Big Ticket for Little Tikes

Haringey Councillor Alan Stanton posts this photograph on his Flickr page

It is believed that the vehicle suffered mechanical failure, and as such the PCN issued can be appealed successfully. It is understood that the driver below did attempt to contact the emergency breakdown services.

If he would care to get in touch we will assist with his appeal ;-)

Letter Delay Man Wins Speeding Case

Letter delay man wins speed case
BBC 29th October 2009

Mr Gidden was caught going at 85mph on the M180 motorway
A man charged with speeding has had his conviction quashed because a postal strike led to his notification letter being delivered too late.

Peter Gidden, 48, of Dodworth, South Yorkshire, received his letter two days late after a postal strike in 2007.
The law states that police must send notice of intention to prosecute within 14 days of an alleged offence.
On Thursday the High Court ruled that the conviction was not legal because the time limit had not been met.

Mr Gidden was caught on a speed camera doing 85mph (137km/h) on the M180 in Lincolnshire in October 2007.
But a backlog of mail caused by a postal strike at the time held up the letter sent by police.
'Matter of principle'
He received it after 16 days had passed.

Following his decision, Lord Justice Elias said the case was relevant to the current postal strikes and said the law may have to be revised to avoid similar issues in the future.

He said: "The authorities must adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending...the 1988 [Road Traffic Offenders] Act."

Mr Gidden had previously appealed against the conviction at Grimsby Crown Court and Scunthorpe Magistrates' Court.
The High Court quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling £680. They also wiped three penalty points from his licence.
His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds.

"In a way this is a matter of principle", Mr Gidden said.
"Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public."

THE FULL PA PRESS REPORT IS BELOW:
Source: Press Association 29th October 18.05

PETER GIDDEN APPEAL

A motorist had a speeding conviction quashed by the High Court today (29/10/09) - because a 2007 postal strike led to the late delivery of a crucial prosecution document. Motoring laws might now have to be amended to prevent other drivers attempting to take advantage of similar late deliveries during the current or future mail strikes.
A statutory notice was sent warning Peter Gidden, 48, who runs his own specialist Toyota sports car workshop, that he had been caught by a speed camera and the police intended to prosecute, but it arrived two days late. The law states that such notices must be delivered within 14 days.
Gidden was jubilant after the judges allowed his appeal against Grimsby Crown Court's decision in February to uphold a speeding conviction imposed by Scunthorpe magistrates last October.
He faced prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act. The judges quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling #680. They also wiped out the three penalty points endorsed on his licence and awarded him legal costs out of public funds.
Gidden said he had been driving on the M180 in Lincolnshire at 8.10am on October 6 2007 when a speed camera recorded him as exceeding the speed limit, clocking him at 85mph in the inside lane.
He said he had unsuccessfully fought his case in person before the magistrates and the Crown Court.
He then employed a legal team led by barrister Archie Maddan to fight his case in the High Court at a cost of some £8,000.
Gidden said: "In a way this is a matter of principle. Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public.
"In many ways I think they are losing the respect of the middle-class general public which they have always needed, and had, in this country."
In his ruling, Lord Justice Elias said Gidden's appeal "must succeed", and Mr Justice Openshaw agreed.
Lord Justice Elias said: "The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. "It follows that the conviction must be set aside."
He added: "I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.
"The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending... the 1988 Act. "It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted." The judge said alternatives included recorded delivery services or registered post, which were governed by different rules.
The one sent to Mr Gidden, of High Street, Dodworth, near Barnsley, South Yorkshire, took 16 days because of the backlog of undelivered mail built up after the strike in 2007.
Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled today the whole prosecution process was defective because the time limit had not been met, and Mr Gidden's conviction must be quashed.
He rejected arguments supported by lower courts that so long as prosecution warning notices were posted within 14 days - so that in ordinary circumstances they would arrive in time - they were deemed to have been properly served. Lord Justice Elias said: "This case raises an issue of some topicality given the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest."
He warned the police and prosecuting authorities not to use the first class post and said they must adopt other means of delivering "statutory notices of intended prosecution" (NIPs) if they were to avoid the risk of late delivery.
John Josephs, solicitor for Mr Gidden, said later: "One can only speculate about the impact of today's judgment.
"The police are aware of this situation. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has been advising their members not to use first class post for NIPs." Mr Josephs said today's case was unusual in that it had been conceded at the Crown Court that Mr Gidden's warning notice had arrived late because of industrial action.
He predicted that, in other cases, where there had been no such concession, it might still prove difficult for defendants to convince the courts notices had genuinely arrived out of time.
Mr Josephs said: "This judgment is not a cheat's charter.
"It means that if a notice is served late because of a postal strike, or for some other reason, it will still be up to the defendant to prove that before the court.
"This is not a floodgates case, but postal strikes may strengthen a defendant's claim not to have been properly served with a notice."
The court heard that first class post deliveries for NIPs was first allowed under an amendment introduced by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Prior to that notices were always served via registered post or recorded delivery, where there was a record to show they had actually been sent. Registered or recorded items are deemed to be served if sent to a defendant's last known address, even if they are returned as undelivered or not received for any other reason.
Lord Justice Elias suggested the same deeming provisions had not been extended to the first class post because of an "oversight".
But he said he could not rule out that it may have been deliberate Government policy, and it was for Parliament to make any changes that might now be necessary.

