Westminster parking contract fraud investigation ...

Police probe parking 'fraud' at Westminster Council
BBC News
Police have begun an investigation into allegations of fraud against two senior officers at Westminster Council.
The case concerns the awarding of a multimillion-pound
parking enforcement contract to private firm NSL Services

Westminster Council denies any wrongdoing .

A Met spokesman said: "We can confirm we have received an allegation of fraud. The allegation is being looked at and we are unable to discuss it."

A spokeswoman for Westminster Council in central London said the allegations were unfounded.
European Union law says that contracts worth more than £156,442 must be opened to tender to any interested company and advertised in the EU's official journal.
Westminster's parking contract is worth about £13m a year.

It was previously being carried out by private parking firm NCP.

"We remain confident the parking contract was properly let
by our officers and allegations of fraud are completely
unfounded "
Westminster Council

But in 2007 NCP was sold and broken up into smaller companies.
A new firm, NSL Services, was then created.

It is alleged that at that point the contract was given directly to the new company without going through proper tendering processes.

Parking campaign group No To Bike Parking Tax Campaign provided information to the police that led to the investigation being started.

Chairman Warren Djanogly said: "It was my civic duty to take the evidence collected to the proper authority.
"I have had no other course of action other than to bring this matter to the attention of the police."

Mike More, chief executive of Westminster Council, said: "This allegation is part of an ongoing campaign by a motorbike protest group.

'Co-operating with inquiries'
"We remain confident the parking contract was properly let by our officers and allegations of fraud are completely unfounded."

Mr More said the council would fully co-operate with police inquiries.

A spokesman for NSL Services said the suggestion there was anything wrong in the way the contract was handled was "nonsense".
He added European rules on tendering of public services allowed for contracts to be passed on in this way, as long as the contract had the relevant clause.

"The contract with Westminster does have such a clause," the spokesman said.

Misleading parking signs removed

Hampshire County Council introduced new parking restrictions at Fleet in May 2006 and put up pairs of parking notices of their own invention which contradicted each other and confused drivers.

So misleading were the signs that the local press immediately picked up the story after angry drivers complained ...

New signs confuse motorists
May 25, 2006
by Stephen Lloyd
SHOCKED drivers were hit with fines totalling nearly £2,500 in just two days after falling foul of new town centre parking restrictions. More ...

Contrary to the Department for Transport’s very clear Traffic Signs Manual, they didn’t include an essential yellow line on the road with a yellow plate to show when parking was prohibited. For reasons impossible to understand, despite the DfT having told the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that there were already “too many examples of signs that are so confusing that drivers find it difficult to comply with them”, and contrary to DfT’s own Signs Manual they approved the signs arrangement which has confused thousands of drivers for nearly four years.

The issuing of PCNs immediately rocketed to outrageous proportions, as one shopkeeper said at the time the easy ticketing of parked cars was like shooting fish in a barrel.

"Ticketing of Parked Cars was like shooting fish in a barrel"

Instead of immediately abandoning the signs which amounted to the blatant entrapment of thousands of drivers misled into believing they had at least 30 minutes parking at any time of day – which is exactly what the parking notice shows – the council persisted with these pairs of signs which they knew to be hopelessly ineffective and why.


Local campaigner and committee member of the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, Peter Ashford, who has fought a running battle with Hart District Council and the county council for nearly four years to have the ineffective signs replaced recently won a parking appeal when representing a local victim of the signs, Jon Louch, at what the tribunal described as a test case.

The local press reported last week ...

Council's £300,000 risk for 'misleading' parking signs
By Stephen Lloyd
February 04, 2010
CONTROVERSIAL parking restriction signs in Fleet town centre are misleading, a national adjudicator has ruled.
It follows two appeals in which drivers have had their £70 parking fines thrown out.

Mr Ashford said: “The adjudicator agreed that the 11-fold increase in penalty charges issued after the unsatisfactory parking signs came into operation was more than enough indication that the signage was not effective.”

Peter Ashford repeatedly provided the council with evidence that the signs were misunderstood by most drivers (including a parking adjudicator’s statement that they were confusing) but he was systematically rebuffed by officers and councillors, one of whom (then responsible for parking) wrote that the council cannot take advice from members of the public!

The adjudicator of the recent appeal, Hilary Tilby, quoted at length from a February 2008 communication in which the county council admitted their full knowledge that drivers were confused by the ill-conceived parking signs. She agreed that the 11-fold increase in penalty charges issued after the inadequate parking signs came into use was more than enough indication that the signage was not effective.

She found that the council had failed to implement signage that was clear and not ambiguous and she also criticised the DfT for failing to deal with the fact that the signs they had approved for use in Fleet Road “were clearly not doing the job”.

The adjudicator’s conclusion was, what the councils had always known, that “the parking signage was and remained misleading”.

On receipt of the appeal decision the council immediately removed one of each pair of notices leaving just the loading notices to make each parking bay into a part-time loading bay, but they have failed to mark the road as Loading bays – guaranteed to continue misleading the motoring public.

It is now quite clear that this was more about raising revenue than managing kerbspace and there should be a full independent investigation. In the meantime, if anyone who has had a PCN at this location contact the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund

Motorists Legal Challenge dubbed the 'unofficial parking watchdog.'

Motorists Legal Challenge exposes councils breaching the Data Protection Laws

It appears as though three councils failed to renew their registration for the Data Protection Public Register with the Information Commissioner's Office.


We await details of Brentwood and Ribble Valley but Hyndburn Council have admitted that they failed to renew three years ago.

If your data has been processed illegally, ie. by a council that has failed to register, then this needs to be raised as a complaint with the ICO here


Meanwhile, here are the headlines, with the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund now being billed as 'the unofficial parking watchdog.'

