, and no loading between 4pm and 6pm Monday to Friday.
A city council spokesman said: "The signage in East Street meets all of the requirements of the relevant legislation.
"Single yellow lines always denote parking restrictions and these restrictions are clearly shown on the signs on East Street.
"In all such areas the onus is on motorists to assure themselves that they are obeying the appropriate parking restrictions for the area concerned."
Since Leicester City Council took over the enforcement of on-street parking from the police in 2007, more than 30,000 parking tickets have been challenged.
Cash generated from parking tickets must, by law, be spent on transport projects such as concessionary travel fares for pensioners.

Just a reminder of what we are up against ...

Bill of Rights Pandora's Box set to be re-opened

This is most certainly going to re-open the conflict between the Bill of Rights 1689, parking fines and the Metric Martyrs judgment.
If, as is claimed, the Bill of Rights 1689 is still in force and contains enshrined constitutional provisions, then we need to re-examine this section:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before
conviction are illegal and void;

What flows from this is that EVERY decriminalised parking fine imposed by a council is illegal and void as it is a fine which has not been imposed by the courts. Robin Decrittenden argued this before Justice Collins but was told that a parking ticket was not a fine it was a civil responsibility and that the Bill of Rights had been impliedly repealed by later statutes thereby conflicting with the Metric Martyrs Judgment which ruled certain acts had constitutional significance.
The Council had also 'no contested' the case therefore there was technically no fine or forfeiture.

Perhaps it is time for Mr. Decrittenden to get another parking ticket.

MPs claim they are above the law in expenses fraud case
Claire Newell, Jonathan Calvert, Jonathan Oliver
Sunday Times January 3, 2010

Jim Devine is alleged to have submitted a claim using a receipt bearing a bogus VAT number
Three Labour MPs being investigated for expenses fraud are arguing that they should not be prosecuted because their suspect claims are covered by parliamentary privilege.

The MPs have hired legal experts to assert that the 1689 Bill of Rights protects them from prosecution.

The lawyers are understood to have sent detailed submissions to police and prosecutors which contend that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” and cannot be subject to scrutiny by the courts. More ...

Bah Humbug

Humbugs for 'Scrooge' councillors
BBC 24th December 2009

Getting a ticket is unlikely to leave you full of festive cheer
A motorists' group angry about the decision of "Scrooge-like" councils to issue tickets on Boxing Day has given a bag of humbugs to one authority.
Fifteen out of 32 London councils are not recognising 26 December as a bank holiday and will charge as usual.

To protest, London Motorists Action Group (LMAG) has given Westminster Council - with London's highest parking revenue - a bag of mint humbugs.
The council said 26 December is one of the year's busiest shopping days.

But LMAG Director Richard Chaumeton said: "Westminster is the biggest council and should be leading by example and make Boxing Day parking free out of a spirit of goodwill.
"The councillors' Ebenezer Scrooge-like attitude conveys an impression of money-grabbing greed."
Mr Chaumeton added: "We hope they enjoy their humbugs - courtesy of LMAG."

This smacks more of opportunism rather than a desire to keep traffic moving
Neil Herron Parking campaigner

The catchphrase of Charles Dickens' famous Christmas-hating miser Ebenezer Scrooge was: "Bah humbug!"
Westminster Council made £72m from parking last year, more than any other London borough.

Kevin Goad, Westminster Council's head of parking, said: "We understand parking enforcement is not popular but it is necessary - particularly on Boxing Day which is one of the busiest shopping days.
"Normal parking controls will apply on 26 December as it is not a bank holiday.
"We will be offering free parking to motorists on 28 December instead."

Meanwhile Neil Herron, who runs the Parking Appeals website, has promised his services free of charge to anyone ticketed on Saturday.
Of the decision to charge, Mr Herron said: "With all public buildings closed on what is widely regarded as a public holiday by all, this smacks more of opportunism rather than a desire to keep traffic moving."

The following London councils will charge for parking on Saturday:
Barking and Dagenham
Barnet
Bexley
Brent
Bromley
Ealing
Enfield
Hammersmith and Fulham
Haringey
Harrow
Havering
Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston-upon-Thames
Newham
Redbridge

Cynical cash raising ploy

Let us see how the councils attempt to justify this one. They have stated that Saturday 26th December is not a Bank Holiday but the same councils have closed public buildings ... apparently because it is a Bank Holiday. Let us see in the coming weeks what the Freedom of Information requests reveal.