St. Alban's Parking Tickets

Just a quick line for everyone who has had a ticket in St. Alban's and wants to keep updated with developments.
Just drop me a line at neil@parkingappeals.co.uk and we will bring you the latest news on refunds.
Neil H

St. Alban's Parking Blunder ... investigation will reveal £millions of refunds

St Albans District Council forced to refund penalties following blunder
St. Alban's and Harpenden Review
Tuesday 27th October 2009
By Manisha Mistry »

DRIVERS given parking tickets by St Albans District Council could be entitled to a refund following a massive admin blunder.

The authority came under fire this week after a Traffic Penalty Tribunal investigating one man's £50 fine deemed all enforcements since March 30, 2008 invalid.

It was on this day that the district council's Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) - which is updated every year - came into force, however, the legal wording was not amended in line with new details in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA).

Neil Herron the founder of national organisation Parking Appeals, which helps drivers overturn parking tickets, revealed all to the Review, exposing the severity of the district council's mistake.
Documents revealed to the Review disclose the adjudicator's decision which states: “Many of the provisions of the TRO were out of date and flawed rendering it substantially ineffective almost from the moment it came into operation.”

District council chief executive Daniel Goodwin has received a letter from Mr Herron informing him of the appeal decision and also of the stark reality that the council must suspend all enforcement of its off-street car parks covered by this invalid order. Meanwhile all pay and display machines must be covered up.

Mr Herron said: “As many across the country continue to suffer from aggressive stealth parking enforcement by many local authorities Christmas has come early for the city's motorists.”

A number of questions will remain unanswered until the district council reveals how many penalties have been issued since March 2008.

District council spokeswoman Davina Mansell said it would not be able to immediately comment on the story as Mr Goodwin is currently away.

Christmas comes early in St. Alban's ...

Santa Claus delivers Credit Crunch Christmas Bonus
As many across the country continue to suffer from aggressive stealth tax parking enforcement by many local authorities Christmas has come early for one city's motorists.

A recent decision by a Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator has ruled the City and District of St. Alban's (Off Street Parking Places) Order 2008 INVALID.

This decision has far reaching implications because it follows similar drafting of previous orders and the 2009 Order follows the 2008 and all make reference to 'driver liability.'

Under Civil (formerly Decriminalised) Parking Enforcement it is the owner (or Registered Keeper) who is liable for the Penalty Charge NOT the driver. This fact is pretty fundamental and it is either crass incompetence, intransigence or arrogance that this council has not seen fit to get their own legal house in order since DPE powers were granted on 1st October 2004.

A full copy of the decision is shown below. The implications for the local authority are:

• enforcement in ALL the off-street car parks must be suspended immediately.


• ALL monies derived from PCNs MUST be refunded.


• ALL monies derived from permits MUST be refunded.
  
• ALL pay and display revenue MUST be refunded or given to charity.
  
• There must be a full, external investigation to ensure that no-one else is exposed to the risk of a loss from invalid legal instruments drafted by the council officers and that includes all aspects of the operation of the parking regime.

However, there are even more serious implications because the council informed the Department for Transport in advance of being granted DPE powers that this (checking of the lines, signs and TROs) had been done. Heads will have to roll and questions will have to be asked of the highly paid officials.

The letter to the Chief Executive to cease enforcement will be on his desk first thing in the morning. Meanwhile, anyone with a PCN drop us a line at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk

A list of the PCN numbers in the 'hotspot' car parks is shown below along with a full list of all off street car parks.

The adjudicator also ruled the PCN non-compliant so that has the potential to impact on all on-street PCNs as well.

‘Popular’ Car Parks in 2007 –PCNs issued

• Adelaid Street 113
• Amenbury Lane 713
• Batchwood Hall 298
• Bowers Way East (Harpenden) 566.
• Bowers Way West (Harpenden) 1047
• Bricket Road 771
• Civic Centre 1540
• Drovers Way 182
• Gombards 775
• Verulamium 598
• Westminster Lodge 1777
• Bowers Way East (Harpenden) 566
• Bowers Way West (Harpenden) 1047

NOTE: These are just ‘popular hotspots for issuing PCNs,
9993 PCNs from just these in 2007
How many in 2008 and how may this year ?
How many since October 2004 ?

WESTMINSTER LODGE CAR PARKS, ST ALBANS
LYDEKKER CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BATCHWOOD HALL CAR PARKS
CHURCHEND CAR PARK SANDRIDGE
CRAVELLS ROAD CAR PARK HARPENDEN
EAST LANE CAR PARK WHEATHAMPSTEAD
HASELDINE ROAD CAR PARK LONDON COLNEY
HIGH STREET CAR PARK (VILLAGE HALL) REDBOURN
MARQUIS LANE CAR PARK HARPENDEN
NOMANSLAND COMMON CAR PARK WHEATHAMPSTEAD
PARK STREET CAR PARK (opposite ‘Swan’ Public House)
THE RIDGEWAY(Library) CAR PARK ST ALBANS
SOUTHVIEW ROAD CAR PARK HARPENDEN
ADELAIDE STREET CAR PARK ST ALBANS
AMENBURY LANE CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BOWERS WAY EAST CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BOWERS WAY WEST CAR PARK HARPENDEN
CLARENCE PARK CAR PARK ST ALBANS
BRICKET ROAD NORTH cAR PARK ST ALBANS
CIVIC CENTRE THREE LEVEL CAR PARK ST ALBANS
ST ALBANS CITY CENTRE MSCP DROVERS WAY
GOMBARDS CAR PARK ST ALBANS
LONDON ROAD CAR PARKS ST ALBANS
ST ALBANS CITYCENTRE MSCP
RUSSELL AVENUE SECTION ST ALBANS
TOWNSEND AVENUE CAR PARK ST ALBANS
VERULAMIUM CAR PARK ST ALBANS