East Lancashire councils in data protection mix-up
Blackburn Citizen - Sam Chadderton - ‎Feb 12, 2010‎
Neil Herron, spokesman for 'unofficial parking watchdog' the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, said: “It's refreshing to see a full and frank admission. ...

East Lancashire councils in data protection mix-up 11:00am Friday 12 February 2010
Lancashire Evening Telegraph
TWO East Lancashire Councils have been accused of unlawfully processing personal details after a data protection mix-up.

BRENTWOOD: Oops they've done it again
PARKING fines, benefit claims and planning applications are all being processed unlawfully by Brentwood Borough Council in yet another act of incompetence that could cost the authority thousands of pounds.
The Gazette can reveal that our
10/02/2010 11:55



More will be revealed shortly with regard to an even bigger blunder that has 75% of the councils in the country scrambling for legal advice.

Seems that some councils just cannot help themselves ...

Despite the fact that the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities states:

10.17 Paying by online debit and credit cards is convenient for many motorists and is more secure for local authorities. The electronic card readers automatically seeks authorisation for values previously agreed between the card holder and the card company, and automatically bars any ‘blacklisted’ cards. Auditors favour the use of online debit and credit cards to avoid creating bad debts and minimising collection costs. There are operational savings to debit/credit cards so authorities cannot justify applying surcharges for their use.




Some councils just cannot help themselves.
Here we have a PCN from Staffordshire Borough Council which has a '1.6% levy' on all credit card payments.

The Chief Executive has been put on notice that this renders the PCN void and unenforceable.

Anyone with a PCN from Staffordshire Borough Council simply needs to tick the box 'The PCN exceeded the prescribed amount.'

The Motorists Legal Challenge will take up the case should the council refuse to cancel the PCN.

Just an oversight ...oh really?

On BBC Radio Lancashire this morning the leader of the council said that failure to register was 'just an oversight' and therefore was no worse than not having a TV licence! (I seem to recall that people get fined for such oversights).

However, if an 'oversight' is acceptable then here is a suggested defence for a Penalty Charge Notice issued by Hyndburn Council:

" A PCN has been issued to my vehicle as I was parked in contravention. However, this was an oversight on my behalf and I can confirm that I have put procedures in place for it not to happen again. Please confirm that the PCN will be cancelled."


East Lancashire councils accused of data protection mix-up
Lancashire Telegraph
Friday 12th February 2010

TWO East Lancashire Councils have been accused of unlawfully processing personal details after a data protection mix-up.
Hyndburn Borough Council and Ribble Valley Borough Council both failed to renew their registrations with the Information Commissioner’s Office register of data controllers.

Any organisation that uses personal information about members of the public must be registered.

It means both councils have committed a criminal offence - and they were only made aware of the lapse when the Lancashire Telegraph informed them this week.

The error means that technically, departments such as council tax, benefits, planning, and housing, should have stopped until the registration was renewed.

A spokesman for Hyndburn Council said: "Due to an administrative oversight on our part the council's registration as a data controller under the Data Protection Act 1998 had lapsed.
“We have taken immediate action to rectify the position and have re-registered with the Information Commission with effect from today.
“We are obviously very sorry that this has happened.
However, we are satisfied that we have sound procedures for handling personal data about our customers, and that the lapse in registration has not prejudiced anyone in any way.
“We have now put in place procedures to ensure that this doesn't happen again.”

A spokesman for Ribble Valley Borough Council said: “The authority is fully registered for data protection with the Information Commissioner’s Office, but our recent renewal notice showed an increase in the cost of our registration from £75 to £1,000 per year. “Understandably, we questioned this significant increase, but following discussions with the ICO we will be paying the invoice.”

A spokesman from the ICO confirmed the councils face prosecution if they do not renew and could be fined in court.
She said: “Under the Data Protection Act organisations that process personal information have a statutory requirement to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that they are a data controller. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.”

Neil Herron, spokesman for ‘unofficial parking watchdog’ the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, said: “It’s refreshing to see a full and frank admission. However, the consequences will now be for others to decide, including members of the public. Their data, including parking tickets, has been processed illegally.”

South Somerset Council ... £5.00 is not fine!

Sometimes it beggars belief how arrogant councils can be. Keep reminding yourself that these people are civil servants meant to serve the public and they are not allowed to act like Robber Barons!!!

Motorist from Somerset appeals against parking charge

Parking fines are £30 and rise to £60 if they are not paid within 14 days.
South Somerset District Council has defended its policy of imposing a non-returnable £5 fee even if motorists win an appeal against a parking fine.

Dave Gill and his wife had bought and displayed a ticket in their car but were handed a parking fine in Yeovil.
After challenging the decision they discovered the £5 fee would not be refunded even if they were successful.
The council said this covers the cost of processing the appeal and does not reflect the true, much higher, cost.

Parking fines issued at council-owned car parks are £30 but increase to £60 if they are not paid within 14 days from the issuing the notice.

Dave Gill, who is still waiting for a decision on his parking fine, said: "If you appeal against a £60 parking ticket you still ending paying £5 for that appeal, which to me is the rub if you like... the point is really not the money but it's about the principle... it takes five minutes to write that ticket out."

A spokesman for South Somerset District Council said: "We could, within our rights, say that the penalty has to stand.
"However we state in the appeals process that is issued with each penalty that if a valid ticket can be produced, or season ticket, residents permit, disabled badge for example, that if they haven't displayed correctly then we may cancel the fine for a £5 administration charge.
"We are very reasonable and when we can see people have accidentally not displayed a ticket we do usually let people off the full fine but we do need to gather minimal costs to cover the time spent sorting out the appeal, which includes the time spent by our staff, logging it, sending out correspondence, etc.
"We would advise that drivers do a quick check to make sure it hasn't slipped or blown away.
"The £5 is usually accepted as a fair compromise by our residents as they can see that it wasn't correctly displayed and time and resources had to be spent to make sure the appeal was considered and approved."