Penalty Claus on Boxing
The Sun
By JANE HAMILTON
Published: 26 Dec 2009

SHOPPERS could be stung at the sales today - by Scrooge officials dishing out parking tickets.
More than three-quarters of councils have decided Boxing Day is NOT a public holiday this year because it falls on a Saturday.

And they are set to clean up as shoppers innocently park without paying in areas signed "public holidays - no charge".
Despite deeming it a non-Bank Holiday, other council services like libraries and swimming pools will be CLOSED.

Last night Paul Pearson of campaign group penaltychargenotice.co.uk blasted the grasping move. He said: "Thousands of motorists will have Christmas tarnished by a £120 ticket.
"Boxing Day is a public holiday - it shouldn't not be a public holiday because it happens to be a Saturday."
Paul said drivers face more confusion because some councils DO recognise today as a public holiday and are not imposing car park fees.

Leeds, for example, in West Yorks is not charging, while their neighbour Bradford is.
In London, half of the 32 councils are allowing free parking - but the policy may not be borough-wide. To add to the muddle nationally, some authorities will waive fees on Monday instead.
Last night Bradford Council said: "Because Boxing Day falls on a weekend, we impose weekend charges."

Read more:

Watching the Watchers

Keep sending the photographs.
If they maintain that parking on double yellow lines impedes the traffic flow and creates a safety hazard then we can't have one rule for one ...

"It's a new stealth tax"

A 'victim's levy now for parking offences! This is nothing more than another stealth tax.
"Oh no it isn't"insist the Government in a claim worthy of the worst pantomime and a claim few would believe.
2010 is when Britain's motorists will finally reach tipping point and begin the fightback.


Motorists face new £15 'victims levy'
BBC News 2nd January 2010
Motorists in England and Wales fined for minor offences face having to pay bigger penalties under a government scheme to compensate victims of crime.
Since 2007, a £15 surcharge has been added to the fines of all people convicted of a crime, to raise money for support services for crime victims.
Now ministers want to extend the scheme to on-the-spot fines and fixed penalty notices for a range of offences.
They say the offences that could be targeted are not victimless crimes.
Under the current scheme, anyone fined by the courts pays an extra £15.

'Stealth tax denial'
However, ministers believe the amount raised could be significantly increased if it was extended to include people issued with on-the-spot fines or fixed penalty notices.
This could include motorists caught speeding or flouting parking restrictions and those guilty of disorder offences such as shoplifting, writing graffiti or being drunk and disorderly.
Under the plans, a fine of £60 for speeding, using a mobile phone while driving or not wearing a seatbelt would be increased to £75.
Government officials deny the move amounts to a stealth tax.

They argue that such offences are not "victimless crimes", saying thousands are killed or injured on Britain's roads every year and others have their lives ruined by anti-social behaviour.
The current levy, which was introduced in England and Wales as part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, works in conjunction with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme that pays compensation to the victims of violent crime.

Prior to its launch, the Home Office - which was responsible for the initiative at the time - said the surcharge was part of a series of moves to "rebalance" the criminal justice system in favour of victims.

Will 2010 be the end of the offensive parking stealth tax?

News set to break in the New Year will send shockwaves through town halls who have spent the last 15 years collectively using parking fines to fill black holes in council budgets.
We have evidence of malpractice in every one of the councils listed below.
The High Court case detailed at www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk will create the focus.
Other matters will come into the public domain in a matter of weeks.

GREEDY councils are exploiting motorists by raking in almost £2 BILLION a year in parking fees and fines.
Tom Latchem
News of the World
20th December 2009

Last year drivers paid a record £1.9bn to town halls in England - 8 per cent up on the previous year and TREBLE the £638m for 1997/98 when Labour came to power.

That means around £60 a year is going straight from the pocket of every motorist into town hall coffers. Experts fear councils are ripping off car owners to plug gaps in their finances as the squeeze on public spending tightens.

The revenue bonanza is biggest in areas like central London and Brighton where parking is scarcest - and many town halls are believed to make most of their money in fines.
Figures released by the Department of Communities and Local Government do not differentiate between meter charges and penalties.

But a spokesman said: "Parking charges are a tool to manage demand for road use and should not be used for raising revenue.
Jennifer Dunn of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "Motorists are being treated like cash cows. Too often we see unscrupulous and target-driven enforcement of parking."