Council officers create false documents

Wonder how many other council officers have done something similar?
The District Auditor's Report can be read here

Council guilty of bogus report
SEA DEFENCES ... Maribe Drive in June 2004
14 December 2004

SCARBOROUGH Council wrote a bogus report and broke the law over contracts for its sea defence scheme, a shocking new report reveals today.
The Audit Commission has said the council failed to put contracts out to tender, which is against the law, and ignored concerns of its legal staff and external lawyers. The Commission's report says the Government could now decide to withdraw part of its funding for the scheme.

This could mean taxpayers having to foot a £3.1 million bill for preliminary work on the Marine Drive project by the council's consultants, plus fees. The council gave the work to its favoured consultants High Point Rendel – and an officer compiled a bogus report to justify the awarding of the contract. High Point Rendel has now doubled its charges from £1.2 million to £2.4 million. Senior Scarborough Council members today said they are planning an internal investigation.

Scarborough Council has said people "should not assume" that tax payers will have to foot the bill.Its group leaders are likely to recommend a full investigation be carried out during a meeting of the cabinet later this month.

The auditor's report states: "In relation to several coastal protection schemes there is a compelling case for bringing to the attention of the public what I consider to be significant shortcomings in the way the council managed the projects and failed to fully protect the interests of local and national taxpayers. "In my view the adequacy of the appointment process, the specification and the terms agreed with High Point Rendel were not sufficiently robust."

A bogus 'best value evaluation' exercise was prepared by an officer to justify the award of work to High Point Rendel. Procurement regulations were not complied with and in my opinion the appointment was unfair and unlawful. "The terms and conditions of the Government grant have not been met and there is a risk of the council now having to finance the advice and supervision costs. "The failure to enter into a lawful and fair contractual relationship with High Point Rendel has exposed the council to the unnecessary risk of financial loss and poor value for money."

Other schemes awarded to the company and which have been found to have broken procedure are Holbeck to Scalby Mills strategy, Robin Hood's Bay and the Haggerlythe, and Staithes Harbour.

North Wales councils combine to combat poor parking

The question has to be asked as to whether this complies with the legislation and where the vicarious liability lies?

Welsh Local Government Association
08 July 2008

Savings are being made across North Wales and the local regulation of parking significantly improved for local residents and businesses as a result of an innovative partnership across four local authorities.

A team of just five people who make up a shared service centre for the ‘Wales Penalty Processing Partnership’ is responsible for processing all the penalty notices across Denbighshire, Gwynedd, Isle of Anglesey and Wrexham and are achieving collection rates for parking fines that are 15% over and above the UK average.

Councillor Eryl Williams (Denbighshire County Council), Spokesperson for the Wales Penalty Processing Partnership said: “The shared service centre is saving money and time. Denbighshire was the first council in North Wales to take on civil enforcement powers for parking.

We have built on our experience to establish an innovative shared service centre which has saved the other partners 33% of the operating costs it would have cost to run the service on their own.

Furthermore over £100,000 has been saved in set up costs.”

“Local authorities issue penalty notices for parking so that they can work with local people to ensure that vehicles are parked where it best suits local residents and businesses. We all need the local regulation of parking but we must ensure that is provided at the lowest possible cost.” “We expect further benefits as more councils join the partnership and we take on processing environmental penalties like dog fouling, fly tipping, graffiti and littering for partners who wish to undertake environmental enforcement.”

“The partnership is a powerful enabler to take on civil enforcement of parking. For example, it can help tackle some difficult parking issues in town centres for the benefit of residents and can ease town centre traffic flows.

Furthermore it can help to improve health and safety in shopping areas and town centres as well as protecting the interests of disabled drivers by regulating the behaviour of other motorists.”

Steve Thomas, Chief Executive, Welsh Local Government Association added: “The WLGA was instrumental in the set up of this partnership through the Regional Partnership Board for North Wales.
It is an excellent demonstration of the potential benefits of councils working together to deliver both efficiencies and service benefits. I look forward to more pace setting initiatives like this from North Wales.”

ENDS

Fined £472 for hospital parking

The Welsh Penalty Charge Notice Processing Partnership?

The Operational Guidance for Local Authorities
Formal representations
11.18 Many enforcement authorities contract out on-street and car park
enforcement and the consideration of informal representations.
Enforcement authorities should not contract out the consideration of
formal representations. Enforcement authorities remain responsible for
the whole process, whether they contract out part of it or not, and
should ensure that a sufficient number of suitably trained and authorised officers
are available to decide representations on their merits in a timely and
professional manner.