Diplomatic Row continues

Diplomatic parking bays 'unlawful since the 80s'
Islington Gazette
nlnews@archant.co.uk
11 February 2010

ALL tickets handed out in two "unlawful" parking bays could have to be repaid by Islington Council.The two bays - in White Lion Street, Angel, and Cowper Street, Finsbury - are reserved for diplomats. But Islington Council failed to get the proper permission from the secretary of state for transport before installing the road signs - which means every parking fine and car-towing carried out is unenforceable. The White Lion Street bay is reserved for the Eritrean Embassy, while the Cowper Street one is used by the International Mobile Satellite Organisation, which has full diplomatic status under an agreement with the Government.

Islington Council insists the revelation about the bays will have little effect, as no tickets were issued in either bay last year, but anyone issued with tickets in the bays since as far back as the 1980s could have a case for their money back.Across the capital, there are 346 diplomatic bays in total, and Westminster, Camden, and Kensington and Chelsea councils are all in the same boat.

Neil Herron, of the Motorists' Legal Challenge group, said: "The diplomatic bays issue will have huge implications. This is 22 years of unlawful unlawfully derived income. "If councils paid more attention to getting everything right they would not now be in the position of having to refund millions. This is what happens when corners are cut in the pursuit of a cash cow. "Fairness and justice is a two-way street and councils now have a duty to refund those fined unlawfully."

An Islington Council spokesman said: "There are two diplomatic bays in Islington and no Penalty Charge Notices for either of them were issued in 2009. We were unaware of an issue regarding special authorisation for signage in these bays and are looking into this.

The tip of a very large iceberg ...admission of criminality by council leader

This is the first of many councils to fall from breaching the Data Protection principles. They have a legal duty to be transparent about why they want your data, what they intend doing with it and who they want to share it with.

The saving grace, if there is one in this instance, is the full and frank admission that the council are guilty of a criminal act and that an investigation is being launched immediately. however, there are panic stations in other councils who have failed to register parking enforcement as a purpose. We have captured the registration details of every council. Now let's watch as panic ensues. Perhaps now the penny will drop for all authorities, Government departments and politicians that there are dire consequences for failure to regulate or heed the concerns that have been raised by many over the years. In the coming weeks we will release details of the criminal investigations now launched in a number of areas that will change the face of the 'parking industry.'

BRENTWOOD: Oops they've done it again
Brentwood Gazette
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 11:55

PARKING fines, benefit claims and planning applications are all being processed unlawfully by Brentwood Borough Council in yet another act of incompetence that could cost the authority thousands of pounds.

The Gazette can reveal that our bungling council has committed a criminal offence – and could face prosecution – by failing to renew its registration with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Data Protection Public Register.

This means the council could be forced to rescind parking fines, CCTV images may be unusable in courts and planning applications, various licences, benefits, council tax and housing bills are all being unlawfully processed, which could render them invalid.

These latest shocking revelations – in which Brentwood is one of only two councils in the country without a data controller registration – comes as the authority tries to recover from embarrassing revelations, including damning verdicts on the council's accounts and extravagant pay-offs to outgoing Town Hall chiefs.

But what's worse, the council were blissfully unaware their registration had lapsed and they were in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 until the Gazette got in touch this week.

Brentwood Borough Council leader, Louise McKinlay said: "This is totally unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.
"As soon as officers made me aware I instructed that an internal investigation be carried out, and this is underway now.
"I am getting legal advice on the full implications of this officer oversight and will be making sure that processes are in place for this to never happen again."

A spokesman for the Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund, Neil Herron, said they had already made an official complaint to the ICO and warned that Brentwood council should not be processing any data regarding its 70,000 residents.

He added: "Local authorities punish the most minor of trivialities – such as overstaying parking limits by just a few minutes or being inches over a white line – but obviously they need to get their own house in order first.
"It is a criminal offence to process any personal data without being registered. They would have been sent a reminder both three months and then one month before it lapsed."

He added: "Anyone who has received a penalty charge notice whilst the council has not been registered would be perfectly within their rights to request that the PCN is rescinded, and should the council fail to do so, then raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner."

A spokesman from the ICO confirmed the council faced prosecution if they did not renew and the maximum penalty was £5,000 at magistrates' court or an unlimited fine at crown court.
She said: "Under the Data Protection Act organisations that process personal information have a statutory requirement to notify the ICO that they are a data controller. Failure to do so is a criminal offence."

Cllr Louise McKinlay said the council will be re-registering.

Suspended Bays signs ... more cancellations and refunds to come?

This story may well light the fuse and have an inpact on PCNs issued in all suspended bays right across the country. As the High Court beckons for a number of pending cases it is anticipated that a great many more will follow.

Incensed motorists demand fine cancellations
Bucks Free Press
5th February 2010
By James Nadal »

INCENSED motorists are demanding their fines are cancelled because of “diabolical” temporary Parking signs.

Drivers have bombarded Wycombe District Council with complaints about suspended bays in Institute Road, which they say were unclearly marked and initially in the wrong place.
The new restrictions have been put in due to building work along the street.
An e-mail from a WDC official to one disgruntled resident, conceded signs had been moved from a bay after it realised they had been put in the wrong place.

Motorists accused wardens of simply waiting to fine them after talking to site builders who witnessed the tickets being issued.

Mandy Wishart, of Highfield Park, Marlow, who runs a pensioners' club in Slough, said: “The signs weren't big enough and there was literally one at each end of the road, now they are all the way along the fence.
“I was very angry, especially when the builder said to me the warden had been stood there all morning just waiting for people to park and booking them.”

She said the fact signs had been changed proved the original mistake.