Top ten revenue earners in London:
1. Westminster £180m
2. Camden £80m
3. Kensington & Chelsea £77m
4. Islington £55m
5. Wandsworth £51m
6. Hammersmith & Fulham £47m
7. Lambeth £40m
9. Ealing £30m
10. Hackney £29m.

Top ten elsewhere:
1. Brighton & Hove £38m
2. Birmingham £24m
3. Manchester £20m
4. Leeds £19m
5. Milton Keynes £16m
6. Newcastle upon Tyne £15m
7. Kent £15m
8. Bristol £14m
9. Liverpool £14m
10. City of Nottingham £13m.

"One rule for them and another for everyone else..."

Warden under fire for parking on yellow line
Sunday, December 13, 2009, 07:00

OTFORD shoppers have hit out at a traffic warden who slapped parking tickets on windscreens – while blocking the traffic in the village's High Street.

Passers-by said a Sevenoaks District Council car parked on a single yellow line caused an unnecessary queue of traffic, and delayed a police car responding to an emergency siren.
The traffic warden was giving out parking tickets to drivers who were also parked in the road.
Ivonne Kaina, of London Road, Dunton Green, said she was "infuriated" by the situation, which she became aware of when she was shopping on Saturday (December 5) between 2 and 3pm.

She said: "I heard someone complaining that they got a ticket.

"We heard a police siren and when I looked out of the window the reason the police car couldn't get through was that the guy who was giving out tickets was stopping it.
"It was so cheeky. It's one set of rules for one. They are a law unto themselves."
"People are Christmas shopping – it's such a nasty thing to do at this time of year."

She added she thought the traffic warden's parked position created more problems for passing motorists than the cars which were illegally parked.
Miss Kaina had left her own car in the village car park, although she acknowledged that it was very busy at the time.

Sue Camp, who is on Sevenoaks Town Council, has previously hit out at Sevenoaks District Council over illegal parking.
She said: "I think there shouldn't be one rule for them and another for everyone else."
"No-one is meant to park there, so what gives them the right to do it?
"They should still be held accountable."

District council spokesman Daniel Whitmarsh said the photo sent in by Miss Kaina does not give the full picture as there were several illegally parked cars in front of it.
He added: "In this instance the council's civil enforcement officers were responding to a number of illegally parked vehicles on yellow lines, which were causing local traffic congestion.
"The officer parked directly behind the illegally parked cars so they would not cause additional traffic congestion and issued a total of three penalty charge notices.
"Civil enforcement officers are permitted to park in restricted areas when enforcing parking restrictions and will usually only do so if there is nowhere else to park."

More flaws in St. Alban's Traffic Orders ... who checked?

In applying to the Department for Transport fro Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers a local authority is required to give assurances to the DfT that all lines, signs and Traffic Orders have been checked and made compliant ready for DPE.

The fundamental difference between DPE and the previous criminalised regime is that there is a shift from driver to keeper liability. The St. Alban's TRO retained the driver liability ... a fundamental flaw in a legal document which allowed the council to be unjustly enriched.

Any claims that 'anyone who paid accepted liability' doesn't and shouldn't wash with any investigation as it is a fundamental requirement that the council acts lawfully!

In advance of a formal complaint to the Police or court action from one of the victims, especially one who has suffered at the hands of bailiffs, it may be wise for the council to seek proper legal advice.

St Albans District Council under fire again for parking blunder
1:43pm Thursday 10th December 2009
By Manisha Mistry »

A REVIEW into the district council's parking enforcement which came under fire in October after a shocking blunder was revealed has discovered more flaws in the system.
The car parking working party, which met last night, discussed a report undertaken by the chief finance officer.

In October the Review revealed how the council's Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was deemed invalid by an adjudicator at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal forcing more than £24,000 worth of unpaid fines to be waived.

Further to the details discovered at the time the fresh investigation has revealed the incorrect terminology in the TRO had been there since 2005 – longer than the council originally thought.
The officer comments: “The current problems have cost the council money and been damaging to its reputation.
“From the review it is clear that the problem of terminology in the TRO has been wrong since 2005 – when the new regime for off street parking was introduced."

Another damning finding highlights the lack of efficiency because there were no check lists and procedures which prevented this problem, or its reoccurrence.
A review of the workload was suggested and the creation of some clear check-lists.
At the time the technical error was discovered the chief executive at the council Daniel Goodwin apologised to residents.