BBC News
26 September 2009
A hospital visitor with walking difficulties who put his disabled badge the wrong way around in his car as he parked has been fined £472.
Christopher Dunn, of Anglesey, was initially fined £30 after parking in a disabled bay as he took his wife for cancer tests at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.
He disputed the charge and thought it had been dropped. But he has now been given a bill for over 15 times as much.
Gwynedd council, which runs the car park, said people can appeal on fines.

Ysbyty Gwynedd said the car park is free for those using the hospital, and its traffic wardens patrol the area once a day.
Mr Dunn, 38, said he took his wife Michelle to the hospital in Bangor in March at about 0730 BST for exploratory surgery to see whether lumps and cysts she had were cancerous.

"To be honest I was more concerned about my wife than making sure my badge was up correctly," said Mr Dunn, who lives with his wife and two children in Bodedern
"When I later saw I had a ticket I was so annoyed. Basically I had put the badge back-to-front by accident, so my picture was showing rather than the expiry date.
"But they could have easily checked on the tax disc that the car was for a disabled person or even come to look for us in the hospital.
"I just thought the fine was so petty."

He said he queried the fine and was under the impression it had been withdrawn.
But six months later, he was visited by a woman who said she had been sent by a bailiff firm called Proserve in Colwyn Bay to collect the fine - which now amounted to £472.
A spokesman for the company said it worked for Gwynedd council and had taken so long to track Mr Dunn down because he had moved house.

Seize goods
Mr Dunn said: "The woman explained that either we pay or she would call some other people who would seize goods worth £1,000 from me.
"I didn't have that kind of money because I cannot work and so I had to ring my dad and ask him to pay it. He was livid."
Mr Dunn was in the RAF for more than seven years and served in the Falklands.
But an accident while he had a lumbar puncture procedure while in hospital with suspected meningitis has left him with walking difficulties and sciatica problems.
Staff at the constituency office of Anglesey Assembly Member Ieuan Wyn Jones - who is also Plaid Cymru leader and deputy first minister - said they were looking into the case.
Gwynedd council said it called in bailiffs only as an "absolute last resort" in cases where it had failed to contact vehicle owners who had been fined.
"Anyone who believes that they have been unfairly issued with a parking ticket can write to the Welsh Penalty Processing Partnership to make a formal challenge," a spokesman said.

Councillor jailed for bribery

Perhaps a bright spotlight will be shining on elected members and officers elsewhere in the country very soon.
Question is 'will we have to build more prisons?'

Ex-councillor jailed over bribery
BBC News

Jeremy Baker had denied taking two bribes totalling £750
A former Portsmouth city councillor has been jailed for a year after being found guilty of accepting a bribe.

Jeremy Baker, 47, from Cosham, was convicted of accepting £500 for making sure a planning decision for a property developer got through.

A secret film of the incident was shown to jurors at Winchester Crown Court during Baker's trial.
He was convicted of a corruption charge but cleared of another. They related to his time on the planning committee.

Estate agent David Maunder made the recording in an agreement with a property developer who felt he was poorly treated by planners, jurors were told.

The developer felt aggrieved about the planning committee's dealings over his three properties in London Road, St Helens Parade and Kingston Parade, the court heard.

On one occasion, Mr Maunder said to Baker, "right I've got a little something for you" before counting £500 out on the table, jurors were told.

Baker, who was cleared of taking a £250 bribe, was jailed for a year on Thursday.

Motorists could be in line for parking fine refund

Herald Express
21 September 2009

MOTORISTS in Teignbridge who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.

Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year, 'as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority's charges'.

He said: "The small credit card surcharge on penalty charge notices was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses."

A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them, has now been submitted to the district council.

Mr Herron has encouraged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: "Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
"This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task, issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
"All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful."

Mr Harry claimed that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.

He said: "I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council appear to have is use a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
"It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone's name out with a black pen. Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful."

'Credit card surcharge makes parking tickets illegal and refundable'

Express & Echo
21 September 2009

MOTORISTS in Devon who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.

Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.

Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year “as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority’s charges”.

A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them has now been submitted to the district council.

The spokesman said: “The small credit card surcharge on PCNs was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses.”

Mr Herron has urged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.

He said: “Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
“This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
“All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful.”

Mr Harry added that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: “I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council seems to have done is used a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
“It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone’s name out with a black pen.
“Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful.”

Nearly half of parking tickets were unpaid

If the figures are skewed by a small number of individuals with lots of outstanding fines the question has to be asked as to why the council are not or have not taken action.

Scarborough Evening News
By Martin Herron
18 September 2009

NEARLY half the parking tickets issued in Scarborough last year were unpaid, it has been revealed.
Of 22,413 tickets handed out, 9,467 were not paid – more than 42 per cent of the total.

The authority's parking services made a profit of more than £500,000 in 2008-09, with £573,549 of its income coming from penalty charge notices.
Scarborough's traffic wardens, now civil enforcement officers, issued more than £500,000 worth of unpaid tickets between March 2008 and March 2009.
Scarborough's parking blackspot was Albemarle Crescent, where 853 parking notices were issued, and the most ticketed car park was St Thomas Street Upper, where 414 tickets were issued.
Cllr Andrew Backhouse, Scarborough Council's cabinet member with responsibility for parking services, said the high unpaid figure needed to be put in context and that the actions of a small group of drivers tended to skew them."I know of one individual who has over 100 unpaid tickets. The impact of a few individuals like this can have a serious effect on figures – there could be around five or six people responsible for 600 to 800 unpaid tickets.
"The amount unpaid looks bad on paper but you must remember it's a snapshot and many of the fines will have been paid by now."