Anita Petersen, of Shelley Close, Medmenham, got a ticket on January 28, after Parking in the same spot she has used for years.
She wrote to the council to say she was “an innocent victim of a poorly organised change to a local Parking regulation and that the council is at fault.”
Mrs Petersen wrote: “The council has made no real effort to warn motorists of the change in regulations other than a couple of poorly worded A4 bits of paper stuck on parking signs some distance away from the area where most motorists were parking.”

Paul Simmons, 61, of Hill Farm Road, Marlow Bottom, a B & B proprietor said it was “unfair” and “unacceptable” his wife Suzanne's appeal had been rejected.

Andrea Wicks, a fashion buyer, from Harleyford Estate, ticketed on January 29, said: “If you park somewhere for 20 years you don't expect to look for a parking sign every time you park, especially when the sign is behind a hedge.”

Darryl Abrams, 60, a retired surveyor, of Little Marlow Road, said: “It's diabolical, I looked at the sign and thought it had definitely expired.”

He was ticketed on Tuesday January 26.

The Free Press asked WDC if it would reconsider the fines considering the volume of similar complaints.

Spokesman Sue Robinson said each appeal will be considered “in isolation”.
She said: “The temporary suspension signs we put up are bright yellow and designed to be prominent.
“The signs were put up following instructions from the contractor but were changed to improve access and to free up more available spaces.”
“WDC cannot cone off spaces. Cones would not work in isolation as they can (and sometimes are) moved by members of the public.”

Parking bay restrictions in Institute Road are already contentious following Buckinghamshire County Council's admission signs and lines are wrong.
However, tickets have continued to be issued by WDC.

Is nothing sacred ... or is there more to this?

At first glance it may look like another jobsworth council is set to make the headlines again.

However, closer inspection of the evidence reveals a microphone boom on the left of the photograph in what appears to be a scene from a drama rather than an actual 'live' event.

Thought I'd post this before it becomes urban myth.

Conflicts of Interest for Adjudicators?

From the former Department for Constitutional Affairs website re: Adjudicators.

Link Here ...

Once you have read it then you can decide whether the fact that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard is employed by Manchester City Council represents a conflict of interest. More ...

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The governing principle is that no person should sit in a judicial capacity in any circumstances which would lead an objective onlooker with knowledge of all the material facts, reasonably to suspect that the person might be biased. As a general principle therefore, a barrister or solicitor advocate ought not to sit or to appear before a tribunal, at a particular hearing centre, if he is liable to be embarrassed in either capacity by doing so.

As a general rule, it is undesirable for judicial office holders who are solicitors to sit at a tribunal or hearing centre where they or any partner or employee of theirs regularly practises. This is to help avoid them being assigned to adjudicate in a case (or several cases) from which they would have to stand down. If a fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holder who is a solicitor does sit at such a hearing centre or a tribunal, then the Lord Chancellor regards it as the judicial office holder's personal responsibility (and not that of the staff of the tribunal or the hearing centre) to ensure, as far as possible, that he avoids any potential conflict of interest which might require him to stand down from a particular case.

Fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holders should not sit in a case involving their own firm or client, or otherwise where to do so could give rise to the perception of prejudice in the administration of justice. They should comply with the existing case law governing pecuniary or other interests in deciding whether to declare an interest in, or to stand down from, a particular case e.g. Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and Another [(2000) QB 451; in re medicaments and related classes of goods (No 2) (2001) 1 WLR 700; and Lawal v Northern Spirits Limited (2003) UKHL35].

Fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holder should not sit on a case if he has a personal, professional or pecuniary interest in that case; or if any business or practice of which he is a member in any capacity has such an interest.

Judicial office holders are expected to refrain from any activity, political or otherwise, which would conflict with their judicial office or be seen to compromise their impartiality, having regard for example to the comments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Locabail. Fee-paid (part-time) judicial office holders should also be aware of the risk of a perceived lack of impartiality arising from published articles or public pronouncements, etc. (Timmins v Gormley [(2000) 2 WLR 870]).

Fee-paid (part-time) Adjudicators should exercise caution in any reference to their appointment on, for example, letterheads or in chambers advertising literature.

Fee-paid (part-time) Adjudicators hold office only when he or she is serving judicially and should not use their office as a means of pursuing personal, professional or commercial advantage

Serious errors in council contracts

The spotlight is going to shine on loacal authorities parking enforcement contracts shortly. Hope all is in order and the necessary procurement rules have been followed.
Should contracts have gone out to tender?


Stoke-on-Trent City Council made 'serious' bid errors By Liz Copper
BBC Midlands Today,
Staffordshire

Much of the work was aimed at renewing or building homes
A council in Staffordshire has said it made "serious" errors in the way it awarded contracts.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council paid Kinders Ltd more than £3.2m for work it has carried out across the city in the past four years.
The firm did nothing wrong, but the contract should have been put out to tender, the council said.

It has begun an inquiry and said it would not rule out taking disciplinary action against its staff.
The council said the payments were for jobs carried out "on an as-and-when basis".

No competition
Phil Crossland, the council's director of transportation and planning, said: "As a public authority it's not good practice.
"We should have seen the amount of work coming up and it should have been tendered as a proper term contract."

Much of the work was carried out as part of the government-backed Pathfinder regeneration project.
The project aims to renew and replace homes. Instead of large contracts being awarded, the work was done in a piecemeal way.
As the work was not advertised, there was no competition, which may have resulted in the council paying more than it needed to.
Rob Flello, Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent South, said he would raise the issue with housing ministers.
He added: "I mean, £3.2m - it just breaks all the rules in terms of procurement policy. We're talking about millions of pounds - outrageous."

The council has not broken the law, but it said it would conduct a "forensic audit", which involves looking at thousands of invoices for the completed work.