Commenting on the results of the review, Councillor Julian Daly said: “This looks like something that did not need to happen.”
He mentioned a meeting of the council's scrutiny committee in 2007 which warned cabinet members to address the heavy workload of the council's engineering team which is responsible for the TRO.
Councillor Daly added: “Clearly this warning was ignored. The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone.”

Stop your stolen car dead in its tracks ...

North East boffin who beat the speed cameras in court with his vehicle tracker now set to beat the car thieves.

Car device to put brakes on thieves
Sunderland Echo
9th December 2009

By David MacLean

AN INVENTOR has created a device which he says can halt a stolen vehicle anywhere in the world in seconds.

Dr Phillip Tann, 48, claims his new gadget has the potential to put car thieves out of action and massively reduce car insurance premiums.The immobilisation invention's wizardry is contained in a box less than the size of a matchbox.It allows the owner to remotely send a signal which cuts the ignition as soon as the vehicle stops.

The product has been developed and released by Fleet M8, based at the Hi-Tech Village in Boldon.

Dr Tann said: "We were approached by one of our customers who hire out very expensive motors and they required not only the ability to track their vehicles, but also to immobilise and recover them should they be stolen."

As soon as the vehicle's ignition is turned off the vehicle cannot be restarted and the system pinpoints the vehicle's location to an accuracy of less than one metre. The vehicle can then be recovered by the owner or the police."

"We can remotely immobilise a vehicle from anywhere in the world."

The immobiliser connects to the vehicle's existing electrical system. It allows the owner to remotely immobilise a vehicle using their PC or mobile phone. A user sends a stop signal to FleetM8's server and once the vehicle has come to a stop, the engine is immobilised. When the owner chooses to mobilise the vehicle again a start signal is sent by the FleetM8 server.

A vehicle can be immobilised when it enters a virtual fenced area or by a simple button on their mobile phone and can happen in under one second.

Dr Tann hit the headlines two years ago when his vehicle tracking device proved that he wasn't speeding at 42mph as the police had alleged. He was able to prove it with evidence provided by his prototype device.

He teamed up with motoring expert Neil Herron and they launched the FleetM8 System, which has been fitted to a number of vehicle fleets and most recently to Arriva buses in Scotland.

Enquiries email paul@fleetm8.com or call 0191 519 2379

Another success and more refunds but ...

the council is going to end up in a lot more trouble should someone who has paid a PCN take legal action or make a criminal complaint of misconduct or fraud.

The issue at the core of this is that the Traffic Order referred to the driver being responsible for the fine, not the Registered Keeper as civil parking enforcement requires. Therefore, the statement that there should not be refunds due to the fact that the person paying 'admitted liability' is offensive and wrong. If their legal document stated that the driver was responsible and they then sent a Notice to Owner claiming that the owner or registered keeper was liable, then that is a false representation. The TRO may have been 'in force' having been made but it misrepresented the position relating to the primary legislation.

Therefore, ALL monies must be refunded otherwise the council has been unjustly enriched and risks investigation by the District Auditor and, should anyone make a criminal complaint, by the Police.

The Fraud Act 2006 is explicit
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Matters are far from concluded. The BBC report is shown below.

Parking Fine Error Costs £24,000
BBC
10th December 2009

A Hertfordshire council lost £24,000 in revenue from parking fines because enforcement orders were out of date.
St Albans Council's parking rules said a vehicle driver was liable for parking fines but it should have been the vehicle's keeper.
Colm O'Callaghan, the council's chief finance officer, said the blunder made it "impossible" to enforce the fines.

Terminology in the order had been wrong since 2005, when a new regime for off-street parking was introduced.
In a report to the council about the mistake, Mr O'Callaghan said: "Legal advice was that this did not invalidate the traffic order.
"But it did make it impossible for the council to pursue further enforcement action and brought financial cost."

Workload review
Initially the council had said it thought the cost of the error could be as high as £32,000.
In October a tribunal investigating a claim against a £50 ticket ruled that it was invalid as legal wording had not been updated.
The council has since decided to write off 1,621 penalty charge notices.

"The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone"Julian Daly, Conservative group, St Albans Council

The tickets were issued at off-street car parks between 31 March 2008 and 5 November 2009.

People who have already paid the fines are considered to have admitted liability, although since the error was revealed some have submitted requests for refunds.