Manchester City Council MUST refund all the money

There are two angles to this story which need further investigation:

1. The statement "We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," by Assistant Chief Executive Vicky Rosin is outrageous and could lead to any unlawfully charged motorist, ratepayer or councillor making a complaint of misconduct in public office. Why would the motorist need to contact the council? The council have their details.
The council are aware that the Penalty Charges were unlawful.
The council are aware that they cannot retain unlawfully derived income.
The District Auditor needs to be contacted immediately.

2. The 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal is funded solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN. They will have received £10,800 from Manchester's unlawful PCNs and will therefore have been similarly 'unjustly enriched.' As the lid starts coming off this whole sorry can of worms our elected representatives will be forced to initiate an inquiry into why all of the employees of the 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal are actually employed by Manchester City Council.

18,000 drivers had illegal fines
BBC News 18th September 2009

The council's cameras were not certified until May 2007
More than 18,000 fines handed to motorists caught driving in bus lanes in Manchester were illegal, the local authority has admitted.

The drivers were all caught out by cameras between October 2006 and May 2007 - before they were approved for use in bus lanes.

Manchester City Council believed the cameras could be retrospectively certified - but lawyers ruled it out.

It could now face a payout of more than £544,000 to drivers who were caught.
All bus lane cameras in the city have had Department for Transport approval since 24 December 2008.

Administrative error
The uncertified cameras came to light during a review of its bus lane enforcement.
Vicky Rosin, assistant chief executive, said the "deeply regrettable administrative oversight" took place in the early stages of bus lane enforcement.
"We have taken steps to notify the public as soon as this technicality came to our attention. We apologise for this mix-up," said Ms Rosin.

People who think they have been issued with a penalty charge notice by one of the cameras during the relevant period have been advised to contact the council.
"We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," she added.
"However, we want to remind people that all of our current bus lane enforcement cameras have full approval and we remain determined to ensure that bus lanes stay free-flowing for the benefit of public transport users and to help prevent congestion."

Are hundreds of Bournemouth parking fines set to be refunded?

Daily Echo
By Julie Magee

HUNDREDS of motorists stung by parking fines after being caught on film by Bournemouth council’s camera car could receive refunds after a landmark legal ruling.
A tribunal has ruled that unless local authorities have put up signs warning drivers the ‘spy cameras’ are in operation, tickets are invalid.

A camera car scheme was launched in Bournemouth on June 17 to target drivers who park at bus stops and outside schools. Warning signs were not erected.
In the past seven weeks 370 drivers, including disabled Southbourne man Roger Ryder, were caught parking at bus stops.
Eleven motorists were captured on camera parking at school entrances. Each received a £70 fixed penalty notice through the post.
Retired businessman Mr Ryder, 65, didn’t realise his red Jaguar had been photographed on July 7. He said: “I popped into the Co-op store in Tuckton for a newspaper – there wasn’t anywhere else near the shop to park.
“I was shocked when the fine notice dropped through my door. I paid it within a couple of days so it cost me £35 instead of £70, which is the penalty if you don’t pay within 30 days.
“I’ll definitely be appealing, now I know what has happened elsewhere. There weren’t any signs saying the camera car was operating in the area and I think that is wrong. Motorists should be warned.”

The ruling came after businesswoman Rachel Johnson received three £70 parking fines in the same week after being snapped by a ‘spy camera’ in Merseyside.
Ms Johnson, 34, who runs an off-licence, challenged Wirral Borough Council and took her case to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal. All three fines were quashed.

The tribunal ruled that the tickets were invalid because of the lack of signage warning motorists they might be photographed.
The ruling could open the floodgates for thousands of other appeals from motorists across the UK.

Following the case Wirral council launched a review into the way it uses its ‘spy car’ to enforce parking regulations.
Bournemouth council confirmed yesterday that there are no signs warning motorists of the camera car but stressed that the vehicle was marked with “camera enforcement signage.”

Head of transport James Duncan said: “We believe that all the signage associated with the Traffic Regulations Orders in Bournemouth meets with the requirements but keep everything under constant review. The tribunal decision related to a different situation; we do not use the camera car for that purpose. In Bournemouth we do not currently use the vehicle in stationary mode, unlike the case in Wirral.”

He added that the council would not be issuing any refunds.

Cheltenham fall foul of credit card ruling ... how much will they have to refund?

Lawless, unaccountable and a belief that they are above the law. Time now for a full Parliamentary Inquiry into parking enforcement. How many credit card surcharge PCNs went before the blind and blinkered Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicators without them even looking at the PCN?

Remember that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal receives 60p from every PCN issued so if a council has been issuing unlawful PCNs then the money they derive is unlawfully derived. Where does that leave the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's 60p ... ultra vires also so their accounts need to be challenged. Question is ... who can challenge their accounts? More to be revealed.

Meanwhile, to all those council officers out there with a social conscience ... keep the information coming.