Police investigating council parking department

Investigations by District Auditors in a number of local authority areas are gathering momentum and the Barry Moss case papers are now lodged with the High Court.

The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund is a publicly supported fund to expose illegality and justice by ensuring matters are resolved through the courts and relies on donations to ensure equality of arms for motorists.

News is set to break shortly however, that a council is being investigated by the Police over a very serious criminal allegation. Lawyers have been instructed and the victim of the injustice has formally made a criminal complaint.

John Terry's indiscretion has meant that disclosure to the world at large will wait, but the press and media are fully briefed and ready to run once the council decide exactly what their stance is going to be and whether they are going to close ranks or take action. It is understood that the penny is starting to drop as to the seriousness of the allegations and possible consequences.

Once the story breaks, if action is not taken then vicarious liability will roll up the chain of command.

There are other serious issues in the same council involving a pending Freedom of Information request which the council are considering how best to deal with as the financial implications are very serious indeed.

We are launching the Motorists Manifesto for Parking in the House of Lords on 23rd February and intend to highlight how councils have been misbehaving with a number of contemporary examples.

More will be revealed soon.

Department for Transport officials going through a bad spell

MUST TRY HARDER!

As the Diplomatic bay farce continues another embarrassing blunder is exposed. Camden's Special Authorisation from the Department for Transport on behalf of the Secretary of State only allows for the legend 'Diplomatic Cars' or 'Diplomatic Vechicles'






It is understood that Camden are blaming the officials at the DfT claiming that they are responsible for the blunder but those at Camden failed to check. It is understood that they are to be sent here before retraining.


These officials really must pay more attention.


When the excuses roll just remember that the motorist is never afforded the luxury of correcting any oversights that they have. It is simply 'pay up.'



Off to check this week's Auto Trader to see if I can buy a Vechicle and then I know where I'll have free parking in Camden ;-)

Diplomatic Row Continues

It seems as though Westminster Council are convinced that they have always had authority for the Diplomatic Bays. In that case there was no need to spend public money getting 'another' Special Authorisation. However, checking their bays it seems that even now there are many which do not even comply with the legal requirements.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's dilemma is that they now have to apply to the Department for Transport for permisssion to use the markings they currently have on the highway. I am sure that they will not be so foolish to continue enforcing.

Meanwhile, there is another, more embarrassing blunder to come.

A £2,000,000,000 a year industry

£2bn parking bill
By Tom Latchem, 19/12/2009
News of the World

GREEDY councils are exploiting motorists by raking in almost £2 BILLION a year in parking fees and fines.

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
8. Tower Hamlets £31m
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.

It's all about the money. Show me the money

Westminster to ban free parking in the evening
Evening Standard
Sri Carmichael, Consumer Affairs Reporter
20.01.10

Free evening parking would be scrapped across much of the West End in plans being considered by a London council.

The move, which has outraged motorist and tourism groups, would extend parking meter charges and single yellow line penalties until midnight from Monday to Saturday in Westminster's central controlled zones. Currently, there is free parking in those spaces from 6.30pm on such days.

Theatres, restaurants and late-opening shops fear they would be hit by the changes as customers would stay away. Motoring groups claim the council has designed the move to raise money they have lost from drivers during the recession.

Westminster council is also considering raising parking charges with a doubling of rates suggested for St John's Wood from £1.10 per hour to £2.20.
Central zones currently charge £4.40 per hour but this could rise to £5. The F zone south of Marylebone Road is marked as a potential target as well as all other zones except B and C, which are north of Marylebone Road.

Residents with parking permits would be exempt from the new enforcement structure, which was discussed at a council Cabinet meeting on Monday.
The option to raise meter charges was said not to go “above inflation”. But although residents would be exempt from the longer charging hours, the price of their permit could still rise above inflation.

A council report last month said that parking charges needed to go up for “harmonisation” purposes so they are on a par with those in neighbouring Camden that charges £4.80 per hour.
It is understood that council chiefs were asked to find “additional income” from parking and noted it was “earmarked to contribute to” £14 million of savings.

Richard Pulford, chairman of the Society of London Theatre, said: “The proposition is ridiculous and would be gravely damaging. We have a lot of people who come into the West End from out of town by car because they often cannot get back on public transport. To add parking to their cost would be extraordinary. It would be a huge blow to the night-time economy.”

Paul Pearson, a campaigner who runs the penaltychargenotice.co.uk website said: “I think it's disgusting, it's just for revenue-raising, pure and simple.”

Cllr Danny Chalkley, Westminster council's cabinet member for city management, said: "As one of the most congested boroughs in the UK there is a huge amount of pressure on Westminster's parking network.
"We have a challenging role in striking a balance between the many competing needs and demands for our kerbside space in order to keep the city moving.
"At the start of the new decade and with the London Olympics just two years away, now is a sensible time to re-examine parking policies in parts of central London.
"It's important to stress though that no decisions have been taken yet as to any potential changes to parking in Westminster."

First signs of madness for parking cash cow

Open and transparent parking policy?

Press and public are not allowed to see the first stages of BSE as the parking cash cow starts its descent into madness.

Press excluded from parking talks
Bucks Free Press
Wednesday 27th January 2010

THE Bucks Free Press was last night ejected from a High Wycombe Town Committee meeting as councillors discussed on-street parking tariffs.
The committee held its first meeting of the New Year at Wycombe District Council's offices in Queen Victoria Road on Tuesday night.
But members of the public and the press were excluded from the meeting under Paragraph three, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as committee members discussed parking in private.
Item 15 on the agenda was a "review of on-street parking tariffs".

Is the Audit Commission playing politics?

As Bolton's District Auditor faces action before the High Court for failing to rule on unlawfully derived income in the council's accounts the following article makes very interesting reading.