Mr O'Callaghan's report identified a protracted line of responsibility from the parking contract manager to the city and district engineer, who it said had a heavy workload.
In its response to the mistake, the council is to consider the creation of a clear procedure and check-list for work to be signed off and the implementation of a workload review.

Leaders blamed
The management responsible have been invited to put forward a plan to implement these recommendations.
Julian Daly, leader of the Conservative opposition group on the council, said management and the political leadership of the Liberal Democrat ruling party were responsible for the mistake.

He said: "Traffic orders were not subject to review by the council's legal team and there was some absence of prioritisation in the relevant team which contributed to the error."

He backed the call for a workload review but said the relevant portfolio holders should ensure the engineering and technical services section were adequately resourced or that its workload was reduced accordingly.

"The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone," Mr Daly said.

Council writes off parking fines (05 Nov 09 Beds/Bucks/Herts )

Parking tickets could be invalid (28 Oct 09 Beds/Bucks/Herts )

Council motoring fines 'illegal' (29 May 08 UK )

'Fairer' parking deal for drivers (31 Mar 08 Wales )

Vehicle tracker bought by bus company

Sunderland Echo
30th November 2009
Vehicle tracking technology developed by a Wearside company will be used by one of Europe's biggest transport firms.
FleetM8 has landed a contract with Sunderland-based Arriva, which operates in 12 European countries.
The tracking technology will be used on the company's bus fleets in Scotland, allowing it to immediately spot when vehicles end up "crowding" by getting too close together.
FleetM8's tracker was developed by inventor Dr Phillip Tann with business partner Neil Herron, noted for his traffic campaigns.
The technology gained recognition two years ago when Dr Tann recieved a speeding ticket claimed he was doing 42mph in a 30 zone.His vehicle, however, was fitted with a prototype GPS tracking device which recorded both his location and speed, clocking him at 29.177196mph at the time he was alleged to have been speeding.

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.

Council avoids repaying fortune in parking fees

This is Exeter
Friday November 20, 2009
MOTORISTS have been slow to reclaim money paid to a Devon council which is believed to have been issuing invalid parking tickets.
A freedom of information request has shown that no one has yet come forward to claim a refund from Teignbridge District Council for Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were issued between May 2008 and August 23 this year when a credit card surcharge was in place.
The Echo revealed earlier this year that the district council was facing the potentially huge claims for issuing PCNs, which stated the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if they paid by credit card.
However, this meant the overall penalty exceeded the amount that can legally be charged, leading to claims they were unlawful in their entirety.
Teignbridge District Council is currently offering refunds of just the surcharge. However, Neil Herron, of the company Parking Appeals, said the total cost of the PCN should be refunded.

During the period in question, a total of 9,877 parking tickets were issued — deriving an income of nearly £250,000.
But campaigners who questioned the legality of the charges said the authority should automatically refund motorists and be "shouting from the rooftops" instead of waiting for claims.
Mr Herron said: "The money should be refunded automatically. The council has no right to levy the charge. The PCNs are unlawful — they are not entitled to keep the money.
"The district auditor must get involved and declare the amount of money unjust enrichment and unlawful.
"I am not surprised that no one has applied for a refund. It is up to the council to write to everyone using the same form it used when it requested the money in the first place to make people aware of what they are entitled to and the procedure they must go through to claim it."
Mr Herron, who has seen several councils deal with the same problem, said Teignbridge was among the worst he had dealt with.
"There are some really good councils that, as soon as they released what had happened, volunteered the refunds and contacted the people involved," he told the Echo.
"Others ran a series of adverts in the local press while some feel they are entitled to keep it. This will come back and bite them in the long run as people have the right to their money back. If Teignbridge is saying no one has been in touch what effort have they made to contact people?
"They just need to do the decent thing. We are encouraging motorists , if they benefit from a windfall through a mistake in law, to share their good fortune with a local charity. The council should not be allowed to keep it."
It is understood an objection is currently in the hands of the district auditor who has yet to make a ruling. A Teignbridge District Council spokesman said: "In keeping with many authorities around the country Teignbridge is happy to refund credit card surcharges applied to penalty charge notices where customers have chosen to pay by card. While it isn't economical to write to individuals, we would encourage anyone who wants to claim a refund of the 1.7 per cent surcharge, worth from 43p to 60p depending on the ticket, to contact us."

NSL Services Ltd - Who gave you permission to talk to the TV crew?