Ruling forces car park cards rethink
Tuesday, August 11, 2009,
Gloucestershire Citizen

CHELTENHAM Borough Council is reviewing its policy of imposing a credit card surcharge on parking fines.
At present, the council charges a fee of 1.35 per cent if motorists try to pay fines on a credit card.
But, following a test case in Camden, London, which ruled that surcharges for those who paid by credit card were unfair, it is reviewing its policy.

Parking manager Jason Benjamin said: ''We will be reviewing our position when we receive more information from the test case ruling."

Gloucester City Council has already ditched its surcharge of 1.8 per cent after the case.

It also handles parking enforcement for Forest of Dean District Council.
But it would not confirm whether motorists who had already paid the charges would be refunded.
A spokesman said: "The traffic penalty tribunal contacted all councils following a recent appeal handled by them.
"When looking into this case they advised councils that charges for credit card payments should be removed from penalty charge notices.
"Gloucester City Council is working with the bank which handles the credit card payments on its behalf to remove charges from penalty charge notices."

Cotswold District Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Stroud District do not have the surcharge.

The test case involving Camden challenged the 1.3 per cent and was upheld by the adjudicator.
The ruling applies to all fines imposed by local authorities, including those outside the capital which have been given the right to police parking and keep the fines.

It also applies to fines imposed by councils for "moving motoring offences", such as entering a box junction.
The adjudicator said councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.
As a result of the ruling, councils that imposed the surcharges face an avalanche of claims from motorists.
An AA spokesman said: "These credit card charges have been outrageous. Councils have got their fingers burned.
"It shows the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves.
"We expect councils across the country to stop these surcharges straight away or they will face thousands of appeals."

Parking ticket refunds ... councils consulting lawyers across the country ...

Sources within councils reveal that many councils are so concerned about claims for refunds that they are taking independent legal advice, especially ones whose officers have been flagrantly disregarding signing law and continuing to enforce restrictions known to be unlawful. However, the advice coming back is not what they want to hear and Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners is being cited by counsel to councils as the binding authority which will force many of them to refund £millions.

The credit card surcharge problem revealed in our Camden and London borough expose is now becoming a Sword of Damocles for some councils and officers outside of London. Every council has immediately withdrawn the surcharge, apart from one, when brought to their attention, so misconduct in public office charges may simply be reserved for the ones who think that they are above the law. However, council officers who have been condoning enforcing restrictions known to be unlawful had better start checking their own household insurance policies because there will be no council legal and financial indemnity should it be shown that they were the 'controlling minds' behind illegal enforcement. There are many who do not want to be standing next to their council's 'Captain Smith' and are collecting their own lifebelts. There is more than one iceberg on the horizon ...

Clarification of one of the points below. PATAS adjudicators have ruled that the PCN is unlawful regardless of whether payment was made by credit card.
Therefore, ALL paid PCNs detailed below are recoverable andthe council has no legal right to the monies it retains. For more information contact enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk



4,700 could get parking rebates because surcharges broke the rules
Halifax Courier


11th September 2009
By Michael Peel

AROUND 4,700 motorists who paid parking fines using credit cards could be entitled to a rebate.
They account for 10 per cent of the 47,000 drivers fined since 2006. The Courier reported last month how the 2.6 per cent surcharge on credit card payments contravenes Department of Transport guidelines and was recently scrapped.


Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the council took over responsibility for parking enforcement in November 2006, it has raised £1,278,000 in fines.That follows the issuing of 47,000 parking contravention notices.

The total income from credit cards during that period was £123,400 of which £3,200 came from the handling fee.

Car parking campaigner Neil Herron, a director of Parking Appeals Ltd, has threatened to take another council to the High Court over the issue and has also written to the council's chief executive Owen Williams to complain.

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator Michael Greenslade ruled earlier this year that parking tickets issued by Camden Council were invalid if they included a credit card surcharge. According to a Calderdale spokesman, the council had always imposed the charge. It was removed it after the council received the results of a traffic penalty tribunal, held in Bristol.

Figures show that total income from parking fines is falling from £551,752 in 2007/8 to £428,225 last year.

During the first five months of this year, the council received £153,000.

Another big parking High Court case set to expose the 'independent' parking adjudication service

It has taken years to force Manchester City Council to admit that all Traffic Penaltty Tribunal staff are employed by the council. Do you perceive that you will get a fair hearing?

Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds
Yorkshire Post
31 August 2009
By Alexandra Wood

A LANDMARK parking ticket case which could see millions of pounds being refunded to motorists has been given a major boost.
The legal bid by engineer Glenn Dickinson, who was landed with five parking tickets after parking on a verge near his home in Hull, will be heard by the High Court later this year.Mr Dickinson, 62, believes the system where tickets are issued by councils and policed by a body called the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, is illegal.

Now new information has come to light which raises fresh doubts about the independence of the TPT. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have confirmed that administrative staff working at the "independent" tribunal, including the tribunal manager, are Manchester City Council employees – in apparent contravention of European Human Rights legislation.

Mr Dickinson, who could lose his home and business if his legal action fails, says the new evidence is vital: "Article 6(i) of the European Convention on Human Rights allows me to have my case heard before an independent tribunal."How on earth can a body be perceived to be independent when its staff are all employed by the council and the people who are charging the fine are paying the people who adjudicate it?"