Audit Commission's anti-Tory ‘plot’
Robert Watts
The Sunday Times
January 31st 2010

ENGLAND’S local government spending watchdog has paid a lobbying firm with links to Labour for advice on how to undermine Tory frontbenchers who challenged its activities.

The Audit Commission, which is supposed to be politically neutral, paid nearly £60,000 to the lobbyists, who advised it to “combat the activities of Eric Pickles”, the Tory party’s chairman.

Pickles has been leading a Conservative assault on the commission, calling for some of its powers to be handed back to local authorities.

Caroline Spelman, the shadow local government secretary, accused it yesterday of bankrolling lobbyists to save its own skin.

An official from another government regulator said there was “real fear” inside the commission about the prospect of a Conservative government.

Stephen Bundred, its £208,000-a-year chief executive, is a former Labour councillor and associate of Ken Livingstone.

The commission denies Tory charges that it has breached official guidelines that ban quangos from hiring lobbyists to influence politicians.

Its role is to monitor local government, health, housing, community safety and fire and rescue services in England. The quango says of its role: “We promote value for money for taxpayers, auditing the £200 billion spent by 11,000 local public bodies.”

It used Connect Public Affairs — founded by Rosie Winterton MP, who is now a Labour minister — after Pickles announced a plan to axe its regulatory regime, the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).

Pickles called the system time-consuming, over-complicated and unnecessary.

The Sunday Times has seen five reports written by Connect for the commission, including a six-page briefing on how a Conservative government might operate. The Tories want council services to be vetted at a local level, not by regulators based in Whitehall.

One Connect report advised the commission on how to “build support for CAA, and protect it from a potential change of government”.

It advised the watchdog to foment a rebellion in the Tory grassroots: “Many Conservative local authority leaders do not follow national party lines. Therefore there is a good opportunity for the commission to exploit any potential differences in opinion.”

It also urges the commission to put up a “strong local lobbying response in order to mitigate and combat the activities of Eric Pickles”.

Pickles said yesterday: “It is disgraceful that I and other taxpayers have had to pay for the Audit Commission to do the Labour party’s dirty work.
“This feather-bedded quango should not be using our money trying to save expensive, box-ticking regulation which is simply not working.”

He called for members of the Audit Commission’s board to reimburse the taxpayer for Connect’s work out of their own pockets.

Spelman said: “We can no longer have confidence in the Audit Commission if it has become such a creature of the state that it bankrolls lobbyists to save its own skin and call for more red tape. This is a complete abuse of taxpayers’ money by a body which is supposed to be standing up for taxpayers’ interests.”

The Tories say the commission’s use of Connect breaches official guidance.

Cabinet Office guidelines state: “It will always be an improper use of public funds for non-departmental public bodies to employ PR or other consultants to lobby parliament or government departments in an attempt to influence government policy or obtain higher funding.”

The commission said all work done by Connect was not lobbying, merely “research and analysis”. “The commission does not operate in a vacuum,” it said. “It is incumbent upon the commission, as a publicly funded body, to keep all political parties aware of its activities and findings, to inform public debate.”

Bundred, 56, who has announced that he will step down within the next few months, was paid £208,000 last year and has a pension pot worth £1.3m.

He served under Livingstone as a Labour member of the Greater London Council (GLC) during the 1980s. His spokesman declined to comment on whether he remains a member of the Labour party.

While on the GLC, Bundred invited Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, to attend talks in London during the IRA’s bombing campaign in 1982 when dialogue was ruled out by Labour party leaders.

Connect has maintained close ties with Labour since it was set up in 1990 by Winterton, who now serves as a business and local government minister.

She says her business relationship with Connect ended in 1994, but she remains close to Gill Morris, the firm’s director.

Eight of 23 of Connect staff profiled on the company’s website have worked for Labour — and one is contesting a seat for the party at the coming general election.

Know any Blue Badge supermarket victims?

If so, The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund lawyers would love to hear from you.

Supermarket parking limits 'breach' disability laws
BBC News
Supermarkets have started to limit the amount of time customers can park
The UK's big supermarkets are breaking disability laws by having strict time limits in about two-thirds of their car parks, charities have told the BBC.

Private firms run some of the parking areas for Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons and customers face penalty charges for overstaying.
But under the Disability Discrimination Act, businesses need to make extra allowances for disabled people.
The supermarkets say they will review their policies on disabled parking.
Supermarkets are increasingly using private parking firms and automatic number plate recognition systems to limit customer parking, often to two hours.

'Acknowledge problem'
The restrictions are to discourage drivers from abusing the free parking spaces.
BBC Breakfast contacted 200 large supermarkets from the four main chains.
Of the 124 that imposed parking time limits, about two-thirds said they did not give disabled people any extra time to shop, which is a breach of the law.

Britain's motorists are being stealth taxed by another dubious practice
Neil Herron
Motorist campaigner

Neil Coyle, from the charity Disability Alliance, said: "Supermarkets need to acknowledge there is a problem, and secondly, very quickly they need to ensure their car parking procedures conform with the law.
"You or I can stamp our feet and say how outrageous it is but at the end of the day there is a law that protects disabled people from this happening."

He said the supermarkets needed to end the "unfair charges" or "they can wait until someone takes a legal case and potentially face a considerable compensation case".

Motorist campaigner Neil Herron said supermarkets should get rid of the "draconian" and "legally questionable" private enforcement process and handle car parking in house.
"If someone is abusing the system, clamp them, charge them a £2.50 clamp release fee, handled by their own staff.
"Britain's motorists are being stealth taxed by another dubious practice," he said.

The BBC's Keith Doyle said all four supermarket chains have said they will review their policies on disabled parking.
"If you do need extra time, the advice is to go to customer services in the supermarkets - they have all told us they will make allowances, they will review their policies - so give customer services your registration number and hopefully you won't get a ticket," he said.