In the summer of 2009 a Channel 4's Cutting Edge film crew were given permission from Westminster City Council to make a documentary on the experiences of immigrants who were new to the UK and who became parking wardens (CEO's).



The wardens were allowed to speak freely to the journalist with the film crew, or so they thought.

Westminster City Council outsource their parking enforcement to a company called NSL Services, previously known as NCP Services Ltd.

One CEO told the film crew about NSL's unfair practices, and how Westminster City Council for CEO's to bring in high numbers of parking tickets (PCN's). This is undercover footage of that wardens interrogation on the 1st September 2009 at NSL's Westgate head office by Kenneth Henslip NSL's Head of Professional Standards.

The CEO was not allowed representation or given the minutes of the interrogation. The Channel4 documentary is called Confessions Of A Traffic Warden, was shown at 9pm on Thursday 19th November 2009

Camden is set to wage new war on motorists

Ham & High

By Susanna Wilkey

05.11.2009
Motorists in Camden were hit with a double whammy this week when the council gained new impounding powers and launched a judicial review to fight parking ticket appeals that went against them.

On Mondey the council voted to give itself new powers to seize the cars of ticketed motorists without warning. Together with Westminster Council, it will trial the project which gives them the power to impound vehicles with three or more unpaid PCNs that are not the subject of an appeal, even if they are parked legally when tracked down.

The council will be able to pick up the cars in the two boroughs and three others in London - a move which campaigners say is "draconian".

Opponents also say the scheme will affect innocent drivers because of mistakes by wardens and difficulties establishing car ownership.

To get their cars back those affected will have to pay all the fines plus towing charges, or pay a bond to release the car if they dispute the council's actions.

Paul Pearson from http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/ who lives in West Hampstead and works in Marylebone, said: "This will end up persecuting the wrong people. People will have their cars towed when they sometimes don't even know they have tickets because they have been lost in the post or gone to the wrong address. This seems totally ridiculous"

Lobbyist Neil Herron, of Parkingappeals.co.uk, said: " The DVLA database is never more than 90per cent accurate. You could have people who have just bought a car and then have it towed away even though the parking tickets belong to someone else, like a previous owner. These local authorities couldn't run a whelk stall so to give them the power to tow away cars because they have three outstanding PCNs should not be happening."

The judicial review move follows two separate judgments from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (Patas) which ruled that a 1.3 per cent administration fee charged to those paying paring fines by credit card was illegal.

The council scrapped the policy in June but campaigners say it should pay back the £6.5 million of tickets paid out by motorists before the adjudications.
Now Camden has submitted a request for a judicial review, expected to be heard in April. A spokeswoman said: "Camden Council believes the recent decisions by Patas are legally flawed. We will be asking the High Court to review and overturn them."

Mr Herron welcomed the judicial review case as he expects the council to lose and be forced to repay the money.

He added: "I am confident the adjudicators reached the correct decision. If Camden was wholly confident, it should have continued charging. They should also ask themselves how much public money is being spent by going down this route."

But parking boss, Cllr Chris Knight, has defended both actions. He said the council believes fines paid with the credit card surcharge are still valid and the new impounding rules will help the borough catch 2,716 cars with three or more fines outstanding."

He said: "We are losing huge amounts of money through unpaid PCNs. It is a fair process and we are already undertaking pre-debt recovery programmes which identify the owners of the vehicles and the offenders if they are not the same people."

'Big brother' plan to spot-check and tow cars owing more than three fines

London Evening Standard
Ruth Bloomfield

06.10.09

Legally parked vehicles could be towed away as traffic wardens in London are to do spot checks, hunting for vehicles with a backlog of unpaid tickets.
Drivers who owe for more than three parking tickets or traffic fines risk having their cars impounded under the pilot, which starts on 4 January. A database of vehicles with unpaid fines is being created. Drivers whose cars are towed could end have to pay more than £500 to retrieve them.
London Councils, the umbrella group of local authorities organising the trial, says the scheme is vital to stop persistent fine evaders. It involves six boroughs: Ealing, Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea. If successful it will be rolled out across the capital. Ealing has suggested a removal fee of £200 plus £40-a-day storage charges on top of the fines.

But Neil Herron, of parkingappeals.co.uk, said: "It is going to be a nightmare of red tape and litigation and smacks of Big Brother."

An AA spokesman said drivers who have only three penalty notices should not be a priority: "Some people have hundreds of unpaid PCNs and it is they that should be the focus."