He said: "It was a nightmare getting the information out of them – it took more than 70 requests."They have finally admitted that the head of the administrative staff is employed and paid for by Manchester Council."
The adjudicators are appointed by them and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. However they are employed and paid by the council."The judicial system states quite categorically that in order for it to be totally independent it must have no connection however small, either monetary or personal, with one party or the other."

He said: "I am doing this because the council tried to rip me off for five parking tickets. Leader of Hull Council Carl Minns said on Politics North, on BBC1: "What's a splash of yellow paint?" It made my blood boil because it shows total contempt that the council have for the people and businesses of Hull – they use us as cash cows."

The tickets were issued under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement scheme, which allowed councils to take over parking enforcement and keep the money raised from fines. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is the final stage of appeal for motorists against a penalty issued by a council in England and Wales, outside London.

However it is totally reliant on income from parking tickets – 60p on each ticket issued. Manchester Council is the lead authority, "the headquarters" for parking enforcement for the whole country outside London.

Mr Dickinson is being supported by Neil Herron, campaign director for the pressure group Metric Martyrs and the Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund.

Mr Herron said: "We are not opposed to proper fair parking enforcement but what we have now is a stealth tax which is used by councils to fill holes in their budget and the motoring public has become a victim."

Mr Dickinson challenged the tickets at TPT, formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service, but had his case rejected twice. As a result he took the case to the High Court. Mr Justice Ouseley allowed an adjournment to provide time to compile evidence against the national Deregulated Parking Enforcement scheme and the TPT.

Last December leave was granted for a full review which is expected to be heard towards the end of the year.

Manchester Council said it would be inappropriate to comment.

The battle lines are being drawn ...

... and councils are fully aware that they have been 'unjustly enriched' from unlawful restrictions on the highway. If only they had followed the law themselves they would not be in the situation where it is likely that £hundreds of millions is going to have to be refunded.
However, the fact that council officers KNEW the restrictions were unlawful is likely to lead to claims for damages and costs in addition to refunds ... and a queue at the jobcentre for highways engineers and parking managers who decided that their council was above the law.

'Council should repay victims of parking bay'
Aug 27 2009
By Michael Russell

AN ANGRY motorist says the council has effectively admitted it was wrong by repainting incorrect parking bay markings and should repay those caught in them before the change.
The town hall admitted there was a technical problem with the white lines in August last year which Nazma Begum says led to it pulling out of an appeal hearing over her ticket.

She said the lines at either ends of many stretches of residents' bays, which are not marked out individually, did not follow regulations set put by the Department for Transport as a double line rather than a single one is painted at each end.

At the time the council said it would be too costly to change them and the changes would reduce parking capacity - but they have since painted over the mistake.

Miss Begum, a Thames Valley University student, said: "They don't care about mitigating circumstances, we have to follow the regulations to the letter so they should too."

The 22-year-old was given a ticket last year after she mistook a residents' bay for a pay and display space in Warwick Road, Ealing.

A visit to the website www.ticketfighter.co.uk enlightened her to the council's mistake and armed with the new information she says she forced the council to back down.
She then submitted a freedom of information request and discovered 27 people had paid tickets after parking in the same bay from August 8 2008 and January 25 while the markings were still incorrect.
And that the council had received more than £4.3m in fines from motorists parking in residents' bays in the past five years.

Miss Begum, of Brent, added: "The council are greedy, they just want to take money off you, they don't care who you are. Are they going to repay motorists who parked in wrongly-marked bays and if there was no problem with them then why have they changed them?"

The owner of the ticketfighter website added that in recent months a number of motorists had won appeals against other councils on the grounds bays were incorrectly marked.

An Ealing Council spokeswoman said: "The bays have always been clearly marked and enforced. As part of a rolling road markings programme our contractor repaints worn away lines. It has been removing some markings in order to maintain a consistent approach with other parking bays across the borough.
"This has been done as part of the ongoing programme over recent months and at no additional cost to the council."

Class actions. Why are we waiting?

... simply to get all the ducks in a row ;-)

The Times

August 27, 2009
Class actions: why are we waiting?
Neil Rose

When is a class action not a class action? When it’s a collective redress scheme or a representative action or basically anything that does not sound like loony American litigation.
Whatever you call it, however, the idea of bringing a case on behalf of a group of consumers who have to opt out of the action — rather than opt in, as now — is slowly gaining ground. But with the business community united in opposition, slow is the operative word.

Last month the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) accepted that “there may be circumstances where cases could be brought more efficiently on a collective basis”, but then promptly rejected the idea of introducing a generic procedure applicable to all cases.

Responding to recommendations from the Civil Justice Council (CJC), the MoJ said that each government department should assess whether there is evidence of need for a collective redress procedure sector by sector, with the help of a policy framework that the MoJ is developing. If so, the department will decide how it will work.

“It may be the Government’s way of kicking the CJC proposal into the long grass,” says John Meltzer, head of the product liability network at Lovells, the City firm. “Unless the ministry is really prepared to drive the process of reform, I doubt other departments are going to have the appetite to do it.”

The council wants only to add opt-out actions to the options for bringing group claims — not replace them — but it is a sign of the controversy they provoke that it counts as progress that the ministry did not shelve the idea entirely.