Chief Adjudicator writes to councils advising them that their PCNs were illegal

Yet it seems no-one is prepared to disclose which councils were written to and why they ignored the advice from the Chief Adjudicator.
As the Glenn Dickinson v The Parking Adjudicator case awaits a date before the courts one has to ask why the 'independent and impartial' Chief Adjudicator only wrote to the councils and not motorists with pending PCNs. Is that 'independent and impartial?

Caroline Sheppard (left) is the Chief Adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, and, it has been revealed, is an employee of Manchester City Council.

Lord Adonis is unable to provide the answer to Lord Lucas' question as to what was written and to whom as is revealed by the Parliamentary Question below.


As matters develop we expect that the press and media take a closer look at which councils benefited financially by continuing to issue PCNs that they knew to be illegal and contrary to the High Court ruling.

What also needs bearing in mind is that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal receive 60p from each PCN issued.
Despite the Daily Telegraph reporting nearly two years ago no-one is prepared to disclose the list or the content of the letter. Time for someone to start digging.

Illegal parking fines cost drivers millions
Motorists have paid millions of pounds in illegal parking fines, The Telegraph has learned.
By David Millward,
Transport Editor
30 May 2008

At least 80 councils across the country continued to take money from drivers for 16 months even though they had been told by the national parking adjudicator that their tickets did not comply with the law.
Others have been victims of local authorities who have enforced fines even though their road markings were illegal and, in some cases, where parking bays were narrower than the width of a family car. More ...

Last night, the Department for Transport said councils should "seriously consider" contacting motorists and reimbursing any fines that were illegally imposed.

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

Off Topic ... Tools Explained

Nothing to do with parking but I have just received these definitions and they made me smile as they helped me understand why I never ended up being 'practical.' I think that I must have spotted the potential problems early.

DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, denting the freshly-painted project which you had carefully set in the corner where nothing could get to it.

WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, 'Oh b****!'

SKILL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.

PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters.

BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.

HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.

VICE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.

OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely for setting various flammable objects in your shop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub out of which you want to remove a bearing race.

TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.

HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake shoes, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.

BAND SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to cut good aluminium sheet into smaller pieces that more easily fit into the trash can after you cut on the inside of the line instead of the outside edge.

TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.

PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids or for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads.

STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws and butchering your palms.

PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 pence part.

HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.

HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.

UTILITY KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund cheques, and rubber or plastic parts.
Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.

SON-OF-A-BITCH TOOL: (A personal favourite!) Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling 'Son of a B****!' at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.

Hope you found this informative.

Westminster's Parking Plan 'illegal'

More sterling efforts from LMAG (London Motorists Action Group)
member Paul Pearson who has been splashed over the press and media with this latest revelation. The parking 'industry' is set to come under very close scrutiny in the next few months with three cases listed for the High Court and a 'gathering of the clans' taking place with LMAG teaming up with the Drivers Alliance and the Taxpayers Alliance to support the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund which aims to secure justice for Britain's motorists who are ready to 'Rage Against the Parking Machine.'

At will be the fivers and tenners from across the country that will ensure that justice is seen to be done in the most public of fashions and this offensive stealth tax forced to revert back to proper parking enforcement for the right reasons.

To donate to the fighting fund click here

London council 'misleading' over 'illegal parking plan'
Ed Davey BBC News, London

Westminster already makes more from parking than any London borough
A council has been accused of a "potentially illegal" attempt to use parking charge rises to raise revenue after BBC London obtained a document described as a "smoking gun".

The news comes after Westminster Council, which has a £22m overspend on its books, set out a series of proposals that include raising parking charges.
They would involve a 60p-per-hour pay-and-display increase and extending the period in which people are charged to park, from 6.30pm until midnight.

Councillor Danny Chalkley, cabinet member for city management, insisted the changes were solely an attempt to tackle congestion.
Asked whether the changes were proposed to plug the gap in Westminster's finances, Mr

Chalkley said: "It's not correct that we are doing this to revenue raise, we are doing this to keep streets running freely."
It appears on the strength of the evidence that Westminster have a case to answer
Mark Cran QC

However, BBC London has seen an internal council briefing, dated 12 January, which makes it clear the "key drivers" for this year's budget include an attempt to address the overspend.

The report continues: "Officers were asked to go away and look more closely at parking and community safety to find reductions or additional income.
"The areas of parking and community safety have been earmarked to contribute the majority of the £14m [the sum Westminster says it needs to find]."

Responding to the document, parking campaigner Barrie Segal accused Mr Chalkley of being "disingenuous".
"This report is the smoking gun", he said. "The briefing document flatly contradicts [Mr Chalkley's] public statements."

Councillor Chalkley claims the changes are not to raise money

In 1995, a High Court judge ruled against neighbouring Camden Council, saying it could not use parking to raise revenue.
Mark Cran QC, the barrister who successfully brought the 1995 case against Camden Council, told BBC London: "It sounds as though the evidence is stronger in this instance than it was in the Camden case.

"It appears on the strength of the evidence that Westminster may have a case to answer." Mark Cran QC

Council's own analysis of the case reads: "The High Court was very clear that [it] did not allow the council in setting the charges for parking to take account of extraneous financial matters.
"Westminster therefore cannot increase charges with the motive of generating income, though the generation of income is legitimate if incidental to the setting of charges for other reasons such as traffic restraint."

Mr Segal said: "I find it truly astonishing that Westminster would set down in writing that it knows revenue can only be raised from parking if it is 'incidental'.
"Then cynically, nudge-nudge wink-wink, they come out with a load of extra charges and say it is because of congestion."

Paul Pearson, another parking campaigner, said: "Parking can not be used for revenue generating - and that is exactly what they are doing here. This report proves it."

Charges 'reinvested'
Westminster Council makes more from parking than any other London council and recorded a £35m profit from the account last year.
Referring to the latest proposals, a spokesman said: "These are just options and the council's cabinet will make a final decision in due course.
"This is not about generating profit for the council, which would be illegal, it is about dealing with the increasing pressures on our roads.
"Every single penny of surplus income collected from parking is reinvested straight back into major transport projects."

The spokesman accepted however, the 12 January briefing had been written by the council.

Tell me this isn't fraud

I met with a certain council officer a couple of years ago and he admitted that the council BCC were aware that there were a great deal of signs and lines across the county which were non-compliant. He was concerned because the consultants who had been brought in were just tasked with identifing those which needed renewing due to maintenance issues and not compliance issues. He admitted that he had spent his weekends checking compliance.

His, and the other reports will be available. I would suggest that someone starts asking the questions. Would also suggest that the council officer I met checks his position and his conscience. A little reminder.

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.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or
anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to
receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a
legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(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.

As the Police begin investigations into criminality across the country and cases start to be prepared for the High Court I assume it is only a matter of time before action is demanded in Marlow. Taking money to which you are not entitled is NOT a civil matter.

Council still ticketing drivers despite signs admission
Thursday 21st January 2010
By James Nadal »

PARKING fines are still being dealt out on a Marlow street – despite a council's admission that signs were wrong.

A secret filming sting by UKIP in November prompted Buckinghamshire County Council to review parking bays in Institute Road.
Although BCC acknowledged the errors motorists are still being given tickets.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Free Press show there were 36 fines dished out in the first four weeks after the admission was made.

Wycombe District Council, which is responsible for enforcement, said it is “still waiting for conclusive guidance” from BCC about which bays are correctly marked.

But there was confusion after BCC said it was up to WDC, which it had not heard from.

Spokesman Richard Wells said: “As far as we're concerned all the bays are enforceable but it's Wycombe's responsibility to enforce the tickets, it's nothing to do with the county. The ball is in their court.”

An audit has taken place and new signs and lines have been ordered.
UKIP says thousands of motorists are entitled to refunds because various roads across the town have incorrectly marked bays.

Council uses helicopter to cancel parking tickets

It is one thing using Smartcars to issue PCNs but helicopters to cancel them?
View from Sheffield City Council's Parking Services Department. Perhaps common sense and discretion would be cheaper all round.



Parking fine as cabbie helps disabled woman
Sheffield Star
Published Date: 18 January 2010
By Ben James

A KIND-hearted taxi driver was slapped with a parking fine - after leaving his cab for just two minutes to help his disabled passenger into a shop.
Bernard Lindley, aged 60, from Manor, pushed 80-year-old wheelchair-bound Phyliss Kerr to a shop in Sheffield city centre.But when he returned he found a £75 parking fine on his windscreen.

Phyliss had called her regular driver and asked him to take her into the city centre from her home in Manor.Bernard could not find a parking space and parked in a loading bay on Surrey Street, behind the Town Hall.Phyliss, who was recovering from a stroke, asked Bernard to push her to the shops and when he returned he found a parking warden had struck.

She said: "I felt really weak from my stroke and was very down. Bernard would do anything for me, he's such a kind soul."

Bernard, who has been a taxi driver for 39 years, said: "I never heard of anything so outrageous. We are told by the council to take care of disabled passengers and make sure that they get to their destination ok. I've done this and they reward me with this fine."I've complied with one part of their policy and got stung by the other."

The fine was for £35 if paid within 14 days and £75 if paid after.

Phyliss said: "I think it's disgusting. He will come out anytime of the day or night for me. If I ask him to come and pick up my bags he will always help me. I don't know what I would do without him."

The council has now promised to refund Bernard after The Star stepped in. Sheffield Council head of parking services Kevin Butt said: "After looking at this and taking more of a helicopter view I can see an argument in both directions."We have therefore decided in this case to fully refund Mr Lindley."

Credit where credit is due

Exposing illegality and bad practice is essential to ensuring that parking enforcement is seen to be fair. However, it is often the case that individuals' actions at the lower end of the enforcement ladder don't get placed before the decision makers and senior management.
When it does, the actions of those key personnel are a critical. Therefore, praise to Kevin Goad at Westminster Council who acted swiftly and cancelled the PCN when the following was brought to his attention.

Dear Neil ... "I was waiting for my daughter to arrive into Paddington. As a disabled driver I asked a traffic operative where the nearest disabled bay was. He pointed the other side of the road. I duly parked and waited in the car for a while. The warden passed me with a colleague. He saw me said nothing and walked on.

A short time later I left the car to use a loo in a cafe on the other side of the road. When I returned the warden was issuing me with a ticket and pointing out it was a pay by phone bay. I remonstrated that he had led me into this bay and then discovered that he - an African man - had a poor grasp of English.

I went to the parking adjudicator and she recommended the council review the case because of mitigating circumstances.
Subsequently the council decided to ignore the adjudicator's recommendation and is intent on prosecuting me and demanding £120.00 payment.
In their letter of rejection they claim that the disabled bay was next to the pay by phone bay that I was parked in and that I should have read the sign. In fact the adjacent bay was occupied at the time so I couldn't have physically parked there. When I remonstrated with him he smiled as though it was a joke. I suspect the attendant wilfully misdirected me.
I don't believe parking wardens should be in the business of leading motorists astray to increase parking revenue. Westminster tell me I have no choice but to pay the £120.00. Is this right?

It isn't and wasn't right but the adjudicator does not have the power to exercise discretion, only refer it back to the council. It then goes back into 'the machine.'
Fortunately, we were able to intervene and ensure that justice was done.

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.

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

But are their PCNs valid? More will be revealed in the coming weeks.

Daily Mail
12 January 2010
By Scott Warren

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.
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.

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