Robert Musgrove, chief executive of the council, is pleased that the Ministry of Justice accepted most of its recommendations, saying they “should herald considerable improvements in access to justice”. These were based on research that found “overwhelming evidence” that the system is preventing meritorious consumer claims from being pursued. Getting the balance right between developing more effective procedures for people to bring meritorious claims, protecting defendants from non-meritorious claims and ensuring that court proceedings are only ever utilised where there are no more efficient or timely routes to redress, has been challenging,” he says.

Ingrid Gubbay, a co-author of the CJC’s report and consultant in the London office of Hausfeld, the US class action firm, is less diplomatic. She suggests that the Government is worried in part about finding itself on the receiving end of class actions even though, in reality, such cases would be tough to bring, as the Equitable Life action proves.

“The sector-by-sector approach is a way of slowing down almost to a halt any possibility of bringing in any effective procedure,” she says, “and does raise a credibility question as to how far the response may be selfserving.”

With litigation seen as the last resort, the ministry highlighted regulatory action as potentially “a more cost-effective way of dealing with cases involving a large number of small claims”, which Meltzer says is in keeping with the European approach.

It also sounds like a veiled reference to the case Which? brought against JJB Sports over football shirt pricefixing, in which consumers who bought offending strips could claim £20. But Gubbay, who previously worked at Which? and launched the action, says that requires consumer groups, charities and trade unions — as well as regulators — to make private enforcement a priority. Few seem willing or able to do this.

The council has tried to make its proposals look as little like US class actions as possible, despite research indicating that the reality is not as loony as the myths anyway, in an effort to reassure the business community that they would not lead to a mass of speculative claims. To the extent that opt-out is a feature of US class actions, then such cases are US-style, but equally they are Canadian and Australian-style. What makes US class actions scary are contingency fees, punitive damages and no loser-pays rule; and we are a long way from that.

It is also often forgotten that class actions help defendants, too, by consolidating all claimants into one action and offering finality.

Not everyone thinks they will now rest quietly in the long grass. The European Commission is looking closely at collective redress, while an as-yet unpublished report commissioned by the Government Equalities Office calls for opt-out actions to be tried out in employment tribunals to deal with the thousands of group discrimination and equal pay cases clogging up the system.
Tim Strong, a partner at Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, the City firm, believes the present climate provides fertile ground for government departments to get on and examine whether they need such actions. “Lord Justice Jackson’s costs review has focused attention on the high cost of litigation in the UK and issues of access to justice,” he says. “In addition, there are now large classes of claimants with recession-based claims against their financial advisers and others. The issue of collective actions may therefore be near the top of many government departments’ ‘to do’ lists come early 2010.”

Days are numbered for lawless, uncontrolled local authority run civil parking enforcement

There is not a single issue which commands so much press coverage as parking enforcement. Lawless, out of control and unregulated for many years the time has come to set up an independent watchdog to censure local authorities who believe that they are above the law and who think that the motorist is fair game for what is now seen as nothing more than a stealth tax.

As for charging for hospital car parks ... free in Scotland, free in Wales and hospital trusts in England filling their boots with a tax on the sick, the elderly and front line health workers. What has this country come to?

Local authorities breach parking guidelines
Consumer group Which? says motorists are being penalised unfairly when issued with parking tickets
Ali Hussain
The Times
18th August 2009

Six local authority councils have been accused by the consumer watchdog Which? of breaching Government guidelines by setting targets for the number of parking tickets issued by their wardens.

A freedom of information request by Which? found that the councils - Basildon, Richmond upon Thames, Lewisham, Bromley, Shropshire and Carmarthenshire - all “expect a certain number of tickets to be issued.”

Setting such targets is against Department for Transport guidelines.
The Department for Transport said: “Our guidance to local authorities is clear that they should not set targets for the number of penalty charge notices they issue. Parking charges are a tool to manage demand for road use and they should not be used as a revenue raising measure.
"Local authorities are expected to comply with our guidance and are accountable to their electorates, auditor and the courts. Any concerns about the operations of local councils should be raised with the council leader or local ombudsman.”

Which? also found that some healthcare trusts in England, such as Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital and Southampton University Hospitals, are making more than a million pounds a year from hospital car park fees. Others are making losses and subsidising their car parks from money intended for healthcare, according to Which.
Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? magazine, said: "There are good reasons why hospitals charge for their car parks but if they're making large profits, there's clearly scope to reduce the amount they charge."

Which? added that many parking signs in urban areas are obscured or have defunct phone numbers and that the parking fines charged, of between £100-£360, may also be too high.
Hocking said: "Of course it's fair to stop people parking on your land or to charge them a fee for the privilege, but it should be absolutely clear where people can and can't park, and what the charges and penalties are. It's not right that huge sums can be extracted from unsuspecting drivers, or that incentive schemes can be used to discourage people from appealing fines.”

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the British Parking Association, said: “With nearly 30 million cars on the road in the UK, parking management and enforcement is essential for daily life, namely for reducing congestion, improving road safety, encouraging sustainable methods of transport and stimulating local economies. There is always room for improvement and we are committed to working with our members, partners and government to improve legislation, rid the industry of bad practices and set new ground rules, to make life easier for all